Even though I've (attempted) to ban myself from this forum, I thought I'd try to re fuel this disscussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Oct 9 2003, 05:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Oct 9 2003, 05:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Since we're arguing logically, i hardly see why my beliefs are relevant at all. I have presented the hypothetical situation of an omniscient creator, and argued that in such a situation, free will would not exist. Belief is not an issue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What He can do, and what He chooses to do are two completely separate things.
Why does he not decide to purge evil completely? We are told he will, but not until everyone who will possibly come to repentance does so.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
I'm an atheist myself, but from a religious standpoint i'd say that god did not create good or evil. He merely created the universe set down a vast amount of different races and to the ones who seemed most "comprehensible" he visions or what-have-you which were then compiled into a book detailing on what would be the best way to go about living in a stable constructive pattern that would help everyone around each other live equally and to each others best interest. Our perception of what hes said to do and what not to do have created the "good" and the "evil". Now you may ask why wouldn't he just program us to do so, some other statement about human nature etc. Well thats why i'm an atheist.
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Oct 10 2003, 02:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Oct 10 2003, 02:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Even though I've (attempted) to ban myself from this forum, I thought I'd try to re fuel this disscussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--Nietzsche <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nietzsche, however, had something real to offer mankind - pure hopelessness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To that I have to say - BS! Studying the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is in no way excluded as sinful. Big on criticism - short on the proof.
Here is what I believe to be the summing up and the consumation of this thread. To claim that God has contradicted his nature (i.e to be pure and blameless) by allowing sin is actually a claim to omniscence. It is entirely possible that God is not morally culpable in allowing preventable evil if he has a morally sufficient reason. The only answer to that statement is this - he doesnt have a morally sufficient reason. To claim that, you are claiming that which is God's alone - omniscence, or to be all knowing. I know everything, and from that position I criticise God on allowing evil.
No one here has the minerals to claim that God is allowing evil without a decent reason. Thus, the only avenue left for skeptics is to claim that we cant know for sure if he does have a good reason. And you're completely right, we dont know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that the existance of evil and a pure good God simultaneously does NOT prove a contradiction. Now does anyone care to disagree with what I have said above?
Because if what I said above is true, then the victory defaults to the theists. Once again their logic and their faith can peacefully coexist, and they see it as a victory. To the atheists, this may just be a moot point, but this cannot be used as a waterproof example of the folly of theism.
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Oct 9 2003, 05:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Oct 9 2003, 05:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I have said it before, and i will say it again. You have a choice. It was a consious decision on your part to post that reply, it was a consious decision on my part to post this reply. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if i were created by an all powerful, infallible deity who has complete knowledge over everything that will ever occur, my choices in respect to posting were:
Doing exactly what deityX knows i will do
OR
Doing exactly what deityX knows i will do
If you can call that choice, good for you. Realise that in order for omniscience to be possible, every single element in the universe right down to your pattern of thought has to be reducable to predicatable rules. Meaning right from the moment of creation, everything that occurs right down to what you are thinking right now was fated to occur. And by repeating the same exact creation an unlimited number of times, we would still arrive at this same point, arguing over free will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You dont believe in God do you? He has no control over you whatsoever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since we're arguing logically, i hardly see why my beliefs are relevant at all. I have presented the hypothetical situation of an omniscient creator, and argued that in such a situation, free will would not exist. Belief is not an issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why must every single element be reduced to a set of predictable rules though? I think you are misunderstanding the concept of uniquness of intelligence. AI is hardly mathematically predictable. Sure you can say what it will probably do, but you can in no way assure me that it will act this way 100% of the time.
So by repeating the exact same creation a million times, we WONT always arrive at the same conclusion, it could be different every single time. Its just like watching a movie really. God created the world and has watched the entire "movie" of time. He knows exactly what you are going to do, and exactly when. He doesnt make you do it, he just knows its going to happen.
Comments
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--Nietzsche
What He can do, and what He chooses to do are two completely separate things.
Why does he not decide to purge evil completely? We are told he will, but not until everyone who will possibly come to repentance does so.
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Mind telling me how that relates to my argument in the slightest?
Just a short thought for the thread
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
--Nietzsche <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nietzsche, however, had something real to offer mankind - pure hopelessness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To that I have to say - BS! Studying the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is in no way excluded as sinful. Big on criticism - short on the proof.
Here is what I believe to be the summing up and the consumation of this thread. To claim that God has contradicted his nature (i.e to be pure and blameless) by allowing sin is actually a claim to omniscence. It is entirely possible that God is not morally culpable in allowing preventable evil if he has a morally sufficient reason. The only answer to that statement is this - he doesnt have a morally sufficient reason. To claim that, you are claiming that which is God's alone - omniscence, or to be all knowing. I know everything, and from that position I criticise God on allowing evil.
No one here has the minerals to claim that God is allowing evil without a decent reason. Thus, the only avenue left for skeptics is to claim that we cant know for sure if he does have a good reason. And you're completely right, we dont know for sure. But what we do know for sure is that the existance of evil and a pure good God simultaneously does NOT prove a contradiction. Now does anyone care to disagree with what I have said above?
Because if what I said above is true, then the victory defaults to the theists. Once again their logic and their faith can peacefully coexist, and they see it as a victory. To the atheists, this may just be a moot point, but this cannot be used as a waterproof example of the folly of theism.
I have said it before, and i will say it again.
You have a choice. It was a consious decision on your part to post that reply, it was a consious decision on my part to post this reply.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And if i were created by an all powerful, infallible deity who has complete knowledge over everything that will ever occur, my choices in respect to posting were:
Doing exactly what deityX knows i will do
OR
Doing exactly what deityX knows i will do
If you can call that choice, good for you. Realise that in order for omniscience to be possible, every single element in the universe right down to your pattern of thought has to be reducable to predicatable rules. Meaning right from the moment of creation, everything that occurs right down to what you are thinking right now was fated to occur. And by repeating the same exact creation an unlimited number of times, we would still arrive at this same point, arguing over free will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
You dont believe in God do you? He has no control over you whatsoever.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since we're arguing logically, i hardly see why my beliefs are relevant at all. I have presented the hypothetical situation of an omniscient creator, and argued that in such a situation, free will would not exist. Belief is not an issue. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why must every single element be reduced to a set of predictable rules though? I think you are misunderstanding the concept of uniquness of intelligence. AI is hardly mathematically predictable. Sure you can say what it will probably do, but you can in no way assure me that it will act this way 100% of the time.
So by repeating the exact same creation a million times, we WONT always arrive at the same conclusion, it could be different every single time. Its just like watching a movie really. God created the world and has watched the entire "movie" of time. He knows exactly what you are going to do, and exactly when. He doesnt make you do it, he just knows its going to happen.