Apologetic Offshoot #1

kida · February 2004

Then why are we discussing it?

Duo, I don't know what type of life you live, or what part of the world your feet set about every sunrise and sunset, but I do know that people have it worse and others have it easier. What you are saying is akin to living a fraught lie; I cannot think of myself as a servant to God, or this utopian happiness of yours, without knowing the other truths and possibilities. I know it is really important to be positive, but it is that much harder, when you pray to God everyday for twelve years and get no answer. It is that much harder when you are faced in certain circumstances-financial, physical, family, and etc. In order to understand the top of a cone, you must understand the bottom and the sides.

Back on topic.

Did I have a choice in being made? Was it me who decided that I would be born? Obviously not. Of course this type of choice differs from what many of you define as "freedom of choice." First of all, God created us for what reason? If you read the bible and I don't know exactly what passages I relate this from, God created us so that we could glorify him. To me, this sounds kind of selfish. Yes, lets make a race of humans, have two thirds suffer in third world countries, a third living luxuries in North America...Of course God would know that Adam and eve would sin and that satan, who was the serpent would tempt them. Isn't it obvious that this is part of his grand purpose? So if it is and if God promises enthralling love, why haven't I been show in it? Why haven't I felt the wonders of God's love, while the few select-spiritually responsive, faithful, prophets, and predestind great people of the bible (old and new) felt that wonderful sensation that God was truly with them, whislt I have not? There are others who would feel the same, others who die horrible deaths, and get no answers. I really hope God doesn't send them to hell (another discussion). Anyways, I just feel this way...

Cronos · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 24 2004, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I would consider attempting to rise above our current fatally flawed status to becoming equal creators with God arrogance in the extreme. We cant even save ourselves from ourselves, and we need God to lift us out of our mess. I would certainly agree with asking God to help us, and asking God to make us better people, but attempting in our own strength to become equal creators to God is not only destined to failure, but probably a fair amount of Divine Wrath.

We are completely 100% ignorant as to the real reason God created us. When he wants us to know, he'll let us know. As far as I know now, I am supposed to worship him, depend upon him and follow his rules. There is absolutely no way I'm going to wander off on my own trying to elevate myself to anything near his level. If I'm going up in this world - its because he is lifting.

I cant see that man is bettering himself. Thousands of years of developement and we still have basic human evil everywhere. According to God, it is this evil that condemns us, and its an evil we cant shake on our own.

Cronos, you give me the impression that you think God hasnt really made it clear what he wants his people to do. The God I worship has made it all too abundantly clear......  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Boggle, you assume that I mean this apotheosis would take place within a generation.

Not so. It would take thousands, if not millions of years. Yeah, I'm thinking of a timescale as long and as wide as the entire universe itself.

Also, did I ever mention that we could do this apotheosis without god? No! If anything we have to come to a closer relationship with the creator then ever before if we are EVER to elevate ourselves beyond our state. If we are ever to put on divinity then it shall only be through god and with god that we shall EVER do it.

If, however, there is no god, then there is nothing to inhibit us and no reason not to ascend.

Another thing, you mention that we are ignorant about the reason for gods creating us. This is true. But your follow on statement, is not entirely the case. What if god intended for us to find out using our grey matter? You cannot disprove me in this context. He may have intended to drop the answer on the front porch of a person named Jonathan Calwell who lives in somewhere in spain (who incidentally, I have made up for the purpose of this post) or he may have intended to make a large show of it on world wide TV saying "I made man because <Insert Reason>". He may also have intended for us to figure the damn thing out ourselves, unless he happens to step into the thread and say otherwise I see no point in ceasing any conjecture as to The Reason.

Man is always bettering himself. A hundred thousand years ago a man would never die for a principle. Now we have wars over principles. As ghastly as it is it's progress. It's mind numbingly slow. In the distant future we will get past our wars and petty squabbles, learn to live amongst each other. Provided we dont destroy ourselves, then man is ALWAYS on the path to betterment. I'm a cynic and I think that. I see bad things everywhere, but when I try to imagine the length and breadth of time, I can only see one way that man is going, and that is up, forward and along the path of betterment.

I am not a man of faith. I lost my faith a long long time ago. I lost it because of my cynicism. I switch between agnostic and atheistic.

Now armed with that information, one may question why I am even participating in this thread.

2 Reasons.

I have learned, over the years, that blind faith blinds absolutely. I have also learned, quite recently, that it is the mark of an intelligent man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

What then is the point of this divergence? I dont have blind faith. I dont swallow everything that is in the bible as gospel just as surely as I dont swallow every scientific paper as absolutely correct. I question and I think. If it is against god to think and question then perhaps he is not the god to follow. If you find that insulting or in any way sinful, dont worry. I do not follow the christian/catholic faith. I have my doors open.

If man is here because some deity willed it for some frivolous reason or no reason at all, then what is the point in living?

Our purpose cannot be to merely praise and worship god. God, by definition, is beyond praise and beyond worship. He dosent need it. If he wants it, then what for?

We are here to speculate of the Reason for mans creation. I urge you to at the very least entertain (but not necessarily accept) a line of speculation of this reason instead of resorting to dogma. Please. (Note: I asked, I did not order. Whether you wish to take into account this question or not is your choice).

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, lets make a race of humans, have two thirds suffer in third world countries, a third living luxuries in North America</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

there we go again, blaming God

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Of course God would know that Adam and eve would sin and that satan, who was the serpent would tempt them. Isn't it obvious that this is part of his grand purpose? So if it is and if God promises enthralling love, why haven't I been show in it? Why haven't I felt the wonders of God's love, ...?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why? Because you have decided, for whatever reason not to. You cannot blame God for your own choices. If you decided right now to want to feel "the wonders of God's love" you will. If you decide in 20 years to you will. If, in 40 years, you decide not to, you won't. Every second that passes when you choose not to, you won't, but the second you decide to, you will. If you end up living your whole life without making that decision, its not God's fault. He gave you the whole of your life to make one decision, and you didn't. If I tell you to turn left or else you will fall of a cliff, and you ignore me, how is that my fault?

More importantly, going back to God's omniscience, if I knew that whatever i tried, you would still ignore me and go over that cliff, <b>yet I keep trying to tell you</b>, how much does that show that I care about you? Even though I know that you will ignore my every time, yet I love you enough to keep telling you, hoping against hope that you will turn left (even though I know you won't). God's salvation isn't open to a select few he has chosen, it is open to everyone. Yes, he know that there will be people who will ignore him completely, some will follow and then turn away, yet he offers his salvation to them all the same. I don't want to humanise God, but it is like he is offering his salvation to everyone in the vain hope that they will all accept. A less than perfect God would just offer his salvation to those who he know would accept. What's the point in wasting his time with the other people? they are just going to ignore him anyway. God is not like that though. He offers his salvation to everyone, knowing that his time will be wasted on some people, and he will be fully rewarded with others.

You cannot blame God for his omnisience sending you to hell. He has offered the way, he has opened the door, all you need to do is to step through.

@Cronos:

While I can understand where you are coming from, I fell you could have worded your argument in a less flamey way. What you are basically saying is that every single one of the religous people in the whole world is stupid (or unintelligent) and blind.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>blind faith blinds absolutely... it is the mark of an intelligent man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There are many <b>many</b> time I have thought about my faith. There are many time I have thought I have been wrong, yet I keep coming back to the same conclusion. Does that make me blind?

Because I thought about something, then decided that was what I wanted to do, does that make me stupid?

People think about thier faith all the time. Just because a person happens to believe in a deity of some sort doesn't make them sub-human. Just because you are an agnostic, doesn't make you any better that us becasue you keep an 'open' mind about things.

Cronos · February 2004

I tried to think of things to clarify/backup my points and rebut yours yet the more I thought the more... unsatisfactory... my replies wound up sounding in my head.

Therefore, since I cannot form a clear argument at this time, I will withdraw from Discussions for a week or two, or until my head clears.

If anyone feels my previous post a bit too toasty, kindly disregard it. My thoughts are... erratic...

Grendel · February 2004

Anyone contributing to this thread should really read "Preacher".

'Nuff said.

tbZBeAst · February 2004

I return to the trouble I'm having with this one. If you accept that God had a REASON to create man, how to analyze the motivations of an omnipotent omnipresent being?
By applying human motivations (as has been done previously in the thread) you end up with a cruel needy God. You can of course dismiss this entirely by saying "mankind cannot understand the motivations of God" which is fine, but doesn't help us understand, and is therefore redundant in the context of the thread. You can also argue that man is in the flawed painful world due to its own failure to resist temptation and again this neatly absolves God of any responsibilty, and since the fall is set in the distant past, its of little help.

- A thought occurs, by placing the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden, God is providing man the instrument for his own exile. I find myself asking why. Why even allow the possibility by creating flawed beings and then handing them the instrument of their own demise? So they can show their love and obediance by not eating the fruit? Possibly. Jumping through hoops for a being that should know better? Certainly. Again (assigning God human characteristics) I see an act of cruelty.

I'll accept that theoretically God doesn't need prayer and worship for itself. I can't accept that the Church doesn't teach that God, forgiving and LOVING the repenter, is best served by living a hedonistic debauched life, then repenting on your deathbed. Everyone ends up happy, why not do it that way round?

Generally, if you ask secularists why God created man, its unhelpful to then tell them they can't understand a supreme being's motivations, and that judging it by human standards is flawed, since those ARE the standards they judge by.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

God created man because he wanted a two way relationship, loving and being loved in return. In order for this relationship to happen, God had to give these humans the choice to love him or not (how much more fulfilling is the relationship between a husband and wife, than a loner and an inflatable sex toy?). For the humans to have the choce to love God, they also had to have the choice to not love him. For every choice to obey him, they had to be the opportunity to disobey him, or else it is not a choice. What if God could create a being that always chose to love him? Those are called angels, and he has plenty of them already. They always do what God wants, they never sin, and they always worship him. God loves humans more than angels because we choose to worship him, it is not an inherent part of our being. Humans chose not to obey God, and we are in the mess we are in now.

tbZBeAst · February 2004

Accepting that, though still leaves me asking: If its a free choice, why do I get tortured for all eternity for NOT loving God? Loving and two way, or brutalising and abusive?

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

If you chose to ignore me when I am turing left, why do yo have to suffer dyig when you fall off the cliff?

Its a direct consequence of your actions: turn left, live, go straight on, die. believe in God, go to heaven, dont believe in God, go to hell. One thing leads to another.

(edit: if you are not loving God, you are not fulfilling your place in creation, and are therefore worthless. Anything that is worthless gets chucked onto the eternally burning rubbish heap)

tbZBeAst · February 2004

Nice, but for the fact that God is the one placing the cliff. Its not love, but a naked need for self preservation choosing not to hurl yourself to your doom. (and it works that way with your immortal soul if you believe in it).

You'd be happier with:

I advise you to obey me or I'll hurt you forever , presumably

IS that a choice? Really?

TenSix · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>BeAst,Feb 25 2004, 11:25 AM] Nice, but for the fact that God is the one placing the cliff. Its not love, but a naked need for self preservation choosing not to hurl yourself to your doom. (and it works that way with your immortal soul if you believe in it).

You'd be happier with:

I advise you to obey me or I'll hurt you forever , presumably

IS that a choice? Really? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Whos to say this the universe isnt more of a giant sandbox, with God merely manipulating events and occurances in order for his plan to come to frutition. God very well may be responsible for your troubles, but is it not a possibility that there is a positive side to your hardships? I for one can say that many of the worst times in my life have actually, in retrospect, been the ones from which I learned the most.

I don't blame God though, because much of my pain and suffering has been caused by other <b>humans</b>, and if we all have free will, then how can the negative actions of another person be blamed on God?

In fact if you wish, you can extrapolate the above to almost every facet of pain and suffering that humanity has experienced. From slavery to Hitler, the darkest moments for mankind have always been caused by those with a greed for power and control, by human hands. However, if you look back at how those darkest times ended, its always through some odd event, something that couldn't have been forseen, a miracle in many senses of the word.

In conclusion, I think we cause our own pain and suffering, either as mankind or individuals. I also now think God dosen't hurt us for any malicious reason at all, but rather because sometimes its for a good reason, maybe for a bigger plan.

<b>1000TH POST <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /></b>

coil · February 2004

Keep in mind that not every religion believes in the dark-ages, Divine Comedy, fire-and-brimstone version of hell. A broader, simpler definition of hell is "spending eternity without God." That is the punishment. It's not so much "behave and you get a reward; misbehave and you get a punisment" -- it's more accurately "behave and you get a reward; misbehave and you don't."

That's at least what some religious groups believe. Some groups don't even believe in a hell.

Hawkeye · February 2004

God created everything.

In this manner, he so created evil. Remember there was absolutely nothing before him.

If you argue that we created the evil, well he created us and he knew we'd create evil, so God is still at fault.
If you argue that the devil did it, well he created the devil and he knew he'd create evil, so God is still at fault.
If you argue that in order to give humans free will, he had to allow for humans to do evil things to each other, then you're basically saying God isn't all-powerful and can't do everything.
If you argue that there is no God, that is about the only argument which does not have a counterpoint since we cannot prove that there is no God.

Did I leave out any cases? Evil and God are polar opposites. You can't explain one without the other. They can't both exist at the same time. The only way to explain evil is to remove God. I won't go into what this might imply.

TenSix · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Feb 25 2004, 01:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Keep in mind that not every religion believes in the dark-ages, Divine Comedy, fire-and-brimstone version of hell. A broader, simpler definition of hell is "spending eternity without God." That is the punishment. It's not so much "behave and you get a reward; misbehave and you get a punisment" -- it's more accurately "behave and you get a reward; misbehave and you don't."

That's at least what some religious groups believe. Some groups don't even believe in a hell.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I was watching that Ancient Evidence show on Discovery awhile ago, they brought up an interesting point that it dosen't actually say in the Bible anything about torture and suffering in Hell. So it very well may be that Hell is more of a place absent from God, sort of like being outside the city limits of Heaven.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 25 2004, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you argue that in order to give humans free will, he had to allow for humans to do evil things to each other, then you're basically saying God isn't all-powerful and can't do everything.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
All-powerful, or, to use the correct omnipotent, <b>does not mean that he can do everything</b>. This seems to be a common mis-understanding. The old question: could God make a rock so heavy that he would not be albe to lift it, the answer is no. Not because he is not omnipotent, but becasue he cannot go agaianst his own nature. He cannot sin, for example, he cannot break the laws of physics. He cannot break any rules that he laid down for himself. By caling himself holy, he made sure that he couldn't sin. One of the fundamental laws of the universe is that you cannot have a choice with only one option, it is not a choice. Therefore, God had to make 2 choices for humans to have real, rewarding choice.

I am saying that God cannot do everything, not because he is not omnipotent, but because it goes against his nature.

Wheeee · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 25 2004, 04:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 25 2004, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> If you argue that in order to give humans free will, he had to allow for humans to do evil things to each other, then you're basically saying God isn't all-powerful and can't do everything.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
All-powerful, or, to use the correct omnipotent, <b>does not mean that he can do everything</b>. This seems to be a common mis-understanding. The old question: could God make a rock so heavy that he would not be albe to lift it, the answer is no. Not because he is not omnipotent, but becasue he cannot go agaianst his own nature. He cannot sin, for example, he cannot break the laws of physics. He cannot break any rules that he laid down for himself. By caling himself holy, he made sure that he couldn't sin. One of the fundamental laws of the universe is that you cannot have a choice with only one option, it is not a choice. Therefore, God had to make 2 choices for humans to have real, rewarding choice.

I am saying that God cannot do everything, not because he is not omnipotent, but because it goes against his nature. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I would dispute your claim that he "cannot" do these things, or at least your reasoning behind them. He is holy, in part, not because He "follows His own rules", but rather because He is accountable to no one. So technically He could do anything He wanted to (hence being omnipotent), but He probably won't due to His nature. As for the "rock too heavy to lift" argument, of course He could make a rock too heavy to lift. Since "lifting" is judged in reference to some massive object (the one which provides the gravitational force of weight), all He would have to do is create an object more massive/larger than whatever you're using as a reference. Then He'd actually be lifting the reference object, instead of the "heavy rock" <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 26 2004, 03:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I would dispute your claim that he "cannot" do these things, or at least your reasoning behind them. He is holy, in part, not because He "follows His own rules", but rather because He is accountable to no one.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
He is not accountable to anyone, but that doesn't make him holy. I dont know if you ever played Black and White, a computer game where you are a god to a tribe of people. You can send them rain or burn thier houses to the ground, you are accountable to no one, but does that make you holy?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So technically He could do anything He wanted to (hence being omnipotent), but He probably won't due to His nature.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, God can do anything he wants, yet he doesn't do everything, not because his nature restricts him from doing anything, but, because of his nature, he doesn't want to do those things. He could sin if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to sin, his nature is such that he will never want to sin.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for the "rock too heavy to lift" argument, of course He could make a rock too heavy to lift. Since "lifting" is judged in reference to some massive object (the one which provides the gravitational force of weight), all He would have to do is create an object more massive/larger than whatever you're using as a reference. Then He'd actually be lifting the reference object, instead of the "heavy rock" <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

As for your explanation of the heavy rock, I am not even going to go there, because I will just get annoyed.

Hawkeye · February 2004

You can't honestly say that free will has anything to do with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. It isn't that you can say that a guy chose to pick up an apple, and consequentially, 100s years later, there was a great hurricane that God had nothing to do with.

Nonono.. you're going to have to find a better reason to explain natural phenomenon.

As for the all-powerful thing. Let me read you the definition.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>all-powerful adj : having unlimited power </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I notice that the definition does not limit the potency at all. So yes, as inconceivable as it sounds, he could lift an unliftable rock. He could create a 4-sided triangle. He defined the rules of the universe, so he could just as easily break them, according to the definition of all-powerful.

So riddle me this.. if you don't think he's all-powerful, then what limitations does God have?

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 26 2004, 04:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> You can't honestly say that free will has anything to do with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc. It isn't that you can say that a guy chose to pick up an apple, and consequentially, 100s years later, there was a great hurricane that God had nothing to do with.

Nonono.. you're going to have to find a better reason to explain natural phenomenon.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Since we are talking about the Judaeo-Christian God, I honestly can and will.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
As for the all-powerful thing. Let me read you the definition.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>all-powerful adj : having unlimited power </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I notice that the definition does not limit the potency at all. So yes, as inconceivable as it sounds, he could lift an unliftable rock. He could create a 4-sided triangle. He defined the rules of the universe, so he could just as easily break them, according to the definition of all-powerful.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Having unlimited power does not mean you can do everything, as I said before, atleast once. A ruler of a country may have unlimited power over that country, but he cannot survive in space outside of a spaceship. On the same idea, God has unlimited power over his creation, but he cannot make a 4 sided triangle, as that would be called a square and wouldnt be a triangle. A 4 sided triangle does not and cannot exist, as it breaks the laws of logic, and not even God can do that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So riddle me this.. if you don't think he's all-powerful, then what limitations does God have?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think the basics of what God is limited to is what you can imagine. You cannot imagine a 4 sided triangle, and God cannot create one (I am not saying that God is limited by your imagination).

Hawkeye · February 2004

screw-up

Wheeee · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 26 2004, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Having unlimited power does not mean you can do everything, as I said before, atleast once. A ruler of a country may have unlimited power over that country, but he cannot survive in space outside of a spaceship. On the same idea, God has unlimited power over his creation, but he cannot make a 4 sided triangle, as that would be called a square and wouldnt be a triangle. A 4 sided triangle does not and cannot exist, as it breaks the laws of logic, and not even God can do that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
So riddle me this.. if you don't think he's all-powerful, then what limitations does God have?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think the basics of what God is limited to is what you can imagine. You cannot imagine a 4 sided triangle, and God cannot create one (I am not saying that God is limited by your imagination). </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Put it this way then; what is to say that things are not "logical" because God defined them that way? He could just as easily change the rules and our perceptions so that, indeed, we may think of triangles as 4-sided. I don't think this goes beyond the possibilities of what "omnipotence" can do. And who is to say that God is limited to control over this universe? I do not think He would be accountable to the rules of a universe that He created, whether or not you believe that its rules reflect some basic nature of His.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
He is not accountable to anyone, but that doesn't make him holy. I dont know if you ever played Black and White, a computer game where you are a god to a tribe of people. You can send them rain or burn thier houses to the ground, you are accountable to no one, but does that make you holy?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

This isn't a very good analogy, as you are still held by your own view of morality, and you are still judged by your own conscience. A better analogy would be: You create, by your own willpower, some sand. Then you make a castle out of said sand. For some reason, you give the sand some sort of self-awareness. Then, on a whim, you smash the sandcastle to smithereens. Does this mean you're still holy?
Let's take a look:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'>holy

\Ho"ly\, a. [Compar. Holier; superl. Holiest.] [OE. holi, hali, AS. h[=a]lig, fr. h[ae]l health, salvation, happiness, fr. h[=a]l whole, well; akin to OS. h?lag, D. & G. heilig, OHG. heilac, Dan. hellig, Sw. helig, Icel. heilagr. See Whole, and cf. Halibut, Halidom, Hallow, Hollyhock.] 1. Set apart to the service or worship of God; hallowed; sacred; reserved from profane or common use; holy vessels; a holy priesthood. ``Holy rites and solemn feasts.'' --Milton.

2. Spiritually whole or sound; of unimpaired innocence and virtue; free from sinful affections; pure in heart; godly; pious; irreproachable; guiltless; acceptable to God.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

since definition 2 is the one that we're applying here, let's see. The sand definitely can't comment on your holiness, since you created it. Therefore, to the sand, you are still irreproachable, hence holy.
I need to make a distinction between holy and good here; commonly we use each interchangeably but they're actually very different concepts.
Therefore, while you can be holy, you don't necessarily have to also be good.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, God can do anything he wants, yet he doesn't do everything, not because his nature restricts him from doing anything, but, because of his nature, he doesn't want to do those things. He could sin if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to sin, his nature is such that he will never want to sin.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Did you just contradict yourself there? You said he can't do things, and yet you say that he can but won't...what's the deal?

*edit* also, i think we need to define sin.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'>
sin1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sn)
n.
1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
Theology.
2. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
3. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
4. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Firstly, let's examine these definitions as to whether God can violate them.
Definition 1 probably doesn't apply, because the moral law of God is defined by Him for us, and not the other way around.
Definition 2 doesn't make too much sense, since how would God "disobey" His own will? You may raise the point "A-ha! something God can't do!" But, in truth, that's not quite correct either: If we assume a trinity, then God the Son obeyed God the Father in accepting the cross (he very well could have disobeyed; if you read the prayer of Jesus right before he gets arrested).
As for definition 3, it doesn't make sense either (see definition 2)
Definition 4, we can't judge God because we have no authority over Him.

Basically what I'm saying is that since sin is defined by God, He can't sin not because the actions go against His nature (which implies a higher moral law), but that there is no accountability for Him. In any case He could do whatever He wanted to us, His creations, and still be considered blameless.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>As for your explanation of the heavy rock, I am not even going to go there, because I will just get annoyed.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Aw, cmon, lighten up <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

Hawkeye · February 2004

I agree with Whee.

It seems impossible that a triangle can have 4 sides, but these are the rules God himself defined. He could just as easily have redefined it to be 50 sides. If we lived in a world where a triangle had 50 sides, it would make perfect sense, however we do not, so we cannot understand such a concept.

It's perfectly conceivable that in any other world, adding 1 + 1 gives you 3 and not 2. And subtracting 1 from 3 gives you 1. It boggles my mind, and I cannot see how this is possible, but then our intellect does not come close to understanding God's power.

Edward_r2 · February 2004

I'll take a moment here to plug a book. <i>God's Debris, A Thought Experiment</i> by Scott Adams (the Dilbert guy.) It's highly relevant to this topic. It's also an e-book (is a digital work to be purchased online) and I believe it can be had at amazon for 2USD. Definitely worth the price.

I'll posit, as a thought experiment, the main ideas from it, with a few of my own thoughts mixed in as well.

The god we are referring to here is omnipotent. A lot of the discussion in this topic has revolved around god's motives. If you were an omnipotent god, what would you desire? What would drive you? Love? Hate? The desire for worship or companionship? As an omnipotent being, you have the ability to do literally anything. Create, destroy, gain, lose. <b>Anything.</b> Your whim becomes reality. You are infinite, beyond time, beyond space. Does it make sense to think of god as wanting anything? God would have no emotions, no fears, no desires, no curiosity, no hunger. Those are human shortcomings, not something that would be found in an omnipotent god. What then would motivate him? If god really wanted something like love, he would either already possess an unlimited quantity of it, or if for some reason he did not, he would merely have to exercise his will and would instantly have an infinite amount of love. Clearly, desire could not motivate an omnipotent god, as such a god would have, quite literally, everything he "desired" in infinite amounts, and could create infinitely more of anything with the merest whim. There would be no stimulation or challenge in any activity, creation included, as being omnipotent means that nothing is a challenge; that everything happens at the tiniest behest of your will, instantaneously.

As I believe has been said before, trying to label god with human wants, desires, or feelings is applying the motives of imperfect things (humans) to a perfect being (omnipotent god.) God would not experience any of those things, he is above them, beyond them. It is natural for us to project our own emotions on to god, but god would not experience them, or, if god did experience emotions, they would be so wholly different and beyond ours that it would be impossible for us to comprehend them in the slightest, which from our perspective amounts to god not having emotions at all.

So what motivates god? What would possibly move such an aloof being to act? <i>Something</i> must have motivated god to act, as (going along with the thesis of this topic) we exist, and thusly, god acted.

Consider the following:
What would be the only challenge, the only stimulation for an omnipotent god? God can do anything, instantly, with no effort. The only possible challenge, the only single unanswered question for an omnipotent, all powerful god (rock lifting paradoxes aside) would be this: What happens if I cease to exist?

FilthyLarry · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 26 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It's perfectly conceivable that in any other world, adding 1 + 1 gives you 3 and not 2. And subtracting 1 from 3 gives you 1. It boggles my mind, and I cannot see how this is possible, but then our intellect does not come close to understanding God's power. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I disagree here. What is 1 anyway ? It is an idea, an abstraction that man -not god- invented that has proven useful to our survival on this planet.

Therefore if you say that 1 + 1 = 3 all it means is that 1 now labels a different concept, not that any divine magic has taken place. If you could convince enough people we could change the definition of 1 right now.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Basically what I'm saying is that since sin is defined by God, He can't sin not because the actions go against His nature (which implies a higher moral law), but that there is no accountability for Him. In any case He could do whatever He wanted to us, His creations, and still be considered blameless.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I see your point. If God defined stealing ans right, and giving money th chartities as wrong, then he would not be sinning if he stole stuff but he would be if he did.

But he hasnt. Stealing is bad and giving to charities is good. While discussing the other side of the coin is interesting and may help to back up your points, ultimately, it is a wast of time, because we are stuck on this side of the coin, and discussing the other side would be irrelevent.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Did you just contradict yourself there? You said he can't do things, and yet you say that he can but won't...what's the deal?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>#

Maybe I did word it wrong.

"God can do anything he wants, but he doesn't want to do everything"

Hawkeye:

Yes, in another reality, a square might be called a triangle, and 2 called 3, in which case, your arguments make sense. But we are not in another reality. We are stuck in this one, and so dicussing 4 sided triangles and 1 + 1 = 3 is ultimately pointless.

Hawkeye · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I disagree here. What is 1 anyway ? It is an idea, an abstraction that man -not god- invented that has proven useful to our survival on this planet.

Therefore if you say that 1 + 1 = 3 all it means is that 1 now labels a different concept, not that any divine magic has taken place. If you could convince enough people we could change the definition of 1 right now. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes, in another reality, a square might be called a triangle, and 2 called 3, in which case, your arguments make sense. But we are not in another reality. We are stuck in this one, and so dicussing 4 sided triangles and 1 + 1 = 3 is ultimately pointless. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well I'm not assuming we rename 1 and 3. The symbol for 3 objects and the symbol for 1 object. Is that better? 1 object plus 1 object equals 3 objects in this new world. That's what I'm saying.

I also don't think that discussing 4-sided triangles and 1 + 1 = 3 is pointless. In fact it's pretty relevant to the question of why we are here. If we all agree that he can do anything, then he can remove evil too. This would imply he ALLOWED evil to exist, thus give us better insight as to why he created us. Otherwise, you cannot call God omnipotent if he cannot do everything.

And in response to Edward's post, sounds like a nice piece of reading. Seems he is tugging at the very heart of the matter. What possible use does God have with us?

taboofires · February 2004

In no universe will holding up one finger, then another finger, will give you 3 fingers. Math and physics exist outside all other bounds. The only things that change are constants.

How about we constrain the discussion to the current conditions of existance? While some things might be the same if we were all insects instead of mammals, or whatever other abstraction, it still has very little bearing on what goes on in this reality.

And I've already been over how flawed and irrelevant the all-powerful all-knowing all-good concept of god is (look back a page or so).

Hawkeye · February 2004

What defines those rules of logic? When I say there was nothing before the universe, there was NOTHING.. no rules of logic, no fingers, no anything.

Can you say with 100% certainty that without God ever having existed, you could still count 1 + 1 = 2?

When we say God created the universe, we aren't just talking about planets and galaxies. We're talking about existance of everything.

Bogglesteinsky · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 27 2004, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This would imply he ALLOWED evil to exist, thus give us better insight as to why he created us.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Hit the nail bang on the head with that one.

kida · February 2004

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Feb 24 2004, 10:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I would consider attempting to rise above our current fatally flawed status to becoming equal creators with God arrogance in the extreme. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Jesus said, "Be Ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect."
Is this possible in one lifetime or is it only attainable through many years of endeavoring? I think we as humans are striving for an epoch where all is "good;" I believe that humans will prevail over the odds in the future; to see this as arrogant is probably incorrect, I think it is natural.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Feb 24 2004, 10:47 AM )</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If God has a motive, what possibly could God want from humans that he had to create us to get?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Reading over Edward's thoughtful post had me thinking, what could be the true nature of God? The nature in which he would be motivated to do certain actions. In his post, it is questioned whether God was love or if he created it to suit for whatever reason his is. I believe the later is wrong, because it wouldn't make sense (at least to my human senses) for a God to create love to love out of entertainment or desire. Like a boy who is building a sand castle-a castle of magnificance-the boy must have forknowledge of the elements that make of it- the sand, how to properly mold it with water, and etc-so it is probably with God. God must have had all these qualities infused in a way we cannot and probably will never conceive. If God is the original love then he probably made us so he could love and be loved in return. Isn't that the core of Jesus' principle teaching? To love one another as he loved us? As God has loved us?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If you argue that we created the evil, well he created us and he knew we'd create evil, so God is still at fault.
If you argue that the devil did it, well he created the devil and he knew he'd create evil, so God is still at fault.
If you argue that in order to give humans free will, he had to allow for humans to do evil things to each other, then you're basically saying God isn't all-powerful and can't do everything.
If you argue that there is no God, that is about the only argument which does not have a counterpoint since we cannot prove that there is no God.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

How is he really at fault? Whatever you think, I kind of feel, and like Boggle has said, all of the reasons you see are the price for our freedom. I just cannot grasp this full at times here and there, which is why I ask God so many questions and why I seem to capriciously act on my own selfish accord when I know I shouldn't. I always question and I believe I will never stop.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What defines those rules of logic? When I say there was nothing before the universe, there was NOTHING.. no rules of logic, no fingers, no anything.

Can you say with 100% certainty that without God ever having existed, you could still count 1 + 1 = 2?

When we say God created the universe, we aren't just talking about planets and galaxies. We're talking about existance of everything. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

God created the universe, but he probably didn't create the number system or the idea of thought that links to it in a way like 1 + 1 = 2. I think it was a natural constant preordained at the moment of the birth of the universe. As humans, we used our senses to guide us into figuring the forms of logic which is the original derivication in which we base the laws of science from. So it could be that this thought of 1 + 1 =3 isn't only applicable to us, but also at another point of the universe (not implying about aliens <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /> ).

Taboo, you say God must have some evil in him, either because he had to think it up and let it happen, thus the evil we see around the world, or that he simply let evil exist, implying he isn't omnipotent, because he knew it would happen.
He must have known that we would suffer and that he let it happen, not because he couldn't stop it from happenning, not because he knows the path before we trod it, because he was willing to pay a hefty* price for our freedom to carry on. Anyways, that is my sentiment on freedom of choice.

-Hefty*
-As in the death of so many in this world who don't deserve it. Why? Well, it us us, not him. Then you can probably further deepen it by asking, why he would predestine certain individuals for his cause and instil a soul in a person elsewhere, who would die at the age of 4 due to water contamination in Africa. This also brings up the question of allowing a soul to exist in a body from whom I think God didn't have control in making, due to the decsicion of the mother and father (intercourse), unless he did have a preordained path that taboo talks about? But the soul, well I believe he gave a soul to that person, but the point in doing so?

Sorry for contradicting myself, it just came to mind.

And boggle, sorry I felt that way earlier, but it isn't easy as you think, to allow myself to love God the way you so eloquently put it, because why? Ask yourself if it is possible to change an 80 year old person from her old habits, impossible you say? Tis I feel the same way about myself, because of the problems I have, which you can say I won't be able to change due to my low faith. But I can say one thing, faith doesn't come from myself, but from God (like Abraham). That is why I feel at loss when I said I have sincerely asked for his help and he hasn't given it. Its like the stepping stone is right in front of you, but you can't step on it, you need that nudge.

Apologetic Offshoot #1

Comments