<!--QuoteBegin-kida+Feb 28 2004, 04:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (kida @ Feb 28 2004, 04:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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 <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I am absolutely certain that not only are there some <i>very</i> basic logical rules that not only exist regardless of the presence of god, but that he would be quite unable to change them or avoid them if he tried. They are the same in every universe and from every perspective, even god's. I would even venture to say that god could not exist without them, as he would expire in a paradox.
There is only one base logical system that is internally consistant, so even if god somehow created it, there would be no choice involved. The proof of such is way beyond the scope of this thread.
God says to himself, "I exist." He then decides that false is true, and unravels, taking the universe down with him.
I think not. True = true != false, otherwise anything (even god) could not exist in the first place, because they would both exist and not exist at the same time.
If you want to say that things are useless without god (and the assumption that he exists and is our creator), that's fine. Logic is not useful without something to apply it to, and that is potentially where god comes in. But they exist in an entirely different scope, one independant of the existance of god.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say there's a giant logical hole in the completely perfect vision of god, but that it doesn't even matter in the least (well, unless you really want to prove god's existance logically, but you will fail). There is no reason that god has to be completely good, powerful, and knowing. No aspect of religion requires complete perfection (which would make it real easy to shred, btw), but rather relies on the concept that he's way better off than we are. An infinitely small bit less than perfect is all it takes to remove the paradox, and it would be foolish to fault god for being marginally less than perfect (again, assuming his existance).
The hole concept of God ceases to exist if you allow a tiny bit of evil. God is perfect. If there is a tiny bit of evil, he is no longer God.
Why did a perfect God allow evil? So we could have a better relationship with him, so we could truly love him, the real sort of love, agape, the love that loves because it is love. Not tied down by beauty or deeds, just plain and simple love.
The relationship Christians have with God is very different to the ones the old Testament had, even Adan and Eve. It is a much better relationship. Adam and Eve loved because there was nothing else to love. King David loved because his ancestors had loved. We love because we have seen how much God loves us, and though we realise we can never repay that debt, we still want to try. Even if everybody who has ever existted loved, we could still not repay the debt, but that wouldn't stop us trying.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Feb 29 2004, 05:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 29 2004, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The hole concept of God ceases to exist if you allow a tiny bit of evil. God is perfect. If there is a tiny bit of evil, he is no longer God. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to acheive all those goals without evil. That is exactly where the contradiciton lies.
I still say he doesn't have to be perfectly good, but the arguement can still be easily resolved in a different way: he doesn't have to be all powerful (the really abstract example above about logic, for instance). Being not quite all powerful but all good is still not contradictory.
Reducing the concept from infinite power to absolutely gigantic power also fixes the contradiction, so you can maintain that he is all good if you wish. It's either hard love or not infinite power.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Feb 29 2004, 12:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Feb 29 2004, 12:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Feb 29 2004, 05:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Feb 29 2004, 05:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The hole concept of God ceases to exist if you allow a tiny bit of evil. God is perfect. If there is a tiny bit of evil, he is no longer God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to acheive all those goals without evil. That is exactly where the contradiciton lies.
I still say he doesn't have to be perfectly good, but the arguement can still be easily resolved in a different way: he doesn't have to be all powerful (the really abstract example above about logic, for instance). Being not quite all powerful but all good is still not contradictory.
Reducing the concept from infinite power to absolutely gigantic power also fixes the contradiction, so you can maintain that he is all good if you wish. It's either hard love or not infinite power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Unless, he was all powerful, but chose not to exercise His power and allow His creations to use their free will for the time being, until He chose to intervene in human history, and then make people take sides later.
Which, the Bible says is exactly what He is doing; holding back His destruction of evil until the time of His choosing.
You are incorrect in assuming that religion requires no perfection. With no perfection, there would be no need for Christ's death as a sacrifice for sins, because we could all just work to be "good enough" anyway. We've been trying that since the Garden of Eden, and no-one had done it until Christ.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Feb 29 2004, 11:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 29 2004, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Which, the Bible says is exactly what He is doing; holding back His destruction of evil until the time of His choosing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is contradictory with god being all good: he would not be able to stand the presence of evil, nor would he use evil as a means to an end (that would have made Machiavelli a saint). Unless, of course, he wasn't powerful enough to do it any other way...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are incorrect in assuming that religion requires no perfection. With no perfection, there would be no need for Christ's death as a sacrifice for sins, because we could all just work to be "good enough" anyway. We've been trying that since the Garden of Eden, and no-one had done it until Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll go ahead and get the obvious logical arguement to that out of the way: it requires that Jesus was perfect. It's way easier to poke a hole in that idea than it is to do so for god (even one that is only useful for attempting logical proofs of god's existance, which won't happen). The only evidence going for Jesus being perfect is written in a book penned by many flawed men, who are hardly capable of declaring immortal perfection. Indeed, his complete perfection is impossible for the same reason as god's is.
Even barring the horrible, contradictory abstraction of complete perfection, who is to say that Jesus is not a model to look up to? Absolute perfection being impossible does not mean it is not worth trying, and the trying part is really the whole goal. There is indeed a "good enough," as there must be, but it is far beyond the scope that Christians believe man is naturally capable of. Jesus died because we needed help, not as a free ride. The rest of the burden is on our own shoulders.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is contradictory with god being all good: he would not be able to stand the presence of evil, nor would he use evil as a means to an end (that would have made Machiavelli a saint). Unless, of course, he wasn't powerful enough to do it any other way... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless, again, He has a morally culpable reason for allowing evil to exist. Namely, to give everyone a chance to come to repentance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> am absolutely certain that not only are there some very basic logical rules that not only exist regardless of the presence of god, but that he would be quite unable to change them or avoid them if he tried. They are the same in every universe and from every perspective, even god's. I would even venture to say that god could not exist without them, as he would expire in a paradox.
There is only one base logical system that is internally consistant, so even if god somehow created it, there would be no choice involved. The proof of such is way beyond the scope of this thread.
God says to himself, "I exist." He then decides that false is true, and unravels, taking the universe down with him.
I think not. True = true != false, otherwise anything (even god) could not exist in the first place, because they would both exist and not exist at the same time.
If you want to say that things are useless without god (and the assumption that he exists and is our creator), that's fine. Logic is not useful without something to apply it to, and that is potentially where god comes in. But they exist in an entirely different scope, one independant of the existance of god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're saying God cannot do something, you are saying that he's not all-powerful. Why does the Bible say He is all-powerful then? Are you saying the Bible lies? I'd like to see you find the text in the Bible that says he is not all-powerful.
With that aside, mankind's understanding of mathematics from Taylor's series to Pythagorean to Kramer's Law all derived from a simple observation. You add 1 apple to 1 apple and you have 2 apples. You take 1 apple from 2 apples and you get 1 apple. You notice we cannot prove 1 + 1 = 2. This is an observation that has held true since as far as we can remember. However, as good as a guarantee that can be, it isn't absolute proof. We cannot PROVE 1 + 1 = 2. It is an observation we assume to be true in all cases past present and future.
As sheer conjecture, we have an axiom. I remind you that an axiom is an unprovable basic assumption. Such axioms exist like 0 * x = 0, 1 * x = x, x / x = 1, etc. These are axioms. You cannot prove these, but we assume them to be true from observation. True = not false is a conjecture based on the axiom that x = x and x != x + n where n > 0 or n < 0. The opposite of true is false, so they cannot be equal. That's based on that axiom which cannot be proven.
Using those fundamentals, then you can begin doing basic mathematics. From basic mathematics, you derive Pythagorean's Theorem and the rest.
It's quite inconceivable that so much mathematics based on those axioms would be wrong, but if one of those axioms were wrong, everything would fall apart. Who put forth into motion the axiom rules? It certainly wasn't mankind. If God wanted 1 + 1 = 3, he could have done that, and our axioms formed from observation would have been that 1 + 1 = 3 and not 2. If that were the case, we would have been used to the idea that if you add one apple to one apple, you get three apples. In which case, all our proofs and conjectures would have based on that axiom. It would have been quite inconceivable for 1 + 1 = 2. Our tiny little minds cannot comprehend anything other than what we've observed for so long, but you must remember what we observe is a product of God's control.
Consequentially, yes, I believe true can equal false. Not just in another world, but this very world. It's quite possible for the next time we observe to see if true = false, we might find it contrary to our observations all these years and that true would in fact be equal to false, or likewise 1 + 1 = 3. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, and I do mean anything.
This would have been so much easier for us to conceive if we were raised in a world where 1 + 1 = 3 was accepted as fact. As babies, we absorbed information like a sponge. Being older, we're stuck on the idea that 1 + 1 = 2 so much, that it seems absurd to suggest otherwise. This is the only reason why it is hard to accept the possibility.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Mar 1 2004, 11:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Mar 1 2004, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you're saying God cannot do something, you are saying that he's not all-powerful. Why does the Bible say He is all-powerful then? Are you saying the Bible lies? I'd like to see you find the text in the Bible that says he is not all-powerful. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Duh. The bible was written by men (even if it is the word of god, he didn't write it down and copy it over and over by helpself), and men lie. Particularly when power is involved even, and religion is full of power. So of course the bible has at least some lies in it, or at least "creative exaggerations" like being all powerful.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is contradictory with god being all good: he would not be able to stand the presence of evil, nor would he use evil as a means to an end (that would have made Machiavelli a saint). Unless, of course, he wasn't powerful enough to do it any other way... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless, again, He has a morally culpable reason for allowing evil to exist. Namely, to give everyone a chance to come to repentance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... I just said he could do it without evil if he were both all powerful and all good, and if he can do it without evil(and wanted to, which he would, if he was all good), than he will do it without evil. Yet he did it with evil, so something's wrong there.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 1 2004, 07:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 1 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No... I just said he could do it without evil if he were both all powerful and all good, and if he can do it without evil(and wanted to, which he would, if he was all good), than he will do it without evil. Yet he did it with evil, so something's wrong there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It is impossible to have free choice without something to choose against. Either God grants us free choice, and solves the problem of evil (a choice against God) on the Cross, or He would have not created us with the ability to think at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Duh. The bible was written by men (even if it is the word of god, he didn't write it down and copy it over and over by helpself), and men lie. Particularly when power is involved even, and religion is full of power. So of course the bible has at least some lies in it, or at least "creative exaggerations" like being all powerful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright, I'll address this sometime later, in yet another thread, but at the moment, I have to sleep.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 1 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 1 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 1 2004, 07:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 1 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No... I just said he could do it without evil if he were both all powerful and all good, and if he can do it without evil(and wanted to, which he would, if he was all good), than he will do it without evil. Yet he did it with evil, so something's wrong there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is impossible to have free choice without something to choose against. Either God grants us free choice, and solves the problem of evil (a choice against God) on the Cross, or He would have not created us with the ability to think at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That fails by the same logic. If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil.
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 2 2004, 11:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 2 2004, 11:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Mar 1 2004, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Mar 1 2004, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 1 2004, 07:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 1 2004, 07:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No... I just said he could do it without evil if he were both all powerful and all good, and if he can do it without evil(and wanted to, which he would, if he was all good), than he will do it without evil. Yet he did it with evil, so something's wrong there. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is impossible to have free choice without something to choose against. Either God grants us free choice, and solves the problem of evil (a choice against God) on the Cross, or He would have not created us with the ability to think at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That fails by the same logic. If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil.
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Taboo makes a good point.
Maybe if all the evil that existed was purely through human acts like murder, lust, and gluttony (the basic 7 deadly sins), you could pass that argument that God could not remove evil AND allow humans have free will.
However, again, you have the overhead issue of hurricanes and earthquakes and all sorts of evil that isn't related to man at all. God did those things. So why did he do them? Is it that he couldn't help it, or perhaps he thought we deserved it or what?
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 2 2004, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 2 2004, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But that is just completely illogical. How can you have a choice with only one option?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good grief, its the triangle again... I thought we had exlained this one.
God doesn't have to justify the presence of evil. Not to you, not to anyone. God doesn't have to justify jack. What makes you think you are so important enough to deserve an answer? If a potter deliberately breaks a pot that he spent a long time making, it would be rediculous for the other post to ask him why. He doesnt have to justify his actions to them, he made them, he can do what he likes with them.
Let me get this outlined for you: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <ul> </li><li>Evil and suffering exist in the wolrd </li><li>If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent these things </li><li>If God were wholly good (specfically, if he were a God of love) he would want to prevent them </li><li>If there were an omnipotent and wholly good God, evil and suffering would have no place in the world </li><li>Therefore, there is no such being as an omnipotent and wholly good God </li></ul>
With me so far?
Good.
It gets worse.
Sceptics claim that religion is responsible for most of the world's suffering
Voltaire: Theological religion is the enemy of mankind
Madalyn Murray O'Hair: Religion has caused more misery to all mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea.
Larry Flynt: Religion has caused more harm than aything since the beginning of time
I am not denying that religion has caused lots of harm, but that is not a threat to biblical theism because they occured when people were defending non-biblical religoins, or when they twisted the bible so far out of shape to suit thier own fanatical agendas. Using that sort of argument to disprove God's existence is illogical.
However, the athiest's record is just as bad, if not worse. I would give examples, but the mods have asked that this not be discussed, so I will not.
Back to the theodicy...
No theodicy required to explain the existence of evil, as they are in response to the athiests claim that the existence of evil is illogically consistant with an all good, omnipotent God. The theist does not need to explain why god allows evil to continue, or how he does. In order to refute the atheists claim, all the thiest has to do is to show that there is no logical contradiction in the co-existence of God and evil.
This is quite simple actually.
firstly, there is a difference between logical and physical imposibility. Given the makeup of cows and the laws of gravity, it is physically impossible for a cow to jump over the moon. However, it is not logically impossible - it does not violate any laws of logic. The athiest says that it is no possible way for evil and God to co-exist, but this is not the case, as any state of affairs that does not violate the laws of logic is logically possible. All this means that, in a counter argument, the theist is not restricted to the plausible, but can use any scenario that is possible.
If cows had strong enough legs, and wanted to jump over the moon, there is no reason why they shouldn't, and they would to it as easily as you walk down the street. This sort of thing is very different from square circles. That is a logical impossiblity, moon-jumping cows are not. Nor (whatever problems it might raise) is the co-existence of God and evil. The athiest's claim that this is not possible goes too far.
I will leave you with something to think about though. If the believer has a problem in explaining the existence of evil in a world creted and ruled by God, the unbeliever has the much greater problem of explaining how, in a world without God, he can speak of anything as being either good or evil. In order to use the 'problem of evil' argument against a theistic wolrd-view, the atheist must show that his own definition of evil is meaningful, which is precisely what he is unable to do. Over 2000 years ago (and this relates to the morals thread too), Socrates showed that, in order to make a distinction between pareticulars, in which one is good and the other is eveil, you must begin with a universal or absolute. Without an infinite reference point, the athiest can never speak of 'good' or 'evil' in an absolute sense, no, for that matter, can he explain why there is a difference between them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I condensed that from Does God Believe In Athiests, by John Blanchard, chapter 23.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->QUOTE (taboofires @ Mar 2 2004, 05:33 PM) If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil.
But that is just completely illogical. How can you have a choice with only one option?
QUOTE
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us anything without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.
Good grief, its the triangle again... I thought we had exlained this one.
God doesn't have to justify the presence of evil. Not to you, not to anyone. God doesn't have to justify jack. What makes you think you are so important enough to deserve an answer? If a potter deliberately breaks a pot that he spent a long time making, it would be rediculous for the other post to ask him why. He doesnt have to justify his actions to them, he made them, he can do what he likes with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not even a theorem. That's a "God's better than you so <b>BACK OFF</b>!!!" theorem. If you think discussing the power of God is something us mortals should not venture about, I suggest you check out the milder topics on the natural selection forums.
As for your potter analogy, if we were the pot, and he breaks us, I think we sure as hell deserve a reason why he did that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Mar 2 2004, 06:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Mar 2 2004, 06:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 2 2004, 05:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 2 2004, 05:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But that is just completely illogical. How can you have a choice with only one option?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who says there is one option that gives free will? There's no free will, free will via evil, and free will via good. I count at least 2 there. An all-powerful god could easily make the free will via good happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good grief, its the triangle again... I thought we had exlained this one.
God doesn't have to justify the presence of evil. Not to you, not to anyone. God doesn't have to justify jack. What makes you think you are so important enough to deserve an answer? If a potter deliberately breaks a pot that he spent a long time making, it would be rediculous for the other post to ask him why. He doesnt have to justify his actions to them, he made them, he can do what he likes with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he doesn't have to justify his actions. That doesn't mean doing evil things when there are non-evil options (and there are if he's all powerful) makes him all-good. Justification has nothing to do with it. Intentionally do evil = be evil (at least marginally). The potter not needing to justify that there's a broken pot doesn't mean that he doesn't still have a broken pot.
Thats quite enough on this arguement. I've said more than enough, so I'll leave anything left unconsidered to your own thought.
on a side note, everyone deserves the answers to everything. learn to talk to god, and you will get your answers.
Now that brings up, but if we are god, our you just talking to yourself when you pray? (prescisly) Practice the power of creation using you mind. You find odd thing ocoure. Just remember, everything you do, will come back to you. weather it be good our bad. that is all.
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 2 2004, 08:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 2 2004, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Of course he doesn't have to justify his actions. That doesn't mean doing evil things when there are non-evil options (and there are if he's all powerful) makes him all-good. Justification has nothing to do with it. Intentionally do evil = be evil (at least marginally). The potter not needing to justify that there's a broken pot doesn't mean that he doesn't still have a broken pot.
Thats quite enough on this arguement. I've said more than enough, so I'll leave anything left unconsidered to your own thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What's your definition of evil?
Labeling god as "good" or "evil" is just pigeon holing. God couldn't be all good or all evil, because those are flawed human terms, and god is a perfect being. Answers to the big questions - "why are we here?", "why is there suffering?" - and questioning god's motives is an interesting concept. Think about it. It's god. Perfect, all knowing, omnipotent. Who are we to question his motives and actions? He clearly knows better than we do. And even if god did give us the reasons, who is to say that our imperfect minds could even comprehend the motivation behind those reasons? The inner workings of a deity are beyond us. However, this does not mean that we shouldn't ask the big questions and question god's motives. We should, we <b>must</b> do so. It is that which makes us human.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionnaired+Feb 23 2004, 09:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionnaired @ Feb 23 2004, 09:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> it is precisely because you have chosen against Him that you are in this imperfect state you yourself described. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That would assume all believers are perfect, which is a crock <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Perfection dosen't require a crutch.
Its nice to see that Hawkeye and Taboofires ignores completely the rest of my post, clearly implying that they had nothing to say in return. I love that book.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's not even a theorem. That's a "God's better than you so BACK OFF!!!" theorem. If you think discussing the power of God is something us mortals should not venture about, I suggest you check out the milder topics on the natural selection forums. As for your potter analogy, if we were the pot, and he breaks us, I think we sure as hell deserve a reason why he did that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does God have to justify himself to you? Why does the potter have to justify himself to his pots. The potter is infinitely more than his pots in every single way. He could see the tiny crack that would ruin the pot, so he broke it. The pot didnt turn out they way he wanted, so he broke it. It had a slight bump on it, so he broke it. Any number of reasons, but he doesn't have to justify himself to anyone.
This is where it gets interesting. He has justified himself. It is all in the bible, if you care to read it. Any question you ask about evil and suffering, the bible will have an answer.
"Why is there suffering?" "Because Man sinned."
"Why did man sin?" "Because he was tempted and he fell."
"Why did he fall when he was tempted because he thought he didn't need God, that he was better than God"
"Why are there Natural disasters?" "Because you cannot have imperfect beings living in a perfect world, so the ground was cursed."
"Why is it still going on?" "Because the time that God has set to end it has not yet arrived."
"Could God have made us so we always chose to do right?" "No. A choice with only on option is not a choice. To do so violates the lwas of logic"
<!--QuoteBegin-Dictionary definition of choice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dictionary definition of choice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><ul> </li><li>The act of choosing; selection. </li><li>The power, right, or liberty to choose; option. </li><li>One that is chosen. </li><li>A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors. </li><li>The best or most preferable part. </li><li>Care in choosing. </li><li>An alternative. </li></ul> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so that last one isn't in the Bible, it is pure common sense. If you show a guy a spade, and then tell him to choose which one he wants, how is that a choice? In the same way, if you took a mentally ill patient who was addicted to spades, and you showed him spade and a rake, how has he chosen? Neither of them has ben able to look at the possibilities, and then weigh up the pros and the cons of each, thinking about what they might use it for. That is what choice is all about, and both of them didn't have any choice. In the first case, because there was only one option, and in the second case, because he was so addicted to spades that he didn't make any choice at all. Neither of them has been able to make a selectiopn from the two, they didnt have a variety of items from which to choose. They were not able to perfor any act of choosing, there was no alternative.
<!--QuoteBegin-Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Mar 3 2004, 04:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Mar 3 2004, 04:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its nice to see that Hawkeye and Taboofires ignores completely the rest of my post, clearly implying that they had nothing to say in return. I love that book. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah debate tricks! I ignored the rest of the post because you said nothing in it. I offered a proof that the all-perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god is logically impossible. If something is logically impossible, then it is physically impossible, just not always the other way around. Even if it did work that way, why would anyone trying to prove that god exists <i>physically</i>?
Also, I disproved what the latter part of your arguement was based on, thus destroying the whole thing in the process.
edit: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Why are there Natural disasters?" "Because you cannot have imperfect beings living in a perfect world, so the ground was cursed." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Can you really expect us to take the time to debunk stuff that includes curses?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its nice to see that Hawkeye and Taboofires ignores completely the rest of my post, clearly implying that they had nothing to say in return. I love that book.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. I gave quite a few answers to your questions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That's not even a theorem. That's a "God's better than you so BACK OFF!!!" theorem. If you think discussing the power of God is something us mortals should not venture about, I suggest you check out the milder topics on the natural selection forums. As for your potter analogy, if we were the pot, and he breaks us, I think we sure as hell deserve a reason why he did that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does God have to justify himself to you? Why does the potter have to justify himself to his pots. The potter is infinitely more than his pots in every single way. He could see the tiny crack that would ruin the pot, so he broke it. The pot didnt turn out they way he wanted, so he broke it. It had a slight bump on it, so he broke it. Any number of reasons, but he doesn't have to justify himself to anyone.
This is where it gets interesting. He has justified himself. It is all in the bible, if you care to read it. Any question you ask about evil and suffering, the bible will have an answer.
"Why is there suffering?" "Because Man sinned."
"Why did man sin?" "Because he was tempted and he fell."
"Why did he fall when he was tempted because he thought he didn't need God, that he was better than God"
"Why are there Natural disasters?" "Because you cannot have imperfect beings living in a perfect world, so the ground was cursed."
"Why is it still going on?" "Because the time that God has set to end it has not yet arrived."
"Could God have made us so we always chose to do right?" "No. A choice with only on option is not a choice. To do so violates the lwas of logic" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see any questions answered in the Bible regarding "Why did you create such imperfect beings and expect them to be perfect?" or "Why would you punish imperfect beings for being exactly how you created them?"
Nono.. either through political reasons or religious reasons, no pope or Bible psalm dared answer those questions.
And to answer your question, why does the potter have to answer to the pot? With a gun to the back of your head by a complete stranger who said he was about to end your life here on this earth.... wouldn't the first question that'd come to your mind be why? Moreover, if God created us in this way with so may flaws and then hates us for it, isn't it fitting we ask our creator the big question "why?" There is no reason "Why not?" What reason you think you have is just a "you shouldn't question the things around you" argument. I think mankind has proven that asking questions was the only way we got out of the pit we called the Dark Ages.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Dictionary definition of choice) The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so that last one isn't in the Bible, it is pure common sense. If you show a guy a spade, and then tell him to choose which one he wants, how is that a choice? In the same way, if you took a mentally ill patient who was addicted to spades, and you showed him spade and a rake, how has he chosen? Neither of them has ben able to look at the possibilities, and then weigh up the pros and the cons of each, thinking about what they might use it for. That is what choice is all about, and both of them didn't have any choice. In the first case, because there was only one option, and in the second case, because he was so addicted to spades that he didn't make any choice at all. Neither of them has been able to make a selectiopn from the two, they didnt have a variety of items from which to choose. They were not able to perfor any act of choosing, there was no alternative. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why does God give us choice, and punish us for doing wrong when we're inherently flawed anyway? I mean that's kind of sick if you think about it. It's like offering candy or homework to a child. When he choses candy over homework, you beat him. Of COURSE the kid will pick candy over homework. Just like it is sort of obvious that if you create creatures which love sin and then offer a life of sin or a life of complete isolation, you beat them if they choose sin. I mean duh! What was God thinking?! I think that's hardly common sense. The question "Why?" is hardly obvious. What motive would God have for this? Does the Bible have an answer that you know of?
<!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Mar 3 2004, 02:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Mar 3 2004, 02:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I offered a proof that the all-perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god is logically impossible. If something is logically impossible, then it is physically impossible, just not always the other way around. Even if it did work that way, why would anyone trying to prove that god exists <i>physically</i>?
Also, I disproved what the latter part of your arguement was based on, thus destroying the whole thing in the process.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And I showed that that is not logically impossible, thereby refuting your argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can you really expect us to take the time to debunk stuff that includes curses?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is up to you, but until you do...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see any questions answered in the Bible regarding "Why did you create such imperfect beings and expect them to be perfect?" or "Why would you punish imperfect beings for being exactly how you created them?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you aren't looking hard enough<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"God saw what He had made, and it was good." That "good" is not an 'OK, I cba to work any more on it, I am really tired so I will go to bed and let them get on with it' sort of good its a 'perfect' good. Humans were created perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And to answer your question, why does the potter have to answer to the pot? With a gun to the back of your head by a complete stranger who said he was about to end your life here on this earth.... wouldn't the first question that'd come to your mind be why?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I would ask why, but that is because the dtranger and I are equal. He has no right over me at all, so I would want to know why. The potter on the other hand, as I said before, is infinitely more everything than the pots, and they were his creation, so he can do what he likes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover, if God created us in this way with so may flaws and then hates us for it, isn't it fitting we ask our creator the big question "why?" There is no reason "Why not?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. We were created perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What reason you think you have is just a "you shouldn't question the things around you" argument. I think mankind has proven that asking questions was the only way we got out of the pit we called the Dark Ages. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asking questions is good about the world around us, I am all for it. As you said, we wouldn't be here today if we didn't ask questions. As for asking questions about God, well, ask away, but don't expect an answer, and definitely don't expect the answer you were looking for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why does God give us choice, and punish us for doing wrong when we're inherently flawed anyway? I mean that's kind of sick if you think about it. It's like offering candy or homework to a child. When he choses candy over homework, you beat him. Of COURSE the kid will pick candy over homework.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your analogy is flawed slightly. God did not offer the fruit of the tree to us. He did not say "Today you can have an orange from that tree there or an apple from this tree here." Yes, he put the tree in the garden, but he did not tell them to eat. He tld them not too. He had to put the tree there otherwaise they wouldn't have had any choice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just like it is sort of obvious that if you create creatures which love sin and then offer a life of sin or a life of complete isolation, you beat them if they choose sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Adam and Eve did not love sin. they had no knowledge of sin until they eat of the tree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I mean duh! What was God thinking?! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God only knows
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that's hardly common sense. The question "Why?" is hardly obvious. What motive would God have for this? Does the Bible have an answer that you know of? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
Sorry, did you want me to tell you?
God put the tree there to give Adamn and Eve a choice. With no choice, we can have no free will, so we cannot have a meaningful relationship, which was/is God's plan all along.
Comments
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
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 <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am absolutely certain that not only are there some <i>very</i> basic logical rules that not only exist regardless of the presence of god, but that he would be quite unable to change them or avoid them if he tried. They are the same in every universe and from every perspective, even god's. I would even venture to say that god could not exist without them, as he would expire in a paradox.
There is only one base logical system that is internally consistant, so even if god somehow created it, there would be no choice involved. The proof of such is way beyond the scope of this thread.
God says to himself, "I exist." He then decides that false is true, and unravels, taking the universe down with him.
I think not. True = true != false, otherwise anything (even god) could not exist in the first place, because they would both exist and not exist at the same time.
If you want to say that things are useless without god (and the assumption that he exists and is our creator), that's fine. Logic is not useful without something to apply it to, and that is potentially where god comes in. But they exist in an entirely different scope, one independant of the existance of god.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I say there's a giant logical hole in the completely perfect vision of god, but that it doesn't even matter in the least (well, unless you really want to prove god's existance logically, but you will fail). There is no reason that god has to be completely good, powerful, and knowing. No aspect of religion requires complete perfection (which would make it real easy to shred, btw), but rather relies on the concept that he's way better off than we are. An infinitely small bit less than perfect is all it takes to remove the paradox, and it would be foolish to fault god for being marginally less than perfect (again, assuming his existance).
The hole concept of God ceases to exist if you allow a tiny bit of evil. God is perfect. If there is a tiny bit of evil, he is no longer God.
Why did a perfect God allow evil? So we could have a better relationship with him, so we could truly love him, the real sort of love, agape, the love that loves because it is love. Not tied down by beauty or deeds, just plain and simple love.
The relationship Christians have with God is very different to the ones the old Testament had, even Adan and Eve. It is a much better relationship. Adam and Eve loved because there was nothing else to love. King David loved because his ancestors had loved. We love because we have seen how much God loves us, and though we realise we can never repay that debt, we still want to try. Even if everybody who has ever existted loved, we could still not repay the debt, but that wouldn't stop us trying.
If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to acheive all those goals without evil. That is exactly where the contradiciton lies.
I still say he doesn't have to be perfectly good, but the arguement can still be easily resolved in a different way: he doesn't have to be all powerful (the really abstract example above about logic, for instance). Being not quite all powerful but all good is still not contradictory.
Reducing the concept from infinite power to absolutely gigantic power also fixes the contradiction, so you can maintain that he is all good if you wish. It's either hard love or not infinite power.
If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to acheive all those goals without evil. That is exactly where the contradiciton lies.
I still say he doesn't have to be perfectly good, but the arguement can still be easily resolved in a different way: he doesn't have to be all powerful (the really abstract example above about logic, for instance). Being not quite all powerful but all good is still not contradictory.
Reducing the concept from infinite power to absolutely gigantic power also fixes the contradiction, so you can maintain that he is all good if you wish. It's either hard love or not infinite power. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless, he was all powerful, but chose not to exercise His power and allow His creations to use their free will for the time being, until He chose to intervene in human history, and then make people take sides later.
Which, the Bible says is exactly what He is doing; holding back His destruction of evil until the time of His choosing.
You are incorrect in assuming that religion requires no perfection. With no perfection, there would be no need for Christ's death as a sacrifice for sins, because we could all just work to be "good enough" anyway. We've been trying that since the Garden of Eden, and no-one had done it until Christ.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is contradictory with god being all good: he would not be able to stand the presence of evil, nor would he use evil as a means to an end (that would have made Machiavelli a saint). Unless, of course, he wasn't powerful enough to do it any other way...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are incorrect in assuming that religion requires no perfection. With no perfection, there would be no need for Christ's death as a sacrifice for sins, because we could all just work to be "good enough" anyway. We've been trying that since the Garden of Eden, and no-one had done it until Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll go ahead and get the obvious logical arguement to that out of the way: it requires that Jesus was perfect. It's way easier to poke a hole in that idea than it is to do so for god (even one that is only useful for attempting logical proofs of god's existance, which won't happen). The only evidence going for Jesus being perfect is written in a book penned by many flawed men, who are hardly capable of declaring immortal perfection. Indeed, his complete perfection is impossible for the same reason as god's is.
Even barring the horrible, contradictory abstraction of complete perfection, who is to say that Jesus is not a model to look up to? Absolute perfection being impossible does not mean it is not worth trying, and the trying part is really the whole goal. There is indeed a "good enough," as there must be, but it is far beyond the scope that Christians believe man is naturally capable of. Jesus died because we needed help, not as a free ride. The rest of the burden is on our own shoulders.
edit: insert important verb
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless, again, He has a morally culpable reason for allowing evil to exist. Namely, to give everyone a chance to come to repentance.
There is only one base logical system that is internally consistant, so even if god somehow created it, there would be no choice involved. The proof of such is way beyond the scope of this thread.
God says to himself, "I exist." He then decides that false is true, and unravels, taking the universe down with him.
I think not. True = true != false, otherwise anything (even god) could not exist in the first place, because they would both exist and not exist at the same time.
If you want to say that things are useless without god (and the assumption that he exists and is our creator), that's fine. Logic is not useful without something to apply it to, and that is potentially where god comes in. But they exist in an entirely different scope, one independant of the existance of god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're saying God cannot do something, you are saying that he's not all-powerful. Why does the Bible say He is all-powerful then? Are you saying the Bible lies? I'd like to see you find the text in the Bible that says he is not all-powerful.
With that aside, mankind's understanding of mathematics from Taylor's series to Pythagorean to Kramer's Law all derived from a simple observation. You add 1 apple to 1 apple and you have 2 apples. You take 1 apple from 2 apples and you get 1 apple. You notice we cannot prove 1 + 1 = 2. This is an observation that has held true since as far as we can remember. However, as good as a guarantee that can be, it isn't absolute proof. We cannot PROVE 1 + 1 = 2. It is an observation we assume to be true in all cases past present and future.
As sheer conjecture, we have an axiom. I remind you that an axiom is an unprovable basic assumption. Such axioms exist like 0 * x = 0, 1 * x = x, x / x = 1, etc. These are axioms. You cannot prove these, but we assume them to be true from observation. True = not false is a conjecture based on the axiom that x = x and x != x + n where n > 0 or n < 0. The opposite of true is false, so they cannot be equal. That's based on that axiom which cannot be proven.
Using those fundamentals, then you can begin doing basic mathematics. From basic mathematics, you derive Pythagorean's Theorem and the rest.
It's quite inconceivable that so much mathematics based on those axioms would be wrong, but if one of those axioms were wrong, everything would fall apart. Who put forth into motion the axiom rules? It certainly wasn't mankind. If God wanted 1 + 1 = 3, he could have done that, and our axioms formed from observation would have been that 1 + 1 = 3 and not 2. If that were the case, we would have been used to the idea that if you add one apple to one apple, you get three apples. In which case, all our proofs and conjectures would have based on that axiom. It would have been quite inconceivable for 1 + 1 = 2. Our tiny little minds cannot comprehend anything other than what we've observed for so long, but you must remember what we observe is a product of God's control.
Consequentially, yes, I believe true can equal false. Not just in another world, but this very world. It's quite possible for the next time we observe to see if true = false, we might find it contrary to our observations all these years and that true would in fact be equal to false, or likewise 1 + 1 = 3. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, and I do mean anything.
This would have been so much easier for us to conceive if we were raised in a world where 1 + 1 = 3 was accepted as fact. As babies, we absorbed information like a sponge. Being older, we're stuck on the idea that 1 + 1 = 2 so much, that it seems absurd to suggest otherwise. This is the only reason why it is hard to accept the possibility.
Duh. The bible was written by men (even if it is the word of god, he didn't write it down and copy it over and over by helpself), and men lie. Particularly when power is involved even, and religion is full of power. So of course the bible has at least some lies in it, or at least "creative exaggerations" like being all powerful.
<!--QuoteBegin-Legionaired+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legionaired)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is contradictory with god being all good: he would not be able to stand the presence of evil, nor would he use evil as a means to an end (that would have made Machiavelli a saint). Unless, of course, he wasn't powerful enough to do it any other way...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unless, again, He has a morally culpable reason for allowing evil to exist. Namely, to give everyone a chance to come to repentance.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No... I just said he could do it without evil if he were both all powerful and all good, and if he can do it without evil(and wanted to, which he would, if he was all good), than he will do it without evil. Yet he did it with evil, so something's wrong there.
It is impossible to have free choice without something to choose against. Either God grants us free choice, and solves the problem of evil (a choice against God) on the Cross, or He would have not created us with the ability to think at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Duh. The bible was written by men (even if it is the word of god, he didn't write it down and copy it over and over by helpself), and men lie. Particularly when power is involved even, and religion is full of power. So of course the bible has at least some lies in it, or at least "creative exaggerations" like being all powerful.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Alright, I'll address this sometime later, in yet another thread, but at the moment, I have to sleep.
It is impossible to have free choice without something to choose against. Either God grants us free choice, and solves the problem of evil (a choice against God) on the Cross, or He would have not created us with the ability to think at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That fails by the same logic. If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil.
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.
It is impossible to have free choice without something to choose against. Either God grants us free choice, and solves the problem of evil (a choice against God) on the Cross, or He would have not created us with the ability to think at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That fails by the same logic. If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil.
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Taboo makes a good point.
Maybe if all the evil that existed was purely through human acts like murder, lust, and gluttony (the basic 7 deadly sins), you could pass that argument that God could not remove evil AND allow humans have free will.
However, again, you have the overhead issue of hurricanes and earthquakes and all sorts of evil that isn't related to man at all. God did those things. So why did he do them? Is it that he couldn't help it, or perhaps he thought we deserved it or what?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that is just completely illogical. How can you have a choice with only one option?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good grief, its the triangle again... I thought we had exlained this one.
God doesn't have to justify the presence of evil. Not to you, not to anyone. God doesn't have to justify jack. What makes you think you are so important enough to deserve an answer? If a potter deliberately breaks a pot that he spent a long time making, it would be rediculous for the other post to ask him why. He doesnt have to justify his actions to them, he made them, he can do what he likes with them.
Let me get this outlined for you:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<ul>
</li><li>Evil and suffering exist in the wolrd
</li><li>If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent these things
</li><li>If God were wholly good (specfically, if he were a God of love) he would want to prevent them
</li><li>If there were an omnipotent and wholly good God, evil and suffering would have no place in the world
</li><li>Therefore, there is no such being as an omnipotent and wholly good God
</li></ul>
With me so far?
Good.
It gets worse.
Sceptics claim that religion is responsible for most of the world's suffering
Voltaire: Theological religion is the enemy of mankind
Madalyn Murray O'Hair: Religion has caused more misery to all mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea.
Larry Flynt: Religion has caused more harm than aything since the beginning of time
I am not denying that religion has caused lots of harm, but that is not a threat to biblical theism because they occured when people were defending non-biblical religoins, or when they twisted the bible so far out of shape to suit thier own fanatical agendas. Using that sort of argument to disprove God's existence is illogical.
However, the athiest's record is just as bad, if not worse. I would give examples, but the mods have asked that this not be discussed, so I will not.
Back to the theodicy...
No theodicy required to explain the existence of evil, as they are in response to the athiests claim that the existence of evil is illogically consistant with an all good, omnipotent God. The theist does not need to explain why god allows evil to continue, or how he does. In order to refute the atheists claim, all the thiest has to do is to show that there is no logical contradiction in the co-existence of God and evil.
This is quite simple actually.
firstly, there is a difference between logical and physical imposibility. Given the makeup of cows and the laws of gravity, it is physically impossible for a cow to jump over the moon. However, it is not logically impossible - it does not violate any laws of logic. The athiest says that it is no possible way for evil and God to co-exist, but this is not the case, as any state of affairs that does not violate the laws of logic is logically possible. All this means that, in a counter argument, the theist is not restricted to the plausible, but can use any scenario that is possible.
If cows had strong enough legs, and wanted to jump over the moon, there is no reason why they shouldn't, and they would to it as easily as you walk down the street. This sort of thing is very different from square circles. That is a logical impossiblity, moon-jumping cows are not. Nor (whatever problems it might raise) is the co-existence of God and evil. The athiest's claim that this is not possible goes too far.
I will leave you with something to think about though. If the believer has a problem in explaining the existence of evil in a world creted and ruled by God, the unbeliever has the much greater problem of explaining how, in a world without God, he can speak of anything as being either good or evil. In order to use the 'problem of evil' argument against a theistic wolrd-view, the atheist must show that his own definition of evil is meaningful, which is precisely what he is unable to do. Over 2000 years ago (and this relates to the morals thread too), Socrates showed that, in order to make a distinction between pareticulars, in which one is good and the other is eveil, you must begin with a universal or absolute. Without an infinite reference point, the athiest can never speak of 'good' or 'evil' in an absolute sense, no, for that matter, can he explain why there is a difference between them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I condensed that from Does God Believe In Athiests, by John Blanchard, chapter 23.
If god were both all powerful and all good, he would be able to give us free will without evil.
But that is just completely illogical. How can you have a choice with only one option?
QUOTE
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us anything without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.
Good grief, its the triangle again... I thought we had exlained this one.
God doesn't have to justify the presence of evil. Not to you, not to anyone. God doesn't have to justify jack. What makes you think you are so important enough to deserve an answer? If a potter deliberately breaks a pot that he spent a long time making, it would be rediculous for the other post to ask him why. He doesnt have to justify his actions to them, he made them, he can do what he likes with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not even a theorem. That's a "God's better than you so <b>BACK OFF</b>!!!" theorem. If you think discussing the power of God is something us mortals should not venture about, I suggest you check out the milder topics on the natural selection forums.
As for your potter analogy, if we were the pot, and he breaks us, I think we sure as hell deserve a reason why he did that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that is just completely illogical. How can you have a choice with only one option?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who says there is one option that gives free will? There's no free will, free will via evil, and free will via good. I count at least 2 there. An all-powerful god could easily make the free will via good happen.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I'm going to save myself the trouble of going on with this line of thought: If god is all powerful, he would be able to give us <i>anything</i> without evil, and he would refuse to accomplish his goal using evil because he is all good. You simply cannot justify evil and assume that god is all good and all powerful. One of them must give (at least slightly), and the existance of evil isn't going away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good grief, its the triangle again... I thought we had exlained this one.
God doesn't have to justify the presence of evil. Not to you, not to anyone. God doesn't have to justify jack. What makes you think you are so important enough to deserve an answer? If a potter deliberately breaks a pot that he spent a long time making, it would be rediculous for the other post to ask him why. He doesnt have to justify his actions to them, he made them, he can do what he likes with them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course he doesn't have to justify his actions. That doesn't mean doing evil things when there are non-evil options (and there are if he's all powerful) makes him all-good. Justification has nothing to do with it. Intentionally do evil = be evil (at least marginally). The potter not needing to justify that there's a broken pot doesn't mean that he doesn't still have a broken pot.
Thats quite enough on this arguement. I've said more than enough, so I'll leave anything left unconsidered to your own thought.
on a side note, everyone deserves the answers to everything. learn to talk to god, and you will get your answers.
Now that brings up, but if we are god, our you just talking to yourself when you pray?
(prescisly)
Practice the power of creation using you mind. You find odd thing ocoure.
Just remember, everything you do, will come back to you. weather it be good our bad. that is all.
Thats quite enough on this arguement. I've said more than enough, so I'll leave anything left unconsidered to your own thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What's your definition of evil?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would assume all believers are perfect, which is a crock <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Perfection dosen't require a crutch.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's not even a theorem. That's a "God's better than you so BACK OFF!!!" theorem. If you think discussing the power of God is something us mortals should not venture about, I suggest you check out the milder topics on the natural selection forums.
As for your potter analogy, if we were the pot, and he breaks us, I think we sure as hell deserve a reason why he did that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does God have to justify himself to you? Why does the potter have to justify himself to his pots. The potter is infinitely more than his pots in every single way. He could see the tiny crack that would ruin the pot, so he broke it. The pot didnt turn out they way he wanted, so he broke it. It had a slight bump on it, so he broke it. Any number of reasons, but he doesn't have to justify himself to anyone.
This is where it gets interesting. He has justified himself. It is all in the bible, if you care to read it. Any question you ask about evil and suffering, the bible will have an answer.
"Why is there suffering?" "Because Man sinned."
"Why did man sin?" "Because he was tempted and he fell."
"Why did he fall when he was tempted because he thought he didn't need God, that he was better than God"
"Why are there Natural disasters?" "Because you cannot have imperfect beings living in a perfect world, so the ground was cursed."
"Why is it still going on?" "Because the time that God has set to end it has not yet arrived."
"Could God have made us so we always chose to do right?" "No. A choice with only on option is not a choice. To do so violates the lwas of logic"
<!--QuoteBegin-Dictionary definition of choice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dictionary definition of choice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><ul>
</li><li>The act of choosing; selection.
</li><li>The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
</li><li>One that is chosen.
</li><li>A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
</li><li>The best or most preferable part.
</li><li>Care in choosing.
</li><li>An alternative.
</li></ul>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so that last one isn't in the Bible, it is pure common sense. If you show a guy a spade, and then tell him to choose which one he wants, how is that a choice? In the same way, if you took a mentally ill patient who was addicted to spades, and you showed him spade and a rake, how has he chosen? Neither of them has ben able to look at the possibilities, and then weigh up the pros and the cons of each, thinking about what they might use it for. That is what choice is all about, and both of them didn't have any choice. In the first case, because there was only one option, and in the second case, because he was so addicted to spades that he didn't make any choice at all. Neither of them has been able to make a selectiopn from the two, they didnt have a variety of items from which to choose. They were not able to perfor any act of choosing, there was no alternative.
Ah debate tricks! I ignored the rest of the post because you said nothing in it. I offered a proof that the all-perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing god is logically impossible. If something is logically impossible, then it is physically impossible, just not always the other way around. Even if it did work that way, why would anyone trying to prove that god exists <i>physically</i>?
Also, I disproved what the latter part of your arguement was based on, thus destroying the whole thing in the process.
edit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Why are there Natural disasters?" "Because you cannot have imperfect beings living in a perfect world, so the ground was cursed."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you really expect us to take the time to debunk stuff that includes curses?
Maybe you aren't looking hard enough. I gave quite a few answers to your questions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
That's not even a theorem. That's a "God's better than you so BACK OFF!!!" theorem. If you think discussing the power of God is something us mortals should not venture about, I suggest you check out the milder topics on the natural selection forums.
As for your potter analogy, if we were the pot, and he breaks us, I think we sure as hell deserve a reason why he did that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why does God have to justify himself to you? Why does the potter have to justify himself to his pots. The potter is infinitely more than his pots in every single way. He could see the tiny crack that would ruin the pot, so he broke it. The pot didnt turn out they way he wanted, so he broke it. It had a slight bump on it, so he broke it. Any number of reasons, but he doesn't have to justify himself to anyone.
This is where it gets interesting. He has justified himself. It is all in the bible, if you care to read it. Any question you ask about evil and suffering, the bible will have an answer.
"Why is there suffering?" "Because Man sinned."
"Why did man sin?" "Because he was tempted and he fell."
"Why did he fall when he was tempted because he thought he didn't need God, that he was better than God"
"Why are there Natural disasters?" "Because you cannot have imperfect beings living in a perfect world, so the ground was cursed."
"Why is it still going on?" "Because the time that God has set to end it has not yet arrived."
"Could God have made us so we always chose to do right?" "No. A choice with only on option is not a choice. To do so violates the lwas of logic"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see any questions answered in the Bible regarding "Why did you create such imperfect beings and expect them to be perfect?" or "Why would you punish imperfect beings for being exactly how you created them?"
Nono.. either through political reasons or religious reasons, no pope or Bible psalm dared answer those questions.
And to answer your question, why does the potter have to answer to the pot? With a gun to the back of your head by a complete stranger who said he was about to end your life here on this earth.... wouldn't the first question that'd come to your mind be why? Moreover, if God created us in this way with so may flaws and then hates us for it, isn't it fitting we ask our creator the big question "why?" There is no reason "Why not?" What reason you think you have is just a "you shouldn't question the things around you" argument. I think mankind has proven that asking questions was the only way we got out of the pit we called the Dark Ages.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Dictionary definition of choice)
The act of choosing; selection.
The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
One that is chosen.
A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
The best or most preferable part.
Care in choosing.
An alternative.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OK, so that last one isn't in the Bible, it is pure common sense. If you show a guy a spade, and then tell him to choose which one he wants, how is that a choice? In the same way, if you took a mentally ill patient who was addicted to spades, and you showed him spade and a rake, how has he chosen? Neither of them has ben able to look at the possibilities, and then weigh up the pros and the cons of each, thinking about what they might use it for. That is what choice is all about, and both of them didn't have any choice. In the first case, because there was only one option, and in the second case, because he was so addicted to spades that he didn't make any choice at all. Neither of them has been able to make a selectiopn from the two, they didnt have a variety of items from which to choose. They were not able to perfor any act of choosing, there was no alternative.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So why does God give us choice, and punish us for doing wrong when we're inherently flawed anyway? I mean that's kind of sick if you think about it. It's like offering candy or homework to a child. When he choses candy over homework, you beat him. Of COURSE the kid will pick candy over homework. Just like it is sort of obvious that if you create creatures which love sin and then offer a life of sin or a life of complete isolation, you beat them if they choose sin. I mean duh! What was God thinking?! I think that's hardly common sense. The question "Why?" is hardly obvious. What motive would God have for this? Does the Bible have an answer that you know of?
Also, I disproved what the latter part of your arguement was based on, thus destroying the whole thing in the process.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And I showed that that is not logically impossible, thereby refuting your argument.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Can you really expect us to take the time to debunk stuff that includes curses?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is up to you, but until you do...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see any questions answered in the Bible regarding "Why did you create such imperfect beings and expect them to be perfect?" or "Why would you punish imperfect beings for being exactly how you created them?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe you aren't looking hard enough<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"God saw what He had made, and it was good." That "good" is not an 'OK, I cba to work any more on it, I am really tired so I will go to bed and let them get on with it' sort of good its a 'perfect' good. Humans were created perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And to answer your question, why does the potter have to answer to the pot? With a gun to the back of your head by a complete stranger who said he was about to end your life here on this earth.... wouldn't the first question that'd come to your mind be why?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I would ask why, but that is because the dtranger and I are equal. He has no right over me at all, so I would want to know why. The potter on the other hand, as I said before, is infinitely more everything than the pots, and they were his creation, so he can do what he likes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover, if God created us in this way with so may flaws and then hates us for it, isn't it fitting we ask our creator the big question "why?" There is no reason "Why not?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. We were created perfect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What reason you think you have is just a "you shouldn't question the things around you" argument. I think mankind has proven that asking questions was the only way we got out of the pit we called the Dark Ages.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Asking questions is good about the world around us, I am all for it. As you said, we wouldn't be here today if we didn't ask questions. As for asking questions about God, well, ask away, but don't expect an answer, and definitely don't expect the answer you were looking for.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So why does God give us choice, and punish us for doing wrong when we're inherently flawed anyway? I mean that's kind of sick if you think about it. It's like offering candy or homework to a child. When he choses candy over homework, you beat him. Of COURSE the kid will pick candy over homework.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your analogy is flawed slightly. God did not offer the fruit of the tree to us. He did not say "Today you can have an orange from that tree there or an apple from this tree here." Yes, he put the tree in the garden, but he did not tell them to eat. He tld them not too. He had to put the tree there otherwaise they wouldn't have had any choice.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just like it is sort of obvious that if you create creatures which love sin and then offer a life of sin or a life of complete isolation, you beat them if they choose sin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Adam and Eve did not love sin. they had no knowledge of sin until they eat of the tree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I mean duh! What was God thinking?! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
God only knows
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think that's hardly common sense. The question "Why?" is hardly obvious. What motive would God have for this? Does the Bible have an answer that you know of?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes.
Sorry, did you want me to tell you?
God put the tree there to give Adamn and Eve a choice. With no choice, we can have no free will, so we cannot have a meaningful relationship, which was/is God's plan all along.