Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm not here to make any personal attacks. I don't hate Christians, but I really struggle to come to terms with Christianity. I can't imagine a Christian being true to his / her self. If you have any interest with the truth then you should be prepared to question your beliefs. Faith is a result of ignorance, and unwillingness to look beyond what is in front of you. Anyway, I won't preach, I'll leave that to you guys. Here's the fundamental paradox in Christianity, as I know it. I believe your God is supposed to be benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient right? If that were true, then this world could not be anything other than perfect. God is loving, he has the power to do anything he wants, and knows everything that's going to happen. I know you'll bring up free will, but what is that? If it exists (which I don't believe, but that's another argument), then the nature of it is formed by God. So take Adam / Eve's sin. God created Adam and Eve. He could have made them anyway he desired, because he's omnipotent. He knew exactly everything they would do, because he's omniscient. Yet he made them weak and prone to temptation. This is not an act of benevolence. It simply doesn't add up. Also, why do rocks fall on people and kill them? God knows this will happen, God could have changed nature to avoid it from happening, and since he's benevolent, surely he would want to do it? But, he doesn't. Do any of you see the contradiction here? If God was benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient there simply couldn't be such things as evil or pain.
You have some good points there. My understanding of the thing is that God made things perfect in the beginning, but everything was marred by Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God. The whole creation fell along with Adam. But this is only part of a process - God will bring this imperfect creation to a conclusion, and re-make all in its perfection. Does free will exist - or are we simply automata? This is a question that it is hard to answer. Myself, I think we do posses it. Hence we are free to choose God or not. But I'm not an 'orthodox' Christian -
Yes, it was apparently Adam and Eve (and the talking snake) that brought about imperfection, but it was God who made everything, including Adam, Eve, and the talking snake. You can blame Adam and Eve, but how did they have the option of acting 'wrongly'? God must have created that option, therefore, God created imperfection. If God is perfect, he simply cannot create imperfection. If you blame the Devil, then again it's God's doing. He invented the Devil, or at least, he invented such an environment that the Devil could come about. Since he's omniscient, he would have known that this all would have happened. You could argue that God gave man free will, and that not even God could know how man would act, but then you're denying his omniscience. Something has to give. He simply cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. Freedom is an illusion that comes about when we don't know exactly why we act. We think we have choice, but we do not. We can only live one way. Everything we do is determined by past experiences, society, or by your genes. Go here - http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/logical.html for more on determinism / free will.
Well, in the Bible God labels certain actions as sins, and gives examples of sinners. If people sin, then the world is imperfect, in God's eyes. Paedophilia is part of God's perfection? Bare in mind, God could've built a world without paedophilia, rape, murder, disease. Is this God's idea of perfection? If so, he is not benevolent. Isn't it obvious what I'm going to say? God had the ability to make humans emerge from the garden without creating evil. He's God, he can do anything remember? Whatever was necessary, God could have made it happen in a perfect way, devoid of guilt, evil, pain. Anything you ask, God could make possible, because he's omnipotent. So yes, God could make good exist without evil. If you claim he can't, then you claim he's not omnipotent. Well, compared with 'In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth' my view is a sophisticated piece of art. The Bible is very simplistic in itself. Finally, where is this proof of God's existence? If it weren't for fear, nobody would be a Christian.
. Why can't God have both given Man free will and still known in advance that he would use it to 'disobey'? It could be that this world is still in the process of being created - ie God hasn't yet finished His work - the 'fall' and 'redemption' and the final creation of 'a new heaven and a new earth' can be seen as the part of the process. In other words, God is still working on things - in and through us. The existence of negative qualities in the world is not a very convincing argument against the existence of God. And it depends on how you understand God. With Hinduism, for example, the difficulty doesn't arise, as God or the Divine is seen as the ulimate source of all qualities, both good and bad. But I suppose that is inadmissible here where Christianity is the thing on the agenda.... As for free will - if you think we are mere automata, that is your opinion, but there is no scientific proof of this.
Because disobeying God is a sin. Sinners are not perfect. Therefore, God intentionally created man for the purpose of sinning. God could have prevented man from sinning, but he didn't. Man cannot be blamed, as he was only acting in the way God made him act. God made man imperfect, therefore, God made imperfection. Perfection cannot make imperfection. That is irrelevent. What stage he is in does not matter. What matters is that right now we have imperfection. If you accept we have imperfection, then you accept that the Christian God isn't omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. If you believe this world is perfect, then you condone rape, violence and murder. And yes, I'm talking exclusively about the Christian God. As for free will, science says that the whole Universe is bound by cause & effect patterns, therefore, free will cannot exist scientifically. There is scientific proof that free will does not exist.
Ok - I am not limited to viewing God in this narrow way so I don't see that theres much point in discussing this further. The notion of cause and effect is not upheld by modern science. It applies only on certain levels. At the sub atomic level, cause and effect breaks down, as any quantum physicist will tell you. You are speaking here of newtonian science, and clearly this can only be applied to physical matter. To suggest that science has proven an absence of free will in the human being is completely groundless. The laws that govern the movements of physical bodies cannot be applied to the mind or to consciousness, or even to certain theoretical physical phenomena.
Glynos, I ll try to say something. Do not take as an attack at all. Just trying to share. You wished some answers by creating that poll, isn't it? First I do not even am sure of anything about the existence of a God or its inexistence( and I've a problem with giving him eventually a name, or a sacred text which he transmitted to humans). Just to say you seem to be a little too sure of yourself. You do advance sentences you have no clue if they are right. By example: "Faith is a result of ignorance" It's wrong. I see it more as the result of a trust. Ignorance in the sens of ignoring science? It's known that the science doesn't have the answers to prove the existence or the inexistence of God. Science and Religion are two way to explain the world, but they are complementary, not opposed. "Perfection cannot make imperfection" Hum, you have no idea of what the plan of something perfect could be. "the whole Universe is bound by cause & effect patterns" Yes, but before Big Bang? Nobody as an answer. It was just to say something short, do not be so sure of you, hope it made you doubted a lil. Never being sure, is the best way to learn effeciently. Try to see how the world is fucking perfectly fitted for your senses to experience it. Isn't it perfect in a way? Have fun for a while and see your feelings, tell me if it is not perfectly adapted to us Take care
God is omniscient, so He knows not only what WOULD happen, but also the infinite expanse of what MIGHT have happened. God gave Adam the ability to choose and then provided the opportunity to excercise that freedom. He put a tree in the garden and told them not to eat. At that point, Adam might have simply chosen to never have eaten. We don't know what would have happened (God does though). Anyway, Adam chose to disobey. He had full knowledge of what he was doing. He wasn't tricked and it wasn't "built" into his nature. He made a choice that had very severe consequences. God did not force Adam to do anything. Adam acted of his own volition. Let's try this: Bob owns a candy store with thousands of types of candy. He calls over his friend Tim. He tells Tim that he (Tim) is free to eat any of the candy in the store with one exception. Bob then tells Tim to not eat the one piece green licorice. Bob shows Tim exactly what it looks like, where it is, and that it is deadly poison. Now, according to you, if Tim eats the candy, then Bob (who took every possible means to prevent Tim eating it except for removing the candy) is directly responsible? That Tim is not culpable for his own actions? The above analogy is flawed because of course Bob could have removed the licorice. God could not. In order for free will to exist, there had to be a choice. If there is no licorice (or tree of knowledge of good and evil) then there is no possiblity of disobedience and no meaningful ability to excercise free will. Adam was given only one way to rebel against God, and he chose to rebel. You cannot fault the test-giver of a fair test when the student fails. In this case, God did everything he could to prevent it (without violating Adam's will). Adam still rebelled. Does that make sense? What I am disagreeing with is that God could NOT have prevented man from sinning and maintained His integrity.
glynos, your perspective is to narrow. if the bible does contain "rules" of good and sin, those rules are for humans. I don't think there's anything in there saying what rules god must follow. Why should such be limited by human limitations? How do you know the "crimes" you speak of aren't nessacary? Your view is completely homocentric- theistic. Such arguments can no more proven god's non-existence than they can prove her existence. the reasonable course of action is to look for god. If we look everywhere, and he's not there, then he doesn't exist. Remember that god faith and religion are three different things.
This is no different than the hundreds of people that attempt to make God look like He is fake on a daily basis. My favorite one is the one about the brownies. If God is perfect, then he could make the perfect brownie for everyone. Of course, you have to remember that some people don't like pecans on their brownies, or may be alergic to them. Some people don't even like brownies. So how could He do this without forcing someone to like them? The questions go on and on. Just liek the one can God make a rock so heavy He couldn't lift it? But if He could make one, He should be able to lift it because He can do anything, so then it reverts to Him being unable to make such a rock. Like I said, these moronic theories pop out daily. I myself like brownies, I like them with or without pecans. So, if God were to make some brownies that tasted better than my moms, then He would get the credit of making the perfect brownie. Just because you don't like them, can't eat them, or choose to pass them up doesn't mean others will follow you. I myself, like every other true Christian, picked up a copy of His directions for making brownies and though we don't do the best job, over time they get better. Eventualy, we will be in heaven with Him and be able to make brownies together. I hope you realize my analogy here has associated brownies with our daily faith. The brownie recipe would be The Bible, the ingredients are living life through Jesus and our attempt to do His will. I am done playing your word games here. You can eat the brownie or leave it on the plate for the next person that comes along. Either way, someone will eat it, and when they all run out, Jesus will come pick us up.
going back to the OP, i think our basic misconception is that we consider all things that are unpleasant for us to be inherently evil, which is untrue. no experience is wasted unless you spend the rest of your time moping about it and commt suiced. but even then, someone else will learn from your mistakes. everything has an opposite, even if those opposites are a matter of degree. i may have had an extremely difficult childhood and some severe ugliness to deal with in my life, but i wouldn't change a thing. i like who i am now, and i wouldn't be this person without those experiences. just like getting an innoculation may give you a sore arm, it's a lot better than not having it at all. all those things we love best about human kind are responses to hardship and discomfort. courage, charity, fortitude, love. without the bad, we'd never see the good. i find the people who spend most of their time complaining about the bad are the ones who'd rather feel sorry for themselves than do anything to correct their situation.
Here are a few of my opinions on the debate so far. I'm in a little bit of a rush, so I'm afraid these aren't as concisely put as they could be, but feel free to question anything I say. BlackBillBlake suggested that the laws of cause & effect cannot be applied to any arguement regarding free will. I believe they can, as all actions (effects) are caused by genetics and enviroment (causes). I'd be interested to hear what other factors BlackBillBlake (and others) believe contribute to the decision making process in order to defend the position of free will. - I don't see why he couldn't. I'm guessing by integrity you mean free will, which I've debated above. The simple crux of the matter is, God did Force Adam to eat the apple. At the point in time where Adam chose to eat the apple, God was responsible for a) The actual existance of the tree b) the existance of the snake c) the desire in Adam, when faced with certain circumstances and stimuli, to eat the apple. For me, this leads to a group of conlcusions. Either a) God is not omnicient and did not forsee Adam eating the apple or b) God wanted Adam to eat the apple. - I've heard this response many times as an attempt to answer why God lets bad things happen. The simple fact of the matter is certain things are considered bad across the globe, and whereas they may not be bad by definition, they are bad by the perception of the majority. I don't think I need flash floods, earthquakes etc. just to appreciate how pretty flowers are.
those flash floods and earthquakes are essential mechanisms of the earth. we wouldn't have any pretty flowers without the whole machine running smoothly. i think you just want the easy way, no struggle, no strife. well, that means no life. without death, there could be no more birth.
Touche? I thought this was a theistic arguement, not a fencing arguement! How are the flash floods and earthquakes essential? Surely God could make a world that doesn't need earthquakes and flash floods, and surely that would be better. I don't so much want an easier way, I'm an aethist so I believe things are like they are and there's nothing I can do to change things like nature. BUT if you believe in God, I can't see why you don't expect things to be easy. Why have struggle and strife in a world that's created by someone who is supposed to be love incarnate? And as for the 'no life' bit, did Adam and Eve have no life in Eden pre-snake? Sure if there were no death things would get pretty crowded. But why not have death being some angel tapping a perfectly healthy person on the shoulder and going "come to heaven with me, it's groovy!" rather than people dying horribly everyday. I think my concentration on natural disasters may have distorted my point. I meant to say that I think the belief that you need bad as an opposition to good is a fallacy. I doubt the Jews saw much in the way of silver linings during the holocaust, and I can't imagine Adam and Eve sitting in Eden saying "well the free food, no labour and ever lasting paradise is okay, but I'm damn near suicidal because I can't fly." From what I understand Adam and Eve were perfectly happy in Eden. Why can't we have Eden now? Because some bint ate an apple over 2000 years ago? I never ate the forbidden fruit, if God is compassionate, fair and forgiving why aren't we in Eden? What did we do to deserve cancer, aids, rape, murder, paedophilia, natural disasters, air/road/train crashes, suicides, depression, poverty etc. etc. And even if your naiive enough to believe that it's all part of some plan that's far beyond mere human understanding, why not give us the capacity to understand it? Why make millions and millions of people suicidally upset just to keep God's impeccable plans secret?
i don't see how my believing in god necessitates that i believe things should be easy because god coulda made it different. like i said, i believe in the power and necessity of the honing through strife and pain. i believe god set this world up to exist this way for a reason. there's a balance in everything. without bad, there can be no good, since both are just a matter of perspective. adam and eve are an allegory for me. eating of the tree of knowledge said to god, we want more than what we have here. we want to know, we want to learn. the problem with learning, however, is that it can be very painful. we became adults there, instead of children just accepting everyting that headed our way. who's to say there wasn't death in the proverbial garden? i say everything was running just the same as it is now, except that god protected his kids much the same way that modern parents strive to shield their own children from the knowledge of pain and death. but it does our children no service to keep shielding them forever. eventually they all have to make the choice of leaving the nest. when that happens, they're gonna find a world of hurt, and we can't just jump in there a fix it for them every time. we're more than willing to help when asked for it, but we can't control our children completely. they'd hate us then. what kind of parent would we be? crippling our children.
It seems that God has laid the smackdown on me. I typed up a large response, clicked the submit button, and somehow, it all disappeared. I'll just run through some of the recent points made. If God is omnipotent, then he could make pretty flowers without the need of earthquakes. They are only essential now, because God made it that way. If God is omnipotent, he could have made a world where earthquakes weren't neccessary. Where rape, murder, violence or any other hardship wasn't the key to understanding, moving on and eventually accepting and being happy. If God is omnipotent, he can make a world where there is absolutely no displeasure. If God is omnipotent, good could exist without bad, right without wrong, pleasure without pain; and if he was benevolent, good would exist without bad, right would exist without wrong, and pleasure would exist without displeasure. Oh, and for Bandit 28, could you please answer me this one question, and answer it only with a yes or no. Can God create the perfect brownie?
