[Controversial Discussion] GOD

[MrL_JaKiri]

Why are you predicating your arguments on my 'belief' in god?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Why are you predicating your arguments on my 'belief' in god?

your belief?
your personal belief?
dunno.
couldn't care less.

i'm just setting out my arguments.

either respond to them or don't

[JonnyBGood]

What kind of simpleton still believes in free will?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

What kind of simpleton still believes in free will?

after reading my brilliant arguments???

surely not any

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

either respond to them or don't

I, to an extent, did.

[edit!]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

i will judge him by his actions.

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

So you're judging god by an absolute morality? Woah.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

after reading my brilliant arguments???

surely not any

I knew you'd say that.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by 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.

Is faith necessarily an irrational thing? It would be irrational to continue believing something that had been proved beyond all doubt to be untrue, certainly, but this is not the case with faith in God. The belief in the existance of an omnipotent force who created the universe is no more irrational a faith than belief in any other unproven theory. It may sound far fetched, if you are a scientist, but irrational?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

The belief in the existance of an omnipotent force who created the universe is no more irrational a faith than belief in any other unevidenced theory.

With the edit, certainly true.

[Boogster]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

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.

Of course religion cannot answer beyond faith, but my point is that the answer it gives is no more irrational or unlikely, and no less valid than scientific theories or concepts.

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

But of course you cannot tell me this for certain. And again, that is my point.

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.

I did not mean my personal moral orientation, but morality in its entirety.

Yes, but how does this 'morality' system arise in the first place?

But why is 'right' right, and 'wrong' wrong?

Your body ceases to work.

You, again, cannot prove this. My belief in an afterlife is no less plausible than your belief in no afterlife.

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 disagree. I think that every scientist would like to be able to answer the 'why' questions, and I would venture to assert that this is as much the purpose of science as is answering the 'how' questions.

Why?

Because it is so perfectly formed.

Proof please.

Excuse me? That's your job.

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

Well, asking for 'proof' wasn't the most incisive argument against God I've ever come up against.

So you believe in an absolute morality then?

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

Yes, and why? I believe in 'right' and 'wrong', 'true' and 'false' and 'black' and 'white'. I might not always be able to make the distinction perfectly myself, but I believe that there is one. The existance of perfection in some form is impossible without this distinction.

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.

Frankly, you have given me no satisfactory answer to my questions either. Perhaps you are the one with fingers in your ears?

[Stew]

I can't believe this thread is still going

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Stew

I can't believe this thread is still going

pretty damn controversial i'd say

[JonnyBGood]

I don't know why anyone's responding to boogster when he's actually just my gimmick account

[Boogster]

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.

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

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

But this analogy makes no sense.

Free will is not simply a means of getting somewhere, it is measured by the distinction between right and wrong. The point is that people do choose to do what's wrong over what is right.

[Inferno]

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.

Death knows not the young or old, poor or rich, strong or weak, man or woman and big or small. It will strike when you expect it and when you dont expect it. That is the nature of this world.

God allows the children who are born innocent to die because they have the chance to be saved. All children who die before maturity enter heaven.

And I think those who believe in th existence God have faith in God and those who do not believe in the existence of God have faith in disbelief of God. We all have faiths whether we like it or not.

[Qdeathstar]

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.

first, SCORE ONE FOR QDEATHSTAR, MrL_Jakiri didnt pick on my spelling

Next, Sure, it might have been a political war. A political war justfied by the existence on God. Religion is a form of politics, it bases it's self upon the belief in a god. With out a god there is no reason for religion to exist. I didnt say god caused the Crusades, or god was the reason behind the crusades. I said Religion caused to crusades as a method of justification.

So, are you saying that there is a God, its just that the religious leaders arent following the teachings of God? If so, how do you even know that God wants us to be "good" in the definition that religious leaders give us?

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).

Tell that to the Jewish, Christians, and Heathens that were prosectuted under a belief system they didnt agree with. It didnt protect them? Did it?

That doesn't imply that God is imperfect. It only implies that if he meant to create a perfect world but failed;

If you fail at something how can you be perfect? Success is a major part of Perfection. You failed a course, but your a perfect student?

because the failing was a direct result of a choice for that occurance.

Hmm. Being that god is all knowing, he would have know he would have failed. Is he choosing to fail? IF he is, this failure is at odds with his ideal of perfection, and it creates unnessacary suffering for his children.

They go into Limbo. God is pragmatic.

They stay forever in imperfection, less that what God designed, or they are eventually let into heaven without spiritual or moral developement, just having to "do there time", eather choice is not the "perfect solution" for an all knowing, all powerfull, perfect god.

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.

Because, when you develope something you build upon something. If you build a house, and are going to put the "finishing touches" on it, but can remember where the windows and doors go, how will you ever finish it?

Or, if you got the lumber to build it, and you cant remember where you put the lumber, how can you build anything?

its a pretty good analogy.

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?

Why would you as a parent want your child to be harmed, when he didnt have to be? If you could press a button, and give him all the morallity he needs, why would you want him to be tortured to achieve it? Your all powerfull, why let your child whome you love suffer when they dont need to suffer.

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?

No it doesnt. It tends toward the child been violent, and immitating his parents, violent and destructive ways. "they think our heads are in there hands, but violent use brings violent plans" thats very true, you know.

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

Im defining perfect the way the bible define it. all powerfull, all loving, all knowing. Ecetra.

You cant be perfect in doing this because it is clear that god doesnt see going to hell as being "perfect"

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

How can you have free will if either choice leads to the same conclusion?

Do you want fries?

Yes

===You dont get fries.

Do you want fries?

no

===You dont get fries

You may be able to speak your choice, but it means nothing, Its fake free will

And I think those who believe in th existence God have faith in God and those who do not believe in the existence of God have faith in disbelief of God. We all have faiths whether we like it or not.

I wasnt argueing faith. Everone has faith in something. Its whether you have faith in logic, or faith in something illogical

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Boogster

Of course religion cannot answer beyond faith, but my point is that the answer it gives is no more irrational or unlikely, and no less valid than scientific theories or concepts.

Actually, it can be viewed as less valid; science can tell us multiple possibilities for the start of the universe that are consistent with observed phenomena.

The Bible doesn't have any evidence of consistence with physical laws.

Originally Posted by Boogster

But of course you cannot tell me this for certain. And again, that is my point.

Science can't tell you anything for certain, but if you want to believe something unsupported over an effect that is demonstrated constantly, then fine.

Originally Posted by Boogster

I did not mean my personal moral orientation, but morality in its entirety.

Yes, but how does this 'morality' system arise in the first place?

But why is 'right' right, and 'wrong' wrong?

Right and wrong are subjective concepts anyway, so you have no question.

You, again, cannot prove this. My belief in an afterlife is no less plausible than your belief in no afterlife.

You believe your body continues to work after death? My, someone's been watching too much Romero.

I disagree. I think that every scientist would like to be able to answer the 'why' questions

I would like to be able to do many things, but it doesn't mean that I expect it from something that has a demonstrably different philosophical base.

and I would venture to assert that this is as much the purpose of science as is answering the 'how' questions.

These people disagree.

Because it is so perfectly formed.

Monkey trumpets.

Excuse me? That's your job.

Really?

Well, asking for 'proof' wasn't the most incisive argument against God I've ever come up against.

I wasn't asking for proof of the existance of god, I was asking for proof for your assertion ("This is equally as likely as the belief that the universe is a product of chance.", in case we've forgotten). You're drifting into a Sunday8pm 'every chance is 50/50' area here.

Yes, and why? I believe in 'right' and 'wrong', 'true' and 'false' and 'black' and 'white'. I might not always be able to make the distinction perfectly myself, but I believe that there is one. The existance of perfection in some form is impossible without this distinction.

So it's always wrong to steal, no matter the justification? If someone lives a perfectly moral life, barring the exclusion of god (for whatever reason), he should be condemned to eternal damnation?

I agree with Yahwe, god's a bastard.

Frankly, you have given me no satisfactory answer to my questions either. Perhaps you are the one with fingers in your ears?

I'm interested in Theology and the finer points of both the philosophy of science and science itself, and have studied them accordingly.

I suspect I understand the totality of this discussion better than you do.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

fNext, Sure, it might have been a political war. A political war justfied by the existence on God. Religion is a form of politics, it bases it's self upon the belief in a god. With out a god there is no reason for religion to exist. I didnt say god caused the Crusades, or god was the reason behind the crusades. I said Religion caused to crusades as a method of justification.

My post was a description of a reason for religion to exist without there being a god. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.

Also, 'justification' is a long way from having a similar meaning to 'cause'.

So, are you saying that there is a God, its just that the religious leaders arent following the teachings of God? If so, how do you even know that God wants us to be "good" in the definition that religious leaders give us?

I'm not saying that there is a god, just that the things religion is used as a justification for are rarely consistent with the stated morality of said religion. That is not predicated upon the existance of a god.

Tell that to the Jewish, Christians, and Heathens that were prosectuted under a belief system they didnt agree with. It didnt protect them? Did it?

I don't quite see how you took my point that religion, as a political tool, works to protect the system in power, and turned it into something which said the exact opposite. Why should the ruling body cares what happen to people under a different ruling body? There weren't any moral crusades, remember.

If you fail at something how can you be perfect? Success is a major part of Perfection. You failed a course, but your a perfect student?

I made a grammatical error in that statement, but it's clear from both context and subsequent discussion what I meant.

You're trying to argue against me with my own argument. I said that god was imperfect only if he was failing to create a perfect world, for christ's sake.

Hmm. Being that god is all knowing, he would have know he would have failed. Is he choosing to fail? IF he is, this failure is at odds with his ideal of perfection, and it creates unnessacary suffering for his children.

Perhaps I should dumb my english down, as you appear to be unable to negotiate the sentence structure.

What appears to be failure is not failure if the supposed flaw was there by design.

See now?

They stay forever in imperfection, less that what God designed, or they are eventually let into heaven without spiritual or moral developement, just having to "do there time", eather choice is not the "perfect solution" for an all knowing, all powerfull, perfect god.

Once again, you misunderstood. My statement that God is a pragmatist was meaning to convey that god is pragmatic about the purity of heaven; He is willing to let some potentially perfect souls go if it means that there is a guarantee that heaven will not be tainted by the unclean. It was also a fairly flippant response at best.

Because, when you develope something you build upon something. If you build a house, and are going to put the "finishing touches" on it, but can remember where the windows and doors go, how will you ever finish it?

Or, if you got the lumber to build it, and you cant remember where you put the lumber, how can you build anything?

its a pretty good analogy.

It's a sucky analogy.

"Because, when you develope something you build upon something."? Isn't that what was happening in my point?

Why would you as a parent want your child to be harmed, when he didnt have to be? If you could press a button, and give him all the morallity he needs, why would you want him to be tortured to achieve it? Your all powerfull, why let your child whome you love suffer when they dont need to suffer.

Why do people play with artificial constraints in video games? The aim is to win, right?

No it doesnt. It tends toward the child been violent, and immitating his parents, violent and destructive ways. "they think our heads are in there hands, but violent use brings violent plans" thats very true, you know.

I had a comparatively violent upbringing compared to what one assumes to be the standard of my background, and I wouldn't describe myself as a violent individual. A counterexample, if you will.

You cant be perfect in doing this because it is clear that god doesnt see going to hell as being "perfect"

God's the perfect one, not us.

How can you have free will if either choice leads to the same conclusion?

That's only valid if you presume that Lucifer had no choice in starting the war in heaven, which, whilst a nice little fruity in, say, a short story*, doesn't really have any justification from anything canon. Lucifer chose to start the war in heaven, rather than not start it.

I wasnt argueing faith. Everone has faith in something. Its whether you have faith in logic, or faith in something illogical

Logic was a bad choice of word. Logic doesn't require faith, as it is undeniably true from the given axioms. You may not accept the axioms, but that doesn't mean that the conclusions of logic aren't true given it's boundaries.

Originally Posted by Inferno

God allows the children who are born innocent to die because they have the chance to be saved. All children who die before maturity enter heaven.

Not according to the Roman Catholic Church, because of the concept of Original Sin. If you belong to another Church, can you name it? All the schisms in Christianity mean that it's nigh on impossible to create an argument that responds to the position of all of them outside certain set dominions, so I just assume RC as it's both the oldest and the largest.

And I think those who believe in th existence God have faith in God and those who do not believe in the existence of God have faith in disbelief of God. We all have faiths whether we like it or not.

Assuming you meant 'faith in the nonexistance of god', then I disagree. All that you require to have 'faith' in to not believe in god is Occam's Razor. Everything else can come from that combined with observation.

[Yahwe]

i find it, although unsurprising, nevertheless disapointing that you have decided not to reply to my in depth post. 'mr L'

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

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

Can. Just because A is a member of B doesn't mean that B and A are equivilent.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

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.

One day, I go up to you and shoot you. Does that deny the existance of free will?

Originally Posted by Yahwe

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.

I would disagree, certainly. I reject the analogy because, for example, if you redefine it so the latter is the only of the methods that works, then the latter is obviously the correct choice.

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 don't think so, but then I consider morality to be subjective.

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.

I disagree with the assertion that god created the system. I also disagree with what appears to be your definition of 'free will'. You appear to be defining it by the individual having ultimate control over his destiny (for the want of a less loaded word springing to mind), whereas I'm arguing from a position of the lack of predetermination and the existance of freedom of choice. Your definition cannot coexist with physical laws, let alone other sentient individuals, assuming that is the assertion you were going for.

'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?

Darn tootin' I am, which renders the rest of this segment somewhat irrelevent.

i find it, although unsurprising, nevertheless disapointing that you have decided not to reply to my in depth post. 'mr L'

I had just gotten in from work and wasn't really in the mood for a long reply. Read any subtext into that which you desire.

And it's M. R. L. Initials, you see.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

One day, I go up to you and shoot you. Does that deny the existance of free will?

it doesn't need to.
we already disproved free will.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I would disagree, certainly. I reject the analogy because, for example, if you redefine it so the latter is the only of the methods that works, then the latter is obviously the correct choice.

god is the alpha and the omega.
how exactly can he be trapped into 'the only definition that works'

if you are suggesting that the 'evil' method is the only method which is efficient when dealing with humans then the blame for that lies with ... oh go on... i can't quite... oh yes god our creator.

so either:
a) god chose to promote our growth through causing pain
b) god designed us sothat the only way to promote our growth was by causing us pain.

see how he's still not nice which ever way you look on it?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think so, but then I consider morality to be subjective.

i accepted subjective morality. i allowed for it. if you believe that killing millions of beings you have created in order to teach them a lesson that frankly you could have taught them another way is not 'evil' then that is your subjective morality. mine differs.

so within a subjective framework (which i accepted in my initial post on the topic) i consider god to not be very nice. i do not anticipate large scale disagreement. i do not anticipate that huge swathes of people will thank god for his wonderful tsunami.

but of course if you do, that is your subjective right.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I disagree with the assertion that god created the system. I also disagree with what appears to be your definition of 'free will'. You appear to be defining it by the individual having ultimate control over his destiny (for the want of a less loaded word springing to mind), whereas I'm arguing from a position of the lack of predetermination and the existance of freedom of choice. Your definition cannot coexist with physical laws, let alone other sentient individuals, assuming that is the assertion you were going for.

"I disagree with the assertion that god created the system."
if this line is true then you should have made it clear at the begining that when you typed god you obviously didn't mean either a christian, muslim, or jewish idea of the word god.

how can i make this simple. you can not say 'physical laws'. god made them. god is them.

on the side: i am not arguing for 'ultimate control'. i am arguing that the doctrine of free will, that there is no predetermination is a lie.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Darn tootin' I am, which renders the rest of this segment somewhat irrelevent.

then i'm so sorry. i misunderstood.

i thought you understood monotheism and the doctrinal claims of the christian church.

if you were arguing about something you just happened to call g-o-d that is bound by laws of nature outside his own control, then please forgive me.

also please stop posting. no one can discuss with you until you define what you mean in your own religion you seem to have.

perhaps you should try a new thread? or why not write a sci-fi novel.

[JonnyBGood]

Why don't we have an argument about Santa Claus and worry about the implications of a sentence without a subject

[Qdeathstar]

Also, 'justification' is a long way from having a similar meaning to 'cause'.

not really, WMD's is the cause for why the US went to war in iraq, WMD's were also the justification.

Besides, all well causes need justifications. You cant have one without the other.

just that the things religion is used as a justification for are rarely consistent with the stated morality of said religion

The stated morality is far less important than the "real" result of religion. Actions harm, not thoughts.

What appears to be failure is not failure if the supposed flaw was there by design.

I understand that, but to say that we live in a perfect world because god designed an imperfect world is illogical. Thats like saying that we sent the hubble telescope into orbit broken on purpose, just so we could go back up there and fix it.

He is willing to let some potentially perfect souls go if it means that there is a guarantee that heaven will not be tainted by the unclean.

Still, that means that he is letting some of his supposed children slip into imperfection. Why would a all loving all power all good, perfect god that that for? Its illogical.

Why do people play with artificial constraints in video games? The aim is to win, right?

So your saying that the all good all powerfull god is playing a game then? Or that god has put us here to "win." Competition often breeds evil. Its true. Also, torture is hardly a video game.

I had a comparatively violent upbringing compared to what one assumes to be the standard of my background, and I wouldn't describe myself as a violent individual. A counterexample, if you will.

Good for you. Your also a social reject that spends most of his time on the computer. Is that normal? (not flaming, a lot of people here are that, im not excluding myself). And even if your not, your only one person. It has been shown repeatitively that children in violent homes grow to be violent.

that's only valid if you presume that Lucifer had no choice in starting the war in heaven, which, whilst a nice little fruity in, say, a short story*, doesn't really have any justification from anything canon. Lucifer chose to start the war in heaven, rather than not start it.

Im not talking about his decision to "start a war." It was his decision to be "fullfilled" If he chose to start a war, he was caste down, unfullfilled, and if he remaind silent, he was unfullfilled.

discontented, whatever.

Logic was a bad choice of word. Logic doesn't require faith, as it is undeniably true from the given axioms. You may not accept the axioms, but that doesn't mean that the conclusions of logic aren't true given it's boundaries.

Yes, but that doesnt mean you cant have faith in logic. Draw a circle. Faith is outside the circle. Figure it out.

[JonnyBGood]

There are different kinds of beliefs. You have rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. Rational beliefs are those accepted based on the best available evidence. These further divide into beliefs we accept because we have a deep understanding of the subject being discussed and beliefs we accept because we trust in the person who is relating this belief to us. Irrational beliefs are those accepted in the absence of evidence (which as we should all know does not necessarily mean evidence of absence) or in the face of the best available evidence. I think we all know which one a belief in god falls under.

Stop unnecessarily positing the existence of pluralities you faggots.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There are different kinds of beliefs. You have rational beliefs and irrational beliefs. Rational beliefs are those accepted based on the best available evidence. These further divide into beliefs we accept because we have a deep understanding of the subject being discussed and beliefs we accept because we trust in the person who is relating this belief to us. Irrational beliefs are those accepted in the absence of evidence (which as we should all know does not necessarily mean evidence of absence) or in the face of the best available evidence. I think we all know which one a belief in god falls under.

Stop unnecessarily positing the existence of pluralities you faggots.

i am a god, yet i argue to disprove our existance. i argue because i hope that through reason mankind can grow.
thus i merely seek to bring reason or what you term rational belief.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

it doesn't need to.
we already disproved free will.

Thank god for that, philosophers will be so pleased.

god is the alpha and the omega.
how exactly can he be trapped into 'the only definition that works'

Method, sweety. And that was an example of how your analaogy could be invalid, given that it's rather limited in scope and therefore my reply isn't really talking about god, merely the invalidity of your post.

i accepted subjective morality. i allowed for it. if you believe that killing millions of beings you have created in order to teach them a lesson that frankly you could have taught them another way is not 'evil' then that is your subjective morality. mine differs.

so within a subjective framework (which i accepted in my initial post on the topic) i consider god to not be very nice. i do not anticipate large scale disagreement. i do not anticipate that huge swathes of people will thank god for his wonderful tsunami.

but of course if you do, that is your subjective right.

So what right have we to judge god? What right have we to judge anyone? Again, this disagreement is based upon a variance in the contemplation of the issue. I don't think it needs to be stated.

"I disagree with the assertion that god created the system."
if this line is true then you should have made it clear at the begining that when you typed god you obviously didn't mean either a christian, muslim, or jewish idea of the word god.

I'm talking with christians, it seems clear which definition of the word 'god' to use to cause the least confusion.

how can i make this simple. you can not say 'physical laws'. god made them. god is them.

This is very similar to that argument of mine that you described as fatuous.

on the side: i am not arguing for 'ultimate control'. i am arguing that the doctrine of free will, that there is no predetermination is a lie.

Predetermine cannot exist in ones who are bound by the laws of physics. So, therefore, if some omnipotent being not bound by the laws of physics doesn't exist, there is no predetermination.

then i'm so sorry. i misunderstood.

i thought you understood monotheism and the doctrinal claims of the christian church.

if you were arguing about something you just happened to call g-o-d that is bound by laws of nature outside his own control, then please forgive me.

also please stop posting. no one can discuss with you until you define what you mean in your own religion you seem to have.

perhaps you should try a new thread? or why not write a sci-fi novel.

I'm talking about the christian god you nincompoop. This line of discussion was based upon my responses to a post which I felt contained some incorrect arguments against the existance of god and, whilst I agree with the position, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the arguments, or support them. Given this is quite clear, the only conclusion is that you are being deliberately obtuse.

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm talking about the christian god you nincompoop.

i think anybody who uses the word nincompoop is at least 65 years old..

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

not really, WMD's is the cause for why the US went to war in iraq, WMD's were also the justification.

WMD's were the justification, but, given the known evidence of a lack of WMD's before the war began, you're obviously taking the words of the higher levels of the US administration seriously. Well done, I've not seen that one before.

Besides, all well causes need justifications. You cant have one without the other.

Why did you take my statement of 'non-identicality' to mean 'non-coexistability'? Hmmm?

The stated morality is far less important than the "real" result of religion. Actions harm, not thoughts.

Yes, I am aware of this. If this was not the case, do you think I would make an argument predicated upon the "real result" of religion being different than the stated morality?

I understand that, but to say that we live in a perfect world because god designed an imperfect world is illogical. Thats like saying that we sent the hubble telescope into orbit broken on purpose, just so we could go back up there and fix it.

If we live in an imperfect world, it is entirely possible for it to be perfectly in alignment with what was meant for it. This not being a 'perfect world' isn't a good argument for the non-existance of god.

If we meant to send the Hubble up just to repair it, then it's been a roaring success. Don't you see?

Still, that means that he is letting some of his supposed children slip into imperfection. Why would a all loving all power all good, perfect god that that for? Its illogical.

Originally Posted by Me

Once again, you misunderstood. My statement that God is a pragmatist was meaning to convey that god is pragmatic about the purity of heaven; He is willing to let some potentially perfect souls go if it means that there is a guarantee that heaven will not be tainted by the unclean. It was also a fairly flippant response at best.

So your saying that the all good all powerfull god is playing a game then? Or that god has put us here to "win." Competition often breeds evil. Its true. Also, torture is hardly a video game.

Well done for yet another utterly moronic miscomprehension. Please point me to where I said god was playing a game. Go on. Try to find one which isn't an obvious analogy, too!

Good for you. Your also a social reject that spends most of his time on the computer.

If I spend most of my time on a computer, it's because I use one at work. Ignoring that line of discussion, then why does sitting on a computer all day make me a social reject? I interact with people when they're here (I'm living in a shared house), it's just that, given they're all at work during the day, personal interaction is rather difficult.

Is that normal?

Normal isn't a good word. Sure, it's a subset of society, but so's "People who go to The King Street Run". Are people who go to a given pub, and not every possible pub simultaneously, abnormal?

And even if your not, your only one person. It has been shown repeatitively that children in violent homes grow to be violent.

I'm not denying that man hands on misery to man, merely that is possible for individuals to come away from such a situation stronger than they went in.

"It's really simple. You bring two sides together. They fight. A lot of them die, but those who survive are stronger, smarter and better.

Im not talking about his decision to "start a war." It was his decision to be "fullfilled" If he chose to start a war, he was caste down, unfullfilled, and if he remaind silent, he was unfullfilled.

discontented, whatever.

Actions have consequences. The consequence of his choice to start a war was his banishment to hell. That doesn't mean that he had any less freedom of choice over whether to start a war.

If you're trying to argue that, at a given point in time, freedom of choice allows the individual to do anything, then you're badly mistaken. That postulate is disproved by the mere existance of physical laws, as I said above. Are you going by the dictionary.com definition by any chance?

Yes, but that doesnt mean you cant have faith in logic. Draw a circle. Faith is outside the circle. Figure it out.

You can have faith in logic, but it seems utterly pointless, as mathematics and logic specifically have no need of faith. Furthermore, you seem to be redefining your point.

[Phang]

Dear God All Of These Arguments Are Horrible

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow, the first time something positive has been said about me on here

It seems to me that the problem people have when arguing this is getting over the fact that religion and science are not diametrically opposed to one another.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Wow, the first time something positive has been said about me on here

It seems to me that the problem people have when arguing this is getting over the fact that religion and science are not diametrically opposed to one another.

It depends what you mean. They can definitely coexist, requiring faith to explain the deviation between religious belief and scientific discovery, but they are irreconcileable for the simple reason that religion is faith based, a system based on lack of evidence, whilst science is evidence based, with repeatable experiments being the basis of most advancement.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Thank god for that, philosophers will be so pleased.

you mean to say 'priests'
and frankly i doubt it.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Method, sweety. And that was an example of how your analaogy could be invalid, given that it's rather limited in scope and therefore my reply isn't really talking about god, merely the invalidity of your post.

errrr... no.
i'm posting arguments about god. you posted a reply that indicated you believed god to be constrained by external forces. i stated this was untrue.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

So what right have we to judge god? What right have we to judge anyone? Again, this disagreement is based upon a variance in the contemplation of the issue. I don't think it needs to be stated.

now this really is fatuous.

i have judged him based on the evidence. either respond to that or don't but for the sake of baby jesus don't start gibbering like a fanatic.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm talking with christians, it seems clear which definition of the word 'god' to use to cause the least confusion.

yet you post replies which contradict the idea of god as omnipotent.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is very similar to that argument of mine that you described as fatuous.

you were trying to disascociate god from his own actions despite his omnipotence,
i was stating that as an omnipotent god you can not disasascociate him from his actions.

see they are 'similar' similar in the way that they're total opposites.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Predetermine cannot exist in ones who are bound by the laws of physics. So, therefore, if some omnipotent being not bound by the laws of physics doesn't exist, there is no predetermination.

oh good the physicists will be pleased that you've completed their research.

honey you just said "if god doesn't exist there is no predetermination" in response to me saying "if god exists his claim there is no predetermination is a lie" could you try sticking to the point?

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm talking about the christian god you nincompoop. This line of discussion was based upon my responses to a post which I felt contained some incorrect arguments against the existance of god and, whilst I agree with the position, that doesn't mean I have to agree with the arguments, or support them. Given this is quite clear, the only conclusion is that you are being deliberately obtuse.

the christian concept of god is not bound by 'natural forces' as you suggest.

i'm not being obtuse. i am arguing my (now 3) salient points.

[Phang]

yahwe. JUST BECAUSE GOD IS OMNIPOTENT DOESN'T MEAN HE ACTUALLY DOES EVERYTHING. JUST BECAUSE HE IS BENEVOLENT DOESN'T MEAN EVERYTHING HE DOES IS INSTANTLY PERCIEVABLE AS SUCH FROM OUR COSMICALLY LIMITED VIEWPOINT. thankyou.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you mean to say 'priests'
and frankly i doubt it.

No, I meant 'philosophers'. Which is why I said 'philosophers'.

the christian concept of god is not bound by 'natural forces' as you suggest

You said that consequences override free will. I said that that means that, by your definition, free will can't exist as consequences follow actions.

Where does god come into this?

I'll respond to the rest when I'm no longer at work.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

No, I meant 'philosophers'. Which is why I said 'philosophers'.



You said that consequences override free will. I said that that means that, by your definition, free will can't exist as consequences follow actions.

Where does god come into this?

I'll respond to the rest when I'm no longer at work.

god's the one who causes those consequences yet claims to still grant free will.

he's the 'liar' we were seeking to identify

[demiGOD]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

god's the one who causes those consequences yet claims to still grant free will.

he's the 'liar' we were seeking to identify

-how about the laws of the land where consequences of a violation of any of the written laws are written in black and white, yet still a democratic, parliamentary government, etc, will still grant free will? does that mean that written laws are hypocritical?

-the god that's preached in churches and in the bible are most likely fictional, but theres something/someone out there.. i swear..

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

god's the one who causes those consequences yet claims to still grant free will.

he's the 'liar' we were seeking to identify

If you punch me in the face I'm the one who causes the consequences, but it doesn't mean that you don't have free will.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If you punch me in the face I'm the one who causes the consequences, but it doesn't mean that you don't have free will.

you are missing this seemingly simple point.

don't get confused by these strawmen. you're not a god and i never promised anyone free will.

if god exists there is no free will

its that simple.

and the fact that the church teaches the doctrine, what we can call a 'lie' is a far more interestng question.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

if god exists there is no free will

That depends on your precise interpretation of omnipotence, and, to an extent, omniscience. I was discussing this with Giles earlier.

[Knight Theamion]

the word omnes leaves little to no room for interpretation

[demiGOD]

doing something on your own free will means your accepting all repercussions and consequences.. so its still free will, like at my own free will, i can pull a gun to my head with the full acceptance that i'm gonna die... theres free will everywhere

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

the word omnes leaves little to no room for interpretation

You'd be surprised how much interpretation can be made of the omnes, the posse and the combined thing.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

You'd be surprised how much interpretation can be made of the omnes, the posse and the combined thing.

in relation to a monotheistic creator, i tend to agree with theamion.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It depends what you mean. They can definitely coexist, requiring faith to explain the deviation between religious belief and scientific discovery, but they are irreconcileable for the simple reason that religion is faith based, a system based on lack of evidence, whilst science is evidence based, with repeatable experiments being the basis of most advancement.

Only insofar as where they conflict. One would not use literary knowledge to solve chemical equations, nor would one use principles of chemistry to analyse Shakespeare.

Thus, I would not try to use physics to determine how Christ died and was raised, nor would I use religious principles to explain in detail how the world was made.

And I would definitely not rely on mathematics to provide answers to metaphysical problems dealt with by religion.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

Only insofar as where they conflict. One would not use literary knowledge to solve chemical equations, nor would one use principles of chemistry to analyse Shakespeare.

Thus, I would not try to use physics to determine how Christ died and was raised, nor would I use religious principles to explain in detail how the world was made.

And I would definitely not rely on mathematics to provide answers to metaphysical problems dealt with by religion.

They aren't in conflict in any of the example you gave, you know.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

They aren't in conflict in any of the example you gave, you know.

They are when one attempts to use one system to explain the answers derived from another.

If people stopped trying to use religion to explain scientific proofs, there would be no problem. Religion's place is for the metaphysical

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Summanus

They are when one attempts to use one system to explain the answers derived from another.

If people stopped trying to use religion to explain scientific proofs, there would be no problem. Religion's place is for the metaphysical

So what you're saying is that they're irreconcileable?

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

So what you're saying is that they're irreconcileable?

When one attempts to explain everything using one or the other, yes. One should not apply post-modernism to all history, nor should one apply formalism. While preferring the latter, one recognises the place, purpose and usefulness of histories not recognised by the formalists.

Applying scientific methods to *all* aspects and components of life does not work. Neither does attributing every single occurrence to God. God knew of the tsunami, but did not send the tsunami.


Besides, the validity of scientific method need not detract from core beliefs about God.

[Dante Hicks]

Competing methods or system for explaining things is no bad thing, but what exactly does religion "explain" that science doesn't?

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Competing methods or system for explaining things is no bad thing, but what exactly does religion "explain" that science doesn't?

Sentience

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes it has been scientifically proven that statments in the Bible are incorrect or impossible, peoepl should just accept the fallacy of the bible and move on.

Religion's place is not the metaphysical but rather the fictional.

It's also been scientifically proven that statements in the Bible are correct or possible, people should just accept it's correctness and move on.

Seriously, this is the kind of attitude which lays at the root of all problems. If people would examine things in depth instead of blindly following an argument with scant regards for opposing views, there would be little conflict in the world.

What's different about this instance is that this time the blindness claims to be from the side of rationalism