[Controversial Discussion] GOD

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

You didn't have to say something wrong though.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Androme2

Whatever you believe in, and if you truely believe in it, that will happen.

Terry Pratchett - Small Gods
Yes?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Androme2

I can't be arsed to read this whole thread - too many false replies anyway.

I believe I can believe in whatever I chose to believe in and I think other people can believe in a God or not. Whatever you believe in, and if you truely believe in it, that will happen.

People who receive visions - where do they come from? God or some other external force not visible in this world. We can't alter the time dimension so it requires a greater being who has control or access to it - which fits the description of God. Awe, mystery & wonder is an insight to an external force and this external force has been considered by humans by a long time to be the idea of God. I find the idea of God perfectly acceptable because it explains the existance of the atom in nothingness - I believe this and always have and always will do.

The idea of God has come about from the experience of awe, mystery & wonder to explain its diveness, its creativity, its complexity, its greatness etc.

Infernoho, you say no-one has no knowledge of his existance etc. - you can see his work through his creations. It's like the same thing as a pencil for example - you can't exactly proove the pencil was made by man (and not for example, a machine) but you can prove someone/something created the object through of its existance. This is a similar argument that can be used for God - you can see God's creations in existance - where he exists is outside of his creation - like a pencil creator lives outside of his pencil.

Ever felt like you're having the same argument over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ov...

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by Androme2

I can't be arsed to read this whole thread - too many false replies anyway.

I believe I can believe in whatever I chose to believe in and I think other people can believe in a God or not. Whatever you believe in, and if you truely believe in it, that will happen.

People who receive visions - where do they come from? God or some other external force not visible in this world. We can't alter the time dimension so it requires a greater being who has control or access to it - which fits the description of God. Awe, mystery & wonder is an insight to an external force and this external force has been considered by humans by a long time to be the idea of God. I find the idea of God perfectly acceptable because it explains the existance of the atom in nothingness - I believe this and always have and always will do.

The idea of God has come about from the experience of awe, mystery & wonder to explain its diveness, its creativity, its complexity, its greatness etc.

Infernoho, you say no-one has no knowledge of his existance etc. - you can see his work through his creations. It's like the same thing as a pencil for example - you can't exactly proove the pencil was made by man (and not for example, a machine) but you can prove someone/something created the object through of its existance. This is a similar argument that can be used for God - you can see God's creations in existance - where he exists is outside of his creation - like a pencil creator lives outside of his pencil.

You're late. Well late. Said that already.

[JonnyBGood]

Maybe dante can inform us all of the marxist views on the origin of religion and then we'll have every irrelevant bit of religious crap ever spouted in the same thread!

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Maybe dante can inform us all of the marxist views on the origin of religion and then we'll have every irrelevant bit of religious crap ever spouted in the same thread!

Oh the joy!

[Androme]

I said I CBA to read thread - not my fault you opinion-stealing bastards

[demiGOD]

-"GOD" is only a "reason" to motivate and instill 'hope' in people's minds.. that 'hope' that there is a better place somewhere.. when physics will tell you that you will be worm food when you die, and you cant create anything out of nothing - but as contradicting as it is... it seems like we are all created by design... that everything is so perfectly appreciated to each other by each creature and thing, tree, each blade of grass to the mountains and forests of the deep, to the vast oceans to PS2 and XBox, from Hurrican Charley to chinese food and pizza - everything is so perfect, that its hard to believe that everything was just an accident... it seems like someone has to have designed all this

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

it seems like someone has to have designed all this

No, it doesn't.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

to PS2 [...] everything is so perfect, that its hard to believe that everything was just an accident... it seems like someone has to have designed all this

Sony?

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by pablissimo

Sony?

uhm.. yeah...

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No, it doesn't

then it's really amazingly weird how everything is so much perfectly inter-related to everything else and then try to accept the idea that all this is just an accident.. that they just happened to be perfectly coinciding each other, though knowingly explained by science still makes me wonder why and how science ended up the way it is where it is so engineered and designed to make the world as we know right now.. makes everything so confusing..

just implying that the idea of a "God" celebrated by all religions might be a fallacy, and a medium for a human's self-gratification to channel a "false hope" in their minds to make them feel better, BUT it might be very well possible that there is a supreme being out there designing and engineering this universe that we know

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

uhm.. yeah...

I was just confirming that you weren't attributing a games console and italian food to divine intervention.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

then it's really amazingly weird how everything is so much perfectly inter-related to everything else and then try to accept the idea that all this is just an accident.. that they just happened to be perfectly coinciding each other, though knowingly explained by science still makes me wonder why and how science ended up the way it is where it is so engineered and designed to make the world as we know right now.. makes everything so confusing..

just implying that the idea of a "God" celebrated by all religions might be a fallacy, and a medium for a human's self-gratification to channel a "false hope" in their minds to make them feel better, BUT it might be very well possible that there is a supreme being out there designing and engineering this universe that we know

You have, quite literally, no context in which to judge it as "weird" (by which i assume you mean improbable). Of course it's possible but equally it's possible that there's a giant bunny rabbit in a cloaked ship orbiting pluto who's controlling everything we can observe.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You have, quite literally, no context in which to judge it as "weird" (by which i assume you mean improbable). Of course it's possible but equally it's possible that there's a giant bunny rabbit in a cloaked ship orbiting pluto who's controlling everything we can observe.

now thats a thought (sarcasm) maybe youre right..

[pablissimo]

It seems unfair to dismiss the possibility of a giant rabbit just because he didn't get a major book deal early on.

When it wrote, HarperCollins, were you there, were you there?
When it wrote, HarperCollins, were you there?
And the royalties and cover and the name won't matter,
were you there?

[Summanus]

Heh, "late entry"

I believe in God. Partly through upbringing. The underlying reason I cannot describe as anything more than faith: there is no other way of explaining it.

Perhaps partly because of appearances of forces for good. I believe in the benevolent Christian God, an inherent goodness within people and what humanity can achieve. Surprisingly, I am a firm believer in the value of socialist economic principles, and have no qualms in calling myself a communist (though this has a lot to do with authority than anything else).

Over the years, I have pondered and questioned my faith. I have not been able to shake it. The Bible (at least the OT) is not, and wasn't meant to be taken literally. I am a firm believer in science and evolution. If anything, this only strengthens my conviction: one can find God everywhere. Is not evolution any less of a miracle than creation theory?

Unlike many of you, I have not seen evidence strong enough to contradict God's existence. Jesus definitely existed, a lot of the NT is corroborrated. Of course, a great deal is not, but anything scribed through human hands is likely to have errors in it, especially in that stage of historiographical development.

Like a lot of people, a part can be ascribed to personal experience, and seeing God in one's own life.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Is not evolution any less of a miracle than creation theory?

That depends on whether you mean "a wonder or wonderful thing" or "an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed".

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

now thats a thought (sarcasm) maybe youre right..

So what is your context that you're basing your thoughts on then? Do you have experience of a number of other universes of which the vast majority have been created by entities similar to that which we refer to as gods?

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

So what is your context that you're basing your thoughts on then? Do you have experience of a number of other universes of which the vast majority have been created by entities similar to that which we refer to as gods?

not to other "universes" - the idea i'm implying is based on what i see around me, nature, people and how perfect the correlation is between the both, that it's mind-boggling to think that all this just happened "accidentally" and are not designed to appreciate each other when it all seems like we ARE created by design

dont get me wrong, the idea of a "God" thats preached in religions are so fantastic that it makes the most sane of entities to go "wtf!?? that doesnt make sense!!" - but the things around us (that do make sense) make me think that there might really be a supreme being controlling these things

[JonnyBGood]

What do you mean by perfect correlation? Half the world lives in abject poverty for god's sake.

The point is that you've only got one example of this type of system.There could be a million failed universes but you wouldn't observe them. There's no reason to posit the existence of a creator due to a lack of imagination on our parts.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What do you mean by perfect correlation? Half the world lives in abject poverty for god's sake.

The point is that you've only got one example of this type of system.There could be a million failed universes but you wouldn't observe them. There's no reason to posit the existence of a creator due to a lack of imagination on our parts.

the phrase 'other universes' is conceptually incorrect.

all is one. one is infinite.

[JonnyBGood]

Worlds.

And blow me pedant.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What do you mean by perfect correlation? Half the world lives in abject poverty for god's sake.

The point is that you've only got one example of this type of system.There could be a million failed universes but you wouldn't observe them. There's no reason to posit the existence of a creator due to a lack of imagination on our parts.

you punched a keyword button!! failed universes or failed worlds (for the sake of the likes of Yahwe) supports my point that someone else somewhere is designing all this shit.. and failed worlds only prove the idea that our world must be the final "successful" project this entity has been conducting after millions of years..

about your statement Half the world lives in abject poverty for god's sake - their existence adapts to their atmosphere and surroundings therefore supports my idea even more

[JonnyBGood]

A million monkeys banging away on a million typewriters for a million years would produce the complete works of shakespeare. That doesn't mean we should award them the Nobel prize for literature though. By perfect correlation I assumed you meant something to do with morality. If you're saying that in the best of all possible worlds (if this the final succesful project) 3 billion people find it difficult to feed themselves then your best of all possible worlds hardly requires a creator of the highest ability. As a matter of fact I'm struggling to understand what you mean by "their existence adapts to their atmosphere". Many of them die. Is that perfect adaptation and correlation? What would imperfect adaption and correlation be then? The end of the universe?

Walking down the street, walking down the street BANG UNIVERSE ENDS!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the phrase 'other universes' is conceptually incorrect.

Only in its literal meaning; whilst physics created the term 'universe' to apply to the thing we inhabit, as there's one of it, it's perfectly valid scientifically to refer to other universes because 'universe' is now a term referring to a specific type o thing.

[demiGOD]

then there is NO god - if there is one, then this "god" is so incompetent to leave flaws in this ever-so "perfect" universe and let these hundreds and thousands of people to die from natural disasters and millions of people to adapt and accept their fate of dying at an early age because thats what their environment demands -

i agree with you JBG, its just that the other end of this continuum looks so pretty...

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

then there is NO god - if there is one, then this "god" is so incompetent to leave flaws in this ever-so "perfect" universe and let these hundreds and thousands of people to die from natural disasters and millions of people to adapt and accept their fate of dying at an early age because thats what their environment demands -

Why does any universe god makes have to be perfect? Surely the concepts of Free Will, and, to an extent, Original Sin, show that this isn't required?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by demiGOD

you punched a keyword button!! failed universes or failed worlds (for the sake of the likes of Yahwe) supports my point that someone else somewhere is designing all this shit.. and failed worlds only prove the idea that our world must be the final "successful" project this entity has been conducting after millions of years..

Like hell it does. Random chance does not prove the existance of a guiding hand, and, even if it did, it doesn't imply that this universe is any more 'perfect' or 'final' than any of the others. Read Star Maker for more of that kind of thing.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You have, quite literally, no context in which to judge it as "weird" (by which i assume you mean improbable). Of course it's possible but equally it's possible that there's a giant bunny rabbit in a cloaked ship orbiting pluto who's controlling everything we can observe.

Ok. You believe in your bunny rabbit, I'll believe in my God.

This thread is becoming somewhat convoluted.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Ok. You believe in your bunny rabbit, I'll believe in my God.

Believing in the bunny rabbit is stupid.

Which I think was the comparison he was making, woo!

[Boogster]

I've decided to address this, because it annoys me:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wil enter into life, keep the commandments.
He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
The young man saith unto him, All these thing have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 20: 16-21.

Matthew 19: 16-21, actually.

Put simply, the key is to be willing to give this all up if God asks us to do so.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Believing in the bunny rabbit is stupid.

Which I think was the comparison he was making, woo!

And it is an entirely foolish one.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

And it is an entirely foolish one.

Why? If we had documents from millennia ago talking of the space bunny, would it be less foolish?

[Boogster]

Explain to me why believing in the bunny rabbit is stupid, first.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Explain to me why believing in the bunny rabbit is stupid, first.

Because there isn't any evidence for it.

[demiGOD]

if the bunny rabbit was anna kournikova, then let it be - nothing like having sex with someone with so much power and at the same time, identical to anna

[Boogster]

But whilst there is no scientific evidence for a God, there is also no proof that he does not exist. However, there are things that science cannot explain, questions that have not been answered.

Why and how has the universe come to be?
Why do I exist?
Why do I think of some actions as 'right' and some as 'wrong'?
What happens when I die?

I would argue that the universe seems to be driven by something with a purpose and a design. This is equally as likely as the belief that the universe is a product of chance.
Scientific theory tells me that I am a product of sexual intercourse and that who I am is forged by my genes and my upbringing. I believe that I have a Maker.
Some will tell me that Moral Law is nothing more than animal instinct. I believe that morality originates from a God, who prefers right to wrong.
I do not believe death to be the end.

My belief in God is my answer to these unanswerable questions. Other people may choose Science over God, but faith in a God is not a scientific theory and, therefore, does not require scientific evidence.


PS. You may also choose to believe in the bunny over God.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Boogster

But whilst there is no scientific evidence for a God, there is also no proof that he does not exist. However, there are things that science cannot explain, questions that have not been answered.

Why and how has the universe come to be?
Why do I exist?
Why do I think of some actions as 'right' and some as 'wrong'?
What happens when I die?

1) this question is demonstatrive of a conceptual failure on your part brought on by your inability to escape the idea of linear time
2) because you were born and have failed to die.
3) your brain processes new data in comparison to earlier data.
4) see answer to question 1.

[Ste]

I was quite happy with Summanus' reply here.
It shows that at least some Christians don't just have blind faith but accept scientific findings and adapt their faith around it.

Nowhere near as fun to argue with but hey.

[Dante Hicks]

It's pretty pointless arguing with people who take things as faith. If you are taking things on faith then there is literally no reasoning with you. I've got not problems with people who take things entirely on faith (much like I don't have a problem who cut off their own genitals). But I don't see why they bother trying to offer rationalisations for their beliefs which are by definition irrational.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I've got not problems with people who take things entirely on faith (much like I don't have a problem who cut off their own genitals).

Reading that out loud made me giggle, you sound like a drunk northener.

So anyway its like what i said they should have some faith and ignore science.

edit: and explain avatar

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

But whilst there is no scientific evidence for a God, there is also no proof that he does not exist.

Woah!

Originally Posted by Boogster

Why and how has the universe come to be?

Impossible to answer, because by definition the creation of the universe is a singularity. Religion can't answer this beyond faith either, so I don't see why science not doing something it doesn't claim to be able to do is a failing per se.

Originally Posted by Boogster

Why do I exist?

Random chance, in the same way the coincidence lead me to these forums or gave me a basil brush avatar.

Originally Posted by Boogster

Why do I think of some actions as 'right' and some as 'wrong'?

Because you choose (or were brought up) to?

It's been postulated that a 'morality' system is a thing that develops successful species, which I think is a perfectly good explanation, although I can't prove it per se, because it is consistent with what I observe. Obviously I'm not going to accept it as fact.

There's also the argument that morality is either a natural result or a prerequisite for 'intelligent' life, but that's similar to the Anthropic Principle so isn't covering new ground.

What happens when I die?

Your body ceases to work.

Science does not deal with the 'why' questions, excepting, of course, the meaning 'How?'. Science does not deal with the purpose of things, for, as is clear when considering Occam's Razor, there is no evidence for any form of 'purpose' beyond which we have made or observed being made.

If you want answers to 'purpose' questions, look to certain types of philosophy. It and religion can argue their unsupported positions as much as you feel is necessary.

I would argue that the universe seems to be driven by something with a purpose and a design.

Why?

This is equally as likely as the belief that the universe is a product of chance.

Proof please.

Scientific theory tells me that I am a product of sexual intercourse and that who I am is forged by my genes and my upbringing. I believe that I have a Maker.

Good for you. Although I'd tidy this up a bit, the reference of 'Maker' is ambiguous.

Some will tell me that Moral Law is nothing more than animal instinct. I believe that morality originates from a God, who prefers right to wrong.

So you believe in an absolute morality then?

Isn't God a little... dumb in that case?

My belief in God is my answer to these unanswerable questions. Other people may choose Science over God, but faith in a God is not a scientific theory and, therefore, does not require scientific evidence.

You may not require scientific evidence, however, that doesn't mean your position is arguable. It's the equivilent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Why and how has the universe come to be?
Why do I exist?
Why do I think of some actions as 'right' and some as 'wrong'?
What happens when I die?

1. lots of theories, pick one.. as to why, so we can have a habitat to adapt on = earth is the only one that can be proven to support our survivability

2. because the human body is designed to procreate, and through sex, is procreation.. and that is why sex is so much of an outstanding experience so the design of the human body's ability to procreate will not defeat its purpose

3. conscience - that part of your brain that secretes the "right" hormones, and the "wrong" hormones - right and wrong are a couple of the very basic of human instincts and mechanisms.. irritability i think is the word for that

4. you become worm food

[Qdeathstar]

Why is EVERY****ING FORUM talking about God Now.

"My responce from another forum".

Why there is no Christian God.

Firstly, there is NO evidence to support the claim. Everything that the "bible" wrote as true, has eventually been proven FALSE, Creationism, How old the earth is, How the earth was created.

EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN.

Now, you can try to claim that evolution is God's Design the same way a polition can say when being caught lying about sexual affairs "It depends of what your meaning of IT is" Use Rhetoric and bend the words, whatever. If you need to change what something says to make it fit with your version of reality, then obviously there is something wrong.

Why there is no God.

Firstly, Religion, on the whole-sale level, does not bring love, peace, and humanity as is offered in there advertisements, It instead brings bloodshed, violence and death. The Crusades are a PERFECT example of this, so are the terrorists who use there religion as a source of Ethos.

You may make the claim that well, they would just use something else to justify their actions. Yeah. OK, the might. But whatever ELSE they might would have chosen would not even be close to the ammount of ETHOS that your CREATOR and God gives you.

Secondly. It seems God is Imperfect.

Why created a world with pain, torture, missery and suffering? Even if you make the claim that Well, its here for Moral and Spiritual developement, that doesnt justify how the world is created.

First of all, what about the children who are "born of innocents" but die before they have a chance to be "saved", there isnt enough time for them to develope morally and Spiritually.

Now, for the ones who think they have that answer, Namely Reincarnation as a means to Moral And Spiritually development, I ask. How can you develope if you cant remember anything from your past life? Thats illogical.

Even if you get passed that, would you want your children to suffer and die in pain, just so that they might have spiritual growth, or would you, being infinately powerfull and perfect, want to create the "best" invironment for your child to grow in.

Secondly, in the real physical world, A child that grows up in Violence is LESS well off that someone that grew up in peace. That theory of "developement" is illogical for a "perfect" god.

Also, the system of punishment for Sins seems to be messed up in several religions. If your good, you go to heaven, but if your bad you go to hell, or some place not as pleasant as "heaven". Why would a "perfect" being damn his children to imperfection.


FREE WILL/Christianity:

The problem of free will is that you dont have it if you beleive in a God.


Back before time, when Satan "thought" he had free will he decided to attempt to 'overthrow" God. He actually had a fair ammount of supporters. As he attempted to fight god, God caste him out of heaven and into Hell. Sure, satan made the choice to try, but, regardless of the choice he made, he would have lost.How can you have free will if either choice leads to the same conclusion? Seems like God Is a dictator. And Dictators dont have too good a reputation in the pysical world.


There is more, but i think ive typed enough for right now.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Everything that the "bible" wrote as true, has eventually been proven FALSE, Creationism, How old the earth is, How the earth was created.

Not everything in the bible has been falsified; obviously things like John 3:16 haven't been, and there are almost certainly non-deity related sections which haven't (none spring to mind at the moment).

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN.

Only if you mean 'tested'. That the process known as evolution exists has been proven, but, as I said before in this thread, you cannot scientifically prove the origins of man, or somesuch.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Firstly, Religion, on the whole-sale level, does not bring love, peace, and humanity as is offered in there advertisements, It instead brings bloodshed, violence and death. The Crusades are a PERFECT example of this, so are the terrorists who use there religion as a source of Ethos.

The Crusades were as much a political war as a religious one. Furthermore, I'd disagree with it lying in the advertisments; if everyone followed the teachings of Jesus, the world would be a good place. Hell, if everyone followed the Ten Commandments, we wouldn't have had things like the Spanish Inquisition.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

You may make the claim that well, they would just use something else to justify their actions. Yeah. OK, the might. But whatever ELSE they might would have chosen would not even be close to the ammount of ETHOS that your CREATOR and God gives you.

I don't really see how you can have 'more ethos'. Anyway, I don't really see the problem with seeing many religions (early Judiasm, for example) as a political tool; there isn't much there that isn't about obeying laws or even the people of the church, and what there is is an inbuilt protection system for the religion (For example, the is no god but X, or the equivilents, makes it fairly clear that this is the religion to go for if its followed by people in power).

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Secondly. It seems God is Imperfect.

Why created a world with pain, torture, missery and suffering? Even if you make the claim that Well, its here for Moral and Spiritual developement, that doesnt justify how the world is created.

That doesn't imply that God is imperfect. It only implies that if he meant to create a perfect world he failed; I can choose to run around in Half Life and get killed by the first Head Crab, but it doesn't mean I'm a failure, because the failing was a direct result of a choice for that occurance.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

First of all, what about the children who are "born of innocents" but die before they have a chance to be "saved", there isnt enough time for them to develope morally and Spiritually.

They go into Limbo. God is pragmatic.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Now, for the ones who think they have that answer, Namely Reincarnation as a means to Moral And Spiritually development, I ask. How can you develope if you cant remember anything from your past life? Thats illogical.

It's fairly trivial to think up a method of transition. For example, what if the development was represented by an increased tendency to be more spiritually and morally developed? Why wouldn't that work, it doesn't need memory transfer.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Even if you get passed that, would you want your children to suffer and die in pain, just so that they might have spiritual growth, or would you, being infinately powerfull and perfect, want to create the "best" invironment for your child to grow in.

The "best" environment, especially when you're using said environment to nurture development as a certain kind, is almost certainly not the one you would think it would be. For example, why can't it be that this world IS perfect for stimulating spiritual growth? Wouldn't a lack of adversity hamper this enlightenment?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Secondly, in the real physical world, A child that grows up in Violence is LESS well off that someone that grew up in peace. That theory of "developement" is illogical for a "perfect" god.

What do you mean by 'less well off'? Physically? Psychologically? Surely, up to a certain point, a violent childhood does encourage a child to grow in certain ways (for example, turning the other cheek in bullying, that kind of thing). Who's to say what God's purpose for this universe would be?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Also, the system of punishment for Sins seems to be messed up in several religions. If your good, you go to heaven, but if your bad you go to hell, or some place not as pleasant as "heaven". Why would a "perfect" being damn his children to imperfection.

Once again, how are you defining 'perfect'? Why can't you see a 'perfect' being doing this?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The problem of free will is that you dont have it if you beleive in a God.

Why? Because there are consequences in heaven and hell? You haven't supported this assertion at all.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Back before time, when Satan "thought" he had free will he decided to attempt to 'overthrow" God. He actually had a fair ammount of supporters. As he attempted to fight god, God caste him out of heaven and into Hell. Sure, satan made the choice to try, but, regardless of the choice he made, he would have lost.How can you have free will if either choice leads to the same conclusion? Seems like God Is a dictator. And Dictators dont have too good a reputation in the pysical world.

'Freedom of choice' doesn't mean 'Freedom of Outcomes', you donkey. Lucifer had freedom of choice. He chose wrong.

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with a dictatorship per se, it's merely that the power system is highly abusable and therefore is likely, nay, expected, to at some point turn out badly.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That doesn't imply that God is imperfect. It only implies that if he meant to create a perfect world but failed; I can choose to run around in Half Life and get killed by the first Head Crab, but it doesn't mean I'm a failure, because the failing was a direct result of a choice for that occurance.

you're not omnipotent.
if an omnipotent god meant to do something and failed then i'm afraid that does make him imperfect. if he is imperfect he is not omnipotent. if he is not omnipotent, he is not god.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They go into Limbo. God is pragmatic.

no. the catholic church is pragmatic.
do tell me how such chldren 'get out' of limbo.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The "best" environment, especially when you're using said environment to nurture development as a certain kind, is almost certainly not the one you would think it would be. For example, why can't it be that this world IS perfect for stimulating spiritual growth? Wouldn't a lack of adversity hamper this enlightenment?

What do you mean by 'less well off'? Physically? Psychologically? Surely, up to a certain point, a violent childhood does encourage a child to grow in certain ways (for example, turning the other cheek in bullying, that kind of thing). Who's to say what God's purpose for this universe would be?

so god causes us pain an misery so that we (those of us who survive anyway) will grow in a way that he wants us to.
this is firstly not free will, nor does it make god appear particularly pleasent

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Once again, how are you defining 'perfect'? Why can't you see a 'perfect' being doing this?

he was wrong about it affecting god's perfection.
but it does undermine god's claim to be 'loving'.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

'Freedom of choice' doesn't mean 'Freedom of Outcomes', you donkey. Lucifer had freedom of choice. He chose wrong.

if there are two roads to take and you can take either to get to the same place then there's free will.
if there are two roads and for taking the lefthand one a giant embittered elderly man with a white beard will burn you alive for all eternity, this undermines free will.

if we gave lab rats similar 'freedom' it would be seen as torture

at best god is perverted, at worst he's a saddist.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with a dictatorship per se, it's merely that the power system is highly abusable and therefore is likely, nay, expected, to at some point turn out badly.

so what conclusions have we come to?

a) god may be imperfect and hence not exist.
b) if god does exist he certainly isn't very nice.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you're not omnipotent.
if an omnipotent god meant to do something and failed then i'm afraid that does make him imperfect. if he is imperfect he is not omnipotent. if he is not omnipotent, he is not god.

You misunderstood my post.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no. the catholic church is pragmatic.
do tell me how such chldren 'get out' of limbo.

Why do they need to be able to?

Originally Posted by Yahwe

so god causes us pain an misery so that we (those of us who survive anyway) will grow in a way that he wants us to.
this is firstly not free will, nor does it make god appear particularly pleasent.

Please explain why this is not free will. Your argument appears to be for the abolishion of the concept, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

he was wrong about it affecting god's perfection.
but it does undermine god's claim to be 'loving'.

Why does it? If it's a system designed purely to cause pain and suffering, to no other end, then it does undermine the claim. However, god is ineffable, so questions of motive are rather difficult to resolve.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

if there are two roads to take and you can take either to get to the same place then there's free will.
if there are two roads and for taking the lefthand one a giant embittered elderly man with a white beard will burn you alive for all eternity, this undermines free will.

Again, this is an argument against free will as a concept, as only an inductionless existance doesn't have some form of pressure for a certain decision. Do I eat? Don't I eat?

The freedom of choice is there, the consequences of choice are utterly immaterial as long as the ability exists.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

at best god is perverted, at worst he's a saddist.

I blame the parents.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

a) god may be imperfect and hence not exist.
b) if god does exist he certainly isn't very nice.

b) is unsupported.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You misunderstood my post.

not unless you were suggesting god plays half life.
you stated "It only implies that if he meant to create a perfect world but failed" and that's quite enough to build my argument upon.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Please explain why this is not free will. Your argument appears to be for the abolishion of the concept, to be honest.

you seem to be confused. i'm not arguing the pros and cons of 'the doctrine of free will'.
i accept the church claims it as inherently true. i am undermining this claim.

if god causes events to happen, let's say a tsunami, and the justification for this is your argument that adversity causes spiritual growth, my argument is that by causing the event and predicting or at least desiring a certain outcome god is denying the free will that he claims he gives us.

the second point was that a processes of teaching through adversity and pain is not a 'nice' or 'loving' teaching method to adopt.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Why does it? If it's a system designed purely to cause pain and suffering, to no other end, then it does undermine the claim. However, god is ineffable, so questions of motive are rather difficult to resolve.

i do not need to understand his motive.
i understand his means, then i understand that no 'end' could justify them.
further god as omnipotent could achieve whatever goal he desires by a different, less pain and terror inducing method. by chosing this method he has chosen what can be called a 'mean' or 'unloving' method.


thus he is not very nice.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Again, this is an argument against free will as a concept, as only an inductionless existance doesn't have some form of pressure for a certain decision. Do I eat? Don't I eat?

no it isn't.
you can hardly scoff and say "only an inductionless existance has no pressure" when it is god who creates those pressures. the fact that you are used to pressure on your decision making is a very example of god denying free will.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The freedom of choice is there, the consequences of choice are utterly immaterial as long as the ability exists.

the ability does not exist if there are consequences to the decision. particularly such drastic consequences.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

b) is unsupported.

oh no, i'm afraid it's all to patently clear.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

not unless you were suggesting god plays half life.
you stated "It only implies that if he meant to create a perfect world but failed" and that's quite enough to build my argument upon.

If. Your argument is based upon a presumption of failure, whereas that was only a minor aside of mine (with much the same point as the thing you argued off it).

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you seem to be confused. i'm not arguing the pros and cons of 'the doctrine of free will'.
i accept the church claims it as inherently true. i am undermining this claim.

You're not undermining this claim, because the aim to cause pain isn't a dichotomy with the existance of free will.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

if god causes events to happen, let's say a tsunami, and the justification for this is your argument that adversity causes spiritual growth, my argument is that by causing the event and predicting or at least desiring a certain outcome god is denying the free will that he claims he gives us.

Again, that's a different interpretation. Surely the only requirement is that god allows such things to exist, not that he actively causes them.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

the second point was that a processes of teaching through adversity and pain is not a 'nice' or 'loving' teaching method to adopt.

Why can it not be viewed as 'loving'?

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i do not need to understand his motive.
i understand his means, then i understand that no 'end' could justify them.
further god as omnipotent could achieve whatever goal he desires by a different, less pain and terror inducing method. by chosing this method he has chosen what can be called a 'mean' or 'unloving' method.

This is an argument of the form of 'Could god create a rock so heavy' and so forth. Arguing over the definition of omnipotence is not really helpful.

no it isn't.
you can hardly scoff and say "only an inductionless existance has no pressure" when it is god who creates those pressures. the fact that you are used to pressure on your decision making is a very example of god denying free will.

What in the world? What possible justification could you have for the second sentence?

the ability does not exist if there are consequences to the decision. particularly such drastic consequences.

So, as I have said, you are trying to argue against the concept of free will, as it is the nature of things that all actions have consequences (barring philosophical arguments of the form of 'Do causes cause their effects to happen?')

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If. Your argument is based upon a presumption of failure, whereas that was only a minor aside of mine (with much the same point as the thing you argued off it).

yes it was.
thank you. we appear to have disproved god.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You're not undermining this claim, because the aim to cause pain isn't a dichotomy with the existance of free will.

i believe i have shown how it can be, perhaps if you questioned what i had written?
flat denials seldom work.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Again, that's a different interpretation. Surely the only requirement is that god allows such things to exist, not that he actively causes them.

a) either way he's evil.
b) god is omnipotent, you can not sever his liability by saying "oh he didn't actively create that tsunami, he just created continental drift in full knowledge of the future" if god sets a rock rolling down even a really big hill, he is responsible to the person he hits years later with that rock.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Why can it not be viewed as 'loving'?

there are two ways i can teach a baby that fire burns.
i can protect it untill its old enough for me to educate it or i can stick its hand in the flames.

the second method is what i suggest is unloving. clearly there is room for subjective disagreement. somepeople might find the tsunami an act of god's love. i am suggesting that it was not.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is an argument of the form of 'Could god create a rock so heavy' and so forth. Arguing over the definition of omnipotence is not really helpful.

i'm not arguing over the definition of omnipotence.

i was making it clear that your 'we can not understand god's motives so we can not judge him' was a fatuous argument.

i will judge him by his actions.

i'm suggesting that it is clear that god isn't very nice.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What in the world? What possible justification could you have for the second sentence?

a) god created the system and it was silly of you to say that 'because there are pressures inherent to that system there is still free will' when i was demonstrating how the application of pressure undermines free will.
b) the second sentence is there because it seems clear that you have grown used to the pressures placed on your decision making by god, so used in fact that you find the idea of a system without those pressures absurd.

in brief: a) god is a torturer, b) you have stockholm syndrome.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

So, as I have said, you are trying to argue against the concept of free will, as it is the nature of things that all actions have consequences (barring philosophical arguments of the form of 'Do causes cause their effects to happen?')

'the nature of things' i find your use of this phrase absurd. are you suggesting some things are inherently true without god having made them so?

the point is a simple one. torture, physical pain and the threat of torture and physical pain undermine free will.

you can hardly say that merely because god has found so many ways of torturing us that this is natural and then say 'but of course we still have free will'. they contradict.

so our conclusions now are:

a) if god is imperfect he does not exist,
b) god is not very nice
c) the doctrine of free will is contradicted by the world god has created