Politics, Religion, and Morality

[Aldin]

*sheesh - a guy can't even take a day off around here*

Let's start with a few pages back. There were two key quotes:

Originally Posted by Ranior

First off though, I reject the idea that it is an assumption that there are unchanging scientific laws. By looking out into the night sky we can see evidence for the same laws being observed from a distant past.

And what framework are you using for interpreting the "evidence for the same laws being observed in the distant past"? What assumptions are you making in approaching the data? There is no such thing as self-interpreting data.

Here's my take on this position: "Everything we've done in operational science over the past 200 years shows unchanging, universal laws. Therefore, there are unchanging universal laws. Therefore, I can use those laws to examine evidence to try to learn about the past."

The problem is that it creates a blind spot - the assumption when looking at the past that everything in the past was subject to unchanging universal laws. See how that crept in? Since we cannot observe the past, but only evidence in the present, we make assumptions. Uniformitariamism is one of those.

Originally Posted by Ranior

Next, as for science rejecting the supernatural, that is true to some extent. Again though I find it to be a bit more on the line of a position based on evidence. Thus far every supernatural claim put before science that can be tested has not worked.

Well... kinda. Supernatural things tend to fail the repeatable part of the process. There's also enough that we don't know that science is more than happy kicking the unknowable to future naturalistic solutions. There are documented cases of folks receiving prayer and getting better - hard to measure the effect of the prayer and doesn't always provide the asked for result in any case so how is science supposed to say "yup, that was supernatural"?

ETA Heh - just had this happen today and it's a great example of why this supernatural stuff is so loosey-goosey. My wife got a flat tire and the lug nuts were on too tight for her to budge. Between one thing and another she'd been at the side of the road for an hour and finally prayedfor God to send her some help. Within a minute, along comes a guy who says his wife saw her struggling and sent him to help her out. So... credit his arrival, with special attention paid to the timing to the God to whom she had just prayed? Or credit it to coincidental timing and a helpful couple?

Originally Posted by Ranior

A god to me is a supernatural creator who is fitting to worship.

I think the core difference of the last couple of pages can be found here. The implication is that we get to decide what is fitting to worship. I would claim that a supernatural creator is by definition worthy of worship. When we talk about a "problem" of God allowing people to go to hell who He knows (in His omniscience) do not want to spend eternity with Him - how is that a problem? Since nothing anyone can do without God is good enough and since He provides a way to Him for everyone who wants it (again, omniscience), I think we can safely put the fault for going to hell squarely on our own shoulders for one reason or another.

~Aldin, briefly

[hummingbug]

Originally Posted by Ranior

Are you trying to state that you believe that God will spontaneously come to individuals, and that they shall accept him as their saivor?

I mean let us suppose a small tribe in the middle of the amazon, who has not interacted with the outside world, and have no concept of any of our society.

Are you trying to argue that these individuals will come to know the Christian God and Jesus Christ spontaneously and then can choose to accept him as their creator and savior?

As for the idea that faith in Jesus/God alone shall send you into heaven just so long as you believe...does this mean that it is acceptable to commit suicide to take myself into God's kingdom faster? I mean if I believe in Christ, and he promises me eternal bliss, why should I spend time down on Earth toiling and suffering?

1. Perhaps that is what quozl is trying to say, but may I present it another way? Some of the oldest known civilizations are Natufian, Mesopotamia, and Sumeria. Though Natufian has no conclusive findings on what their religion encased, Mesopotamia and Sumeria do. They were polytheistic in nature.
This matter is not an easy one to discuss but I will attempt clarity in my explanation.

It is my personal view that these early civilizations simply broke down the elements of God and served them as gods. Example: "God" created, heaven, earth, sun, moon, stars, water, plants, animals, humans etc. Civilizations worshiped the "god" of the earth, god of the sun, god of the etc etc. Judging from these early civilizations, it would be easy to note that they did believe in higher powers and it is entirely possible that through limited understanding and possibly limited face to face interaction, supposed that the world was so great that it was done by the hands of numerous superior beings.

It is also possible that because of this, "God" does reveal himself in all ways. Those who view and "worship" nature, can find joy and consistency in the patterns of a leaf, the way a plants dies but in doing so, fertilizes the ground. The way leaves and flowers come back every spring and the way leaves create oxygen to sustain all other life forms. (I could do more examples if you like but this is going to be a monster post as it is..)

2. I've considered this question A LOT in my faith. At the risk of revealing much of myself.. I was often depressed as a child. Didn't live with my biological parents, had clothes that were 4 to 6 years behind the latest fashion, a limited circle of friends. I was very angry and depressed. I remember my first and only attempt being at 8 years old (I'd had a VERY horrible week) but just because I never attempted again, doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. That easy slip into a depressive state has carried with me into adulthood but here is where I can answer your question now.

I have personally come to the conclusion that I am still alive this day for a reason. God has me here, for better or worse. If it were acceptable for one to kill oneself, there would not be guilt surrounding the thought of suicide, I would think. As for taking yourself into God's kingdom, I don't know the answer to that. There are highly differing answers. My thought would be, you're still alive so obviously you're not meant to be in heaven just yet. So sit tight and wait your turn and do the best you can for others while you're here on earth.

[hummingbug]

Originally Posted by Ranior

The real question comes down to is God evident to all? The simple answer to that one is of course no, as evidenced by the billions of individuals who have just as strong a faith in something else, starting with millions of polytheists and atheists. I for one would be an individual who does not find God to be evident, obvious, apparent, etc.

Hmmm, great question Ranior. Here's my thought on it. (I'm going to use an analogy because that's easiest to describe my point.)

As you look at, let's say an open pasture. There are mountains in the distance, trees to your right and horses on your left, a water troguh right beside you. There's grass on the ground, mud in some places. What is the substance that fills up the rest of this picture? What fills in between the sky, the ground, the mountains, the trees, the other pastures? It's air. Of course, subconsciously, we all know that there is air there but unless we look at the surroundings we may not be "aware" of it. Look to your right, the wind is blowing the trees. You can see ripples forming in the water trough. The horses mane and tail are beginning to blow. The grass is waving lazily. You can now feel it moving your hair and brushing your cheek. Just before we were looking for ways to notice the wind and now it's clear as day that there's wind.

Some people may never notice the wind. They might be staring at the mountains which, from that distance do not appear to be affected by the wind. However, it doesn't mean it's not there. I think the reason that God is not evident to so many people is that so many people either do not wish to see God or think that they'll find him in the mountains when he's really right there in the water trough. That's my supposition anyway. (I hope that made sense..)

[Ranior]

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by Aldin

Let's start with a few pages back. There were two key quotes:

And what framework are you using for interpreting the "evidence for the same laws being observed in the distant past"? What assumptions are you making in approaching the data? There is no such thing as self-interpreting data.

Here's my take on this position: "Everything we've done in operational science over the past 200 years shows unchanging, universal laws. Therefore, there are unchanging universal laws. Therefore, I can use those laws to examine evidence to try to learn about the past."

The problem is that it creates a blind spot - the assumption when looking at the past that everything in the past was subject to unchanging universal laws. See how that crept in? Since we cannot observe the past, but only evidence in the present, we make assumptions. Uniformitariamism is one of those.

Okay, very interesting. Just did a bit more reasearch on the matter, and better understand it all now.

You are right of course on this matter, that we do make the assumption that the laws of nature are steady and unchanging throughout our past.

But we have to do so to make any rational sense of our past. We can't try to study our past and make rational sense of it, unless we assume that. If we allow that any of the laws we observe could be different, then quite literally anything would be possible, and we could not hope to be able to study our past. If we desire to spend any time studying our past we must assume that natural laws are unchanging.

And with our pretty extensive knowledge of the past now, I think it is acceptable to say that these laws thus far work out just fine as being unchanging, and we can have a great understanding of our past.

I guess my point is that if anyone wants to actually know the past, they must assume this. That doesn't change that it is an assumption, but I think it rather makes it a necessary and acceptable one, basically this assumption is justified.

Spoiler Alert!

Well... kinda. Supernatural things tend to fail the repeatable part of the process. There's also enough that we don't know that science is more than happy kicking the unknowable to future naturalistic solutions. There are documented cases of folks receiving prayer and getting better - hard to measure the effect of the prayer and doesn't always provide the asked for result in any case so how is science supposed to say "yup, that was supernatural"?

ETA Heh - just had this happen today and it's a great example of why this supernatural stuff is so loosey-goosey. My wife got a flat tire and the lug nuts were on too tight for her to budge. Between one thing and another she'd been at the side of the road for an hour and finally prayedfor God to send her some help. Within a minute, along comes a guy who says his wife saw her struggling and sent him to help her out. So... credit his arrival, with special attention paid to the timing to the God to whom she had just prayed? Or credit it to coincidental timing and a helpful couple?

We certainly have set up quite a few supernatural claims to the scientific test and none thus far have passed.

But you are correct, we can't test all supernatural claims. For the record though we can set up intercessory prayer experiments to see if praying for individuals helps them recover. Thus far no double-blind study has shown any effectiveness. (And the study must be double-blind for it to be scientifically valid, I hope we don't have to discuss that part)

Overall I'll grant science doesn't give much thought to supernatural causes or events. I think there are plenty of good reasons for it, mainly being that there has not as of yet been anything that requires a supernatural explanation. God certainly has the power to disprove that, as would almost any other true supernatural event. As of yet there seems to be no reason to think that there are supernatural events or miracles, or what have you.


As to your wife's experience, first off I'm glad that someone came by to help--I think we can at least all agree that it would be nice of all of us to take the time to help each other when we can.

As to how to interpret it, you can of course do whatever you desire. If she had prayed immediately and waited long enough, someone would eventually have come. Does that mean her prayer was answered? We can't know. Coincidences surely occur. We can't be sure what really happened. I of course would say coincidence. Many others would say prayer answered.

Spoiler Alert!

I think the core difference of the last couple of pages can be found here. The implication is that we get to decide what is fitting to worship. I would claim that a supernatural creator is by definition worthy of worship. When we talk about a "problem" of God allowing people to go to hell who He knows (in His omniscience) do not want to spend eternity with Him - how is that a problem? Since nothing anyone can do without God is good enough and since He provides a way to Him for everyone who wants it (again, omniscience), I think we can safely put the fault for going to hell squarely on our own shoulders for one reason or another.

~Aldin, briefly

[/quote]

Whoah whoah whoah. Of course there are supernatural creators who do not fitting to worship.

Let us take the easiest example, the deistic God. This guy would set up all the natural laws of the universe, set it off in the Big Bang, and then let everything happen as it would thereafter. (Heck, maybe he also caused the first self-replicating molecule in our early years of Earth) After those events, he sits back and does not interfere. He cares not of human affairs, and doesn't answer prayers. He offers up no life after death or heaven or hell.

Why would we worship such a deity? He isn't fitting to worship. I personally have no issues with a deistic God, but that isn't what almost anyone means by a God. When I say I'm an atheist, I really mean that I find the concept of supernatural creator who answers prayers and offers up heave or hell to not be true. I honestly have no idea if there is some form of deistic god, but it certainly doesn't matter to how I live my life or even what I think has happened in the world.

Another example of a god who isn't fitting to worship would be wicked and evil deity. Someone deity who honestly admits to being evil. Supposing for exmple you were to think that the devil actually made the world, but in all other ways ruled hell and had set up the world just to torture individuals and make them suffer--well such a deity wouldn't deserve worship either.

So anyhow when I say God I mean a deity fitting of worship, as in someone who is around and answers prayers, and grants heaven or hell. It's what almost everyone else means as well. Heck it's obviously what you mean since you didn't even think of a God who isn't fitting to worship.



As to the issue of a God giving hell to an individual who wants it, that of course isn't the problem, and that isn't a problem. I think we're trying to talk about how an individual apart from contact with our soceity, who hasn't heard of the bible or the Christian God would ever be able to worship Jesus and accept Jesus as his savior, and so find salvation. The Christian bible certainly makes it seem that a belief in Jesus is absolutely required for salvation. How could a man in the depths of the amazon, with no contact with outside society ever come to accept Jesus as his savior?



Finally though the idea that we ourselves choose to go to Hell, I'm calling foul. Let's start off with the God we are talking about:

--He is all-good, indeed he is literally the embodiment of good, and cannot preform bad actions or lie, etc.

--He is all powerful. he can preform any action and do anything. (Well except for obvious paradox situations, e.g. Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it)

--He is omniscient. He knows all things. He knows everything that has occurred in the past. He knows everything that will occur in the future.

--He created all things. He created us. He created the Earth and the universe. He created and indeed controls everything around us.

--While creating us he knows all the future actions we will take, in response to all the future stimuli he presents us. In making us, he knows what we shall do, and therefore where we shall wind up.

--Therefore, how can we have free will? To us it may seem like we can choose what to do, but God already knows what we are going to do, when we shall do it, etc. He already knows if he is going to save us and send us to heaven or hell.

--Therefore this God has made individuals he knows he is going to send to hell.

--I therefore just followed out what God intended to occur, and so went to hell out of his want and will, not really my own.


(In fact if you have an all powerful omniscient creator, everything that occurs is due to his actions. He is the one who made everything, and he knew what would occur when he made it. He is ultimately responsible therefore for anything that occurs)

[Ranior]

Thanks for the replies hummingbug.

To the number 1:

I just find it to be arrogant to state that they are worshiping your God. How is it that you are not worshiping theirs in a different form? How are you all not worshiping Zeus in a different form, but really meaning to worship him?

I think it is just wrong to tell other cultures that their rich traditions and faiths are really for your God.

Stating that, I do understand why you think that way, and we'll just move on though. Assuming that this is true and they are really meaning to worship your God, is not all worship effectively for your God?

Again, aren't we just widening up the realm of God to be anything, and then of course we shall find him anywhere? I mean if you begin to widen up and state that those who find wonder in the elegance of a leaf, then I have found God. But I certainly have another hypothesis for that, and it isn't really coming to God. I don't look at a leaf and then begin to think how thankful I am that a supernatural deity zapped a virgin to have his son, which became him, who sorta died, to save my sin I inherited from the first man.

Individuals may come to respect the wonder of the world, but it doesn't mean they are finding the Christian God. If you wish to think that way, at least those poor folks who didn't know and can't know about Jesus are saved, but I don't think it really works that way.

As to number 2: Thank you for sharing a very personal matter with me and this community. I shall try to tread carefully, as I understand this might be sensitive in some ways. I'm not trying to offend, but for both of us to understand each other better.

The guilt you talk about may be felt by many, but for a moment assume someone does not feel that way (which surely could be). In this case, why shouldn't he kill himself to take him to heaven faster?

Just to make it very clear I'm not for anyone committing suicide, but if we allow the idea that belief in Jesus alone will save you and give you eternal bliss, then it seems to me we are stating that suicide is fine, not just fine actually, but a good idea. Get into heaven and eternal bliss faster, and enjoy yourself even more.

I guess my point is that I think it should be clear to anyone who is capable of reason to realize that if you think belief alone is enough for salvation, you are fine with suicide. I just come to the conclusion that if there is a god, belief in him alone will not be enough.

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by hummingbug

Hmmm, great question Ranior. Here's my thought on it. (I'm going to use an analogy because that's easiest to describe my point.)

As you look at, let's say an open pasture. There are mountains in the distance, trees to your right and horses on your left, a water troguh right beside you. There's grass on the ground, mud in some places. What is the substance that fills up the rest of this picture? What fills in between the sky, the ground, the mountains, the trees, the other pastures? It's air. Of course, subconsciously, we all know that there is air there but unless we look at the surroundings we may not be "aware" of it. Look to your right, the wind is blowing the trees. You can see ripples forming in the water trough. The horses mane and tail are beginning to blow. The grass is waving lazily. You can now feel it moving your hair and brushing your cheek. Just before we were looking for ways to notice the wind and now it's clear as day that there's wind.

Some people may never notice the wind. They might be staring at the mountains which, from that distance do not appear to be affected by the wind. However, it doesn't mean it's not there. I think the reason that God is not evident to so many people is that so many people either do not wish to see God or think that they'll find him in the mountains when he's really right there in the water trough. That's my supposition anyway. (I hope that made sense..)

I understand the analogy, and it is nice. But it's all too much of what religion does. Analogies are nice but are not perfect. You're basically stating that God should be obvious to all, but too many miss him. But how is it their fault? Why must God hide his existence at all? He certainly has the power to make us all know of his existence, but chooses not to. He in fact has set up a world that makes so much sense without him that I have chosen not to believe in him.

If he was trying to make himself obvious and evident, he has done a terrible job of it.

If instead we are saying that God is evident though, just look around you! The trees, the birds, yourself! All of that is evidence of God's work! As I've said before there are lots of ways to look at it. If we choose to believe in God and then look about us and see everything as evidence for him, then we of course will come even closer to God.

If we don't look for other ways in which God might not be there we shall never find how God doesn't exist. We'll just set ourselves up to always find him.

The example I gave Dysole in private was this one:

Suppose I head out of my house everyday and whistle for a minute. I begin to notice that I never see any lions. I come to the conclusion that my whistling keeps lions away. Everyday I whistle I still never come to see any lions. I hear some others tell me that lions aren't even on this continent, I just come to realize how powerful my whistling is--I'm keeping them all super far away! Some individuals tell me that I should try not whistling and see what happens--but I am too afraid. I know that lions will eat me and my kids. I don't want that horrible fate to befall myself, or my children, or even my neighbors. I can't risk leaving the idea that my whistling keeps lions at bay. If I do, I'll give up a part of who I have come to be, the power I think I have, and the world I have built up in my mind. I don't want to listen to those who tell me I'm wrong, they don't understand me and don't see my powers.

If you always choose to believe in God, and him creating everything, if you always come to believe that you may not be saved if you waver in your faith, if you come to believe that your faith is wrapped up in who you are, you cannot see the other possibility either. By working your life that you see God in everything, and just build up evidence for him, you'll never be able to see the other side, which may hold the truth.

[quozl]

Thanks, Rainor. That's a nice analogy and all but it doesn't match up with reality. Every culture has believed in the supernatural. And yeah, they all believed something different. But it wasn't nearly as different as not believing in anything supernatural at all.

[Neurosion]

Originally Posted by quozl

Thanks, Rainor. That's a nice analogy and all but it doesn't match up with reality. Every culture has believed in the supernatural.

They also didn't know what caused lightning and earthquakes and volcanoes and droughts and tides and plagues. When you don't know any better, supernatural is the only game in town.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by quozl

Thanks, Rainor. That's a nice analogy and all but it doesn't match up with reality. Every culture has believed in the supernatural. And yeah, they all believed something different. But it wasn't nearly as different as not believing in anything supernatural at all.

First off the cultures of many European nations in today's world no longer have a majority of believers in a deity or supernatural events. I'm not sure if that qualifies to you, but there's that.

Next off though, and the far more important one: The number of believers in supernaturalism has nothing to say about the truth value of that claim. Everyone can believe something and be wrong. Almost everyone in the past has believed something that we now know to not be true--such as diseases were the direct cause of a supernatural deity who didn't approve of your actions, and your ability to get healed was based on his whimsy. We now know about germ theory. Almost everyone in the past believed in a flat Earth. Almost everyone in the past believed the Sun to rotate around the Earth.

The number of believers has no bearing on it's truth claim.



I just want to make it clear though that with all the information we now know it is so much more possible to be an athiest. We understand our world far greater. Honestly, Darwin gave humanity what it really needed to be able to accept atheism--a plausible way the complexity of life arrived on Earth. With the appearance of design, it only makes sense that individuals of the past would have all believed that they had to have been designed, and so had to believe in some supernatural creator.

That hypothesis is no longer needed to explain the wonder of our world, and so atheism actually has ground. It could not reasonably arrive before that point. Gods were needed to explain the natural events of the world. We now understand those natural events, and do not need Gods to attribute to them. This has allowed for atheism.

So in conclusion, the fact that most individuals in the past have believed in something supernatural has no bearing on the truth claim of a supernatural creator. It makes complete sense that they did, but it doesn't make a supernatural being anymore likely.

~Ranior who doesn't understand how his analogy doesn't match up with reality


EDIT: Ninja'd by Neuro--in a way far more succinct. I really need to learn brevity.

[Dysole]

Comments in bold.

Originally Posted by Ranior

Finally though the idea that we ourselves choose to go to Hell, I'm calling foul. Let's start off with the God we are talking about:

--He is all-good, indeed he is literally the embodiment of good, and cannot preform bad actions or lie, etc.

--He is all powerful. he can preform any action and do anything. (Well except for obvious paradox situations, e.g. Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it) I would phrase it more as can do whatever he chooses to do.

--He is omniscient. He knows all things. He knows everything that has occurred in the past. He knows everything that will occur in the future. This one is tricky. We're talking about a being outside of time. I think words like future are sort of meaningless in this case. As I understand the best way I can describe it is every moment for God is "now". I still don't like it since it uses a temporal word but that is still the best I understand it. I very well could be wrong.

--He created all things. He created us. He created the Earth and the universe. He created and indeed controls everything around us. Created yes. Controls? I guess in the general sense. From my understanding he doesn't micromanage things.

--While creating us he knows all the future actions we will take, in response to all the future stimuli he presents us. In making us, he knows what we shall do, and therefore where we shall wind up. Well, that's tricky. Again you're thinking temporally. For God there is no "In the future such and such will do this and that" or at least I don't think there is because for him a future action is as meaningless as telling a fish something is dry. There's also the possibility that a future action for all intents and purposes "doesn't exist" until we've done it.

--Therefore, how can we have free will? To us it may seem like we can choose what to do, but God already knows what we are going to do, when we shall do it, etc. He already knows if he is going to save us and send us to heaven or hell. And how is this a paradox? Again, you're thinking in temporal terms. Maybe once we invent time travel we'll have a better idea how this works.

--Therefore this God has made individuals he knows he is going to send to hell. Not definitively as I stated above. And besides a choice needs to be there. Without the choice it's basically meaningless so I guess you have to risk that people will say "No thanks that's not for me." And God will say "OK."

--I therefore just followed out what God intended to occur, and so went to hell out of his want and will, not really my own.


(In fact if you have an all powerful omniscient creator, everything that occurs is due to his actions. He is the one who made everything, and he knew what would occur when he made it. He is ultimately responsible therefore for anything that occurs) How is this different from a parent who tells their child to clean up their room and the child does not. How would this be the parent's responsibility to clean up the room?

Originally Posted by Ranior

Thanks for the replies hummingbug.

To the number 1:

I just find it to be arrogant to state that they are worshiping your God. How is it that you are not worshiping theirs in a different form? How are you all not worshiping Zeus in a different form, but really meaning to worship him?

I think it is just wrong to tell other cultures that their rich traditions and faiths are really for your God.

Stating that, I do understand why you think that way, and we'll just move on though. Assuming that this is true and they are really meaning to worship your God, is not all worship effectively for your God?

There's a story in Acts where Paul comes across an altar devoted to AN UNKNOWN GOD (just in case they were missing anything). Paul then proceeded to say "Hey guys I know this unknown god. Let me tell you about him." Whether this is in the same vein or not difficult to say. I'm not God. God knows what is worship of him and what is not. I mean think about it. We as humans tend to worship something. It doesn't have to be a deity. (I will note that I am using the term worship to mean a near religious devotion to a particular something) We worship celebrities, holy people, technology, science, friends, family. Is it bad? No. But we as humans tend to gravitate toward something like that. The Christian narrative would say that is because there is something within in us aching for that connection with a Creator.


The example I gave Dysole in private was this one:

Suppose I head out of my house everyday and whistle for a minute. I begin to notice that I never see any lions. I come to the conclusion that my whistling keeps lions away. Everyday I whistle I still never come to see any lions. I hear some others tell me that lions aren't even on this continent, I just come to realize how powerful my whistling is--I'm keeping them all super far away! Some individuals tell me that I should try not whistling and see what happens--but I am too afraid. I know that lions will eat me and my kids. I don't want that horrible fate to befall myself, or my children, or even my neighbors. I can't risk leaving the idea that my whistling keeps lions at bay. If I do, I'll give up a part of who I have come to be, the power I think I have, and the world I have built up in my mind. I don't want to listen to those who tell me I'm wrong, they don't understand me and don't see my powers.

If you always choose to believe in God, and him creating everything, if you always come to believe that you may not be saved if you waver in your faith, if you come to believe that your faith is wrapped up in who you are, you cannot see the other possibility either. By working your life that you see God in everything, and just build up evidence for him, you'll never be able to see the other side, which may hold the truth.

The difference there is that I've seen the sticky stuff of when I'm not "whistling to keep out lions" and guess what happens. Those lions come out and beat me to a bloody pulp...so...basically there's that. The rest I'd love to chat more about but I don't feel like writing a book.

Please note that much of this was written in a hurry and so I may have left something unsaid or the like and it may read as a garbled mess.

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by Dysole

Comments in bold.

--He is all powerful. he can preform any action and do anything. (Well except for obvious paradox situations, e.g. Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it) I would phrase it more as can do whatever he chooses to do.

Alright sure. He is all powerful. He can do whatever he chooses to do. It's all the same unless I am missing something here.

--He is omniscient. He knows all things. He knows everything that has occurred in the past. He knows everything that will occur in the future. This one is tricky. We're talking about a being outside of time. I think words like future are sort of meaningless in this case. As I understand the best way I can describe it is every moment for God is "now". I still don't like it since it uses a temporal word but that is still the best I understand it. I very well could be wrong.

Fair enough, sorry. He knows everything. To us that means he knows what will occur in the future. From his point of view he just knows. Still doesn't change the fact that he knows everything that can be known.

--He created all things. He created us. He created the Earth and the universe. He created and indeed controls everything around us. Created yes. Controls? I guess in the general sense. From my understanding he doesn't micromanage things.

I think you are missing something of my argument at this point. It doesn't matter if he doesn't micromanage. I agree he doesn't often intervene or change things.

But he started literally everything. He knew exactly what he was creating and how it would play out. Anything that happens, happens because he made it so. He may have made it so a long time ago (again in our perspective), but he still made it happen. Being an all powerful being with omniscience, anything that does occur happens because he allows to and chooses not to change it to something else. Ultimately he does allow anything to happen.

--While creating us he knows all the future actions we will take, in response to all the future stimuli he presents us. In making us, he knows what we shall do, and therefore where we shall wind up. Well, that's tricky. Again you're thinking temporally. For God there is no "In the future such and such will do this and that" or at least I don't think there is because for him a future action is as meaningless as telling a fish something is dry. There's also the possibility that a future action for all intents and purposes "doesn't exist" until we've done it.

So you're telling me I can't think in terms of the future, and then you go ahead and use it? Again, I'm allowed to talk from my point of view. If God is omniscient, he knows what is. From my point of view that means he knows what is going to happen in the future. To him he just knows. He understands his creation, and knows everything about it.

As for the idea that God might not know something until we do it, you are getting in very sticky areas then. If God cannot know certain things, how can we trust his testimony that he knows what is best for us and has given us a proper moral code? How can we reconcile him telling us he cannot lie and is omniscient, if he cannot know something?

And how is this a paradox? Again, you're thinking in temporal terms. Maybe once we invent time travel we'll have a better idea how this works.

Again, I'm allowed to think in temporal terms in this case. Even if God is above time, he still knows everything. How does it matter that he is outside of time in this case?

He created the world and understands and knows everything in it and about it. He knows my own future, and he made me. He has made everything happen around me and about me. He ultimately knows what I will choose and do. He is in control of all of that. There is a serious logical problem with any supernatural being who is omniscient, omnipotent, all good, and that we have free will.

--Therefore this God has made individuals he knows he is going to send to hell. Not definitively as I stated above. And besides a choice needs to be there. Without the choice it's basically meaningless so I guess you have to risk that people will say "No thanks that's not for me." And God will say "OK."

You still don't quite understand. Theological fatalism is what this scenario is referred to. A pretty simple wiki entry can be found here It does a better job than I am probably, but I assure you this is a logical problem for the Christian deity.

Heck, the very idea of omniscience and omnipotence is a logical problem, but I've been just working on this one with everyone since I think it is easier to follow and understand.

(In fact if you have an all powerful omniscient creator, everything that occurs is due to his actions. He is the one who made everything, and he knew what would occur when he made it. He is ultimately responsible therefore for anything that occurs) How is this different from a parent who tells their child to clean up their room and the child does not. How would this be the parent's responsibility to clean up the room?

You of course can figure this one out yourself surely? I know you're a smarter guy than to honestly not be able to figure out the flaw in your example. I'll put it in a spoiler anyhow for you, but just try to figure it out for yourself first.

Spoiler Alert!

There is a very big difference between a parent telling their child and God telling humans. See the parent doesn't know everything, and didn't make the kid (well on some level yes, but not at all on the same plane as God). When God made let's say Eve, he was fully responsible for bringing her into the world. He put in place everything that made Eve tick. God would know how she would respond to any scenario and situation, and made her the way he did. So when he tells Eve to not eat from the tree, he already knows that Eve will disobey and wind up eating from the tree. Eve has no free will, she was made as she was by a being who knew how she would be and react.

(Then again the whole Adam and Eve thing directly disagrees with genetics as well anyhow, as does the flood narrative. There is no way we got the genetic variance we observe today from only two individuals, unless the mutation rate was effectively impossibly high)

[hummingbug]

Spoiler Alert!

Originally Posted by Ranior

Thanks for the replies hummingbug.

To the number 1:

I just find it to be arrogant to state that they are worshiping your God. How is it that you are not worshiping theirs in a different form? How are you all not worshiping Zeus in a different form, but really meaning to worship him?

I think it is just wrong to tell other cultures that their rich traditions and faiths are really for your God.

Stating that, I do understand why you think that way, and we'll just move on though. Assuming that this is true and they are really meaning to worship your God, is not all worship effectively for your God?

Again, aren't we just widening up the realm of God to be anything, and then of course we shall find him anywhere? I mean if you begin to widen up and state that those who find wonder in the elegance of a leaf, then I have found God. But I certainly have another hypothesis for that, and it isn't really coming to God. I don't look at a leaf and then begin to think how thankful I am that a supernatural deity zapped a virgin to have his son, which became him, who sorta died, to save my sin I inherited from the first man.

Individuals may come to respect the wonder of the world, but it doesn't mean they are finding the Christian God. If you wish to think that way, at least those poor folks who didn't know and can't know about Jesus are saved, but I don't think it really works that way.

As to number 2: Thank you for sharing a very personal matter with me and this community. I shall try to tread carefully, as I understand this might be sensitive in some ways. I'm not trying to offend, but for both of us to understand each other better.

The guilt you talk about may be felt by many, but for a moment assume someone does not feel that way (which surely could be). In this case, why shouldn't he kill himself to take him to heaven faster?

Just to make it very clear I'm not for anyone committing suicide, but if we allow the idea that belief in Jesus alone will save you and give you eternal bliss, then it seems to me we are stating that suicide is fine, not just fine actually, but a good idea. Get into heaven and eternal bliss faster, and enjoy yourself even more.

I guess my point is that I think it should be clear to anyone who is capable of reason to realize that if you think belief alone is enough for salvation, you are fine with suicide. I just come to the conclusion that if there is a god, belief in him alone will not be enough.

Spoiler Alert!

I understand the analogy, and it is nice. But it's all too much of what religion does. Analogies are nice but are not perfect. You're basically stating that God should be obvious to all, but too many miss him. But how is it their fault? Why must God hide his existence at all? He certainly has the power to make us all know of his existence, but chooses not to. He in fact has set up a world that makes so much sense without him that I have chosen not to believe in him.

If he was trying to make himself obvious and evident, he has done a terrible job of it.

If instead we are saying that God is evident though, just look around you! The trees, the birds, yourself! All of that is evidence of God's work! As I've said before there are lots of ways to look at it. If we choose to believe in God and then look about us and see everything as evidence for him, then we of course will come even closer to God.

If we don't look for other ways in which God might not be there we shall never find how God doesn't exist. We'll just set ourselves up to always find him.

The example I gave Dysole in private was this one:

Suppose I head out of my house everyday and whistle for a minute. I begin to notice that I never see any lions. I come to the conclusion that my whistling keeps lions away. Everyday I whistle I still never come to see any lions. I hear some others tell me that lions aren't even on this continent, I just come to realize how powerful my whistling is--I'm keeping them all super far away! Some individuals tell me that I should try not whistling and see what happens--but I am too afraid. I know that lions will eat me and my kids. I don't want that horrible fate to befall myself, or my children, or even my neighbors. I can't risk leaving the idea that my whistling keeps lions at bay. If I do, I'll give up a part of who I have come to be, the power I think I have, and the world I have built up in my mind. I don't want to listen to those who tell me I'm wrong, they don't understand me and don't see my powers.

If you always choose to believe in God, and him creating everything, if you always come to believe that you may not be saved if you waver in your faith, if you come to believe that your faith is wrapped up in who you are, you cannot see the other possibility either. By working your life that you see God in everything, and just build up evidence for him, you'll never be able to see the other side, which may hold the truth.

Where I am coming from with this statement is the notion that there is solely one God. He's possibly as much my God as he was theirs. There are many parallels in deities to suggest that there is a single God but that cultures, governments etc, have simply molded what was to serve their purpose. Don't misunderstand me here though. That does not mean that "God" is subject to a human, God would be constant, but our interpretation/need of him is subject to change because we humans are not constant other than we live and die.

Yes.

No offense is taken btw. But not at all. A person shouldn't speed up their time here. I would argue that if someone worshiped God, that they would worship the qualities of him as well. He created life and so, the way that I view it, to end your own life is to reject that part of God's qualities and you can't really serve something only 1/2 way. Ergo, suicide could not be a viable option...(in my opinion) *To be clear, I have not worked through every bit of euthanasia so if that were to be your next step in your thought process, I will have no answer for you.

The air doesn't hide...It's always there. I'm arguing that God doesn't hide but that people see/hear what they want to see/hear. (I was going to reference here Chapter 13 of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle but it's definitely too long. Maybe you would like to look it up though?)

I suppose you're meaning to equivocate superstition and faith? There is a difference to me but I have met people who see no difference.

I did see the "other side of things", it was as if nothing really mattered because nothing had value. Who cared if you loved someone, you just die and you're no more. Who cared if you made a difference now, there'll be someone who will eventually come erase that. Who cared if you lived, you died too, such is life. Without something greater than ourselves, nothing including philanthropy, love, goodness, kindness etc, has any value. Those qualities are a fruitless journey and serve no purpose but to sustain a meaningless life.

[Dysole]

I'm not going to bother with quotes since I think a point by point rebuttal is not really what we're looking at here. The heart of the matter seems to be one of "Do I have free will if an all knowing being can predict everything I can do?"

I have heard of a science experiment (I can not recall and don't feel like looking up at the moment) whereby they were able to plug electrodes up to people's brains and predict perfectly what they were going to do. Does this mean we literally don't have free will since a machine can predict what we are going to do? It certainly seems like I have free will but since a machine can predict it does that mean I don't have a choice? (Again don't know the details of the experiment but mainly just curious as a thought experiment)

Anyway back from the rabbit trail. There is a hidden implied assumption. The knowledge of an event influences its outcome. I don't see how this necessarily follows. Anywhatsit get back to me on that and when I have more time and such I'll type back a reply.

Of course there is again the possibility that God chooses to limit himself in what he "knows". I don't really know. We are talking about a process outside of time while we're still trapped in it.

~Dysole, who needs to be asleep right now