HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Creation

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:21 PM

Creation

It is said that the christian god is all powerful, all knowing, created everything and perfect
I was wondering how a perfect being could create anything imperfect.

120 replies, 10935 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 120 replies Author Time Post
Reply Creation (Original post)
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 OP
exboyfil Aug 2016 #1
TexasProgresive Aug 2016 #2
Warren Stupidity Aug 2016 #5
cleanhippie Aug 2016 #9
3catwoman3 Aug 2016 #66
cleanhippie Aug 2016 #8
cilla4progress Aug 2016 #59
rogerashton Aug 2016 #101
Jerry442 Aug 2016 #3
Warren Stupidity Aug 2016 #4
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #6
Warren Stupidity Aug 2016 #10
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #13
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #23
Warren Stupidity Aug 2016 #45
trotsky Aug 2016 #50
whatthehey Aug 2016 #52
cleanhippie Aug 2016 #11
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #14
pokerfan Aug 2016 #19
trotsky Aug 2016 #7
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #12
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #15
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #16
trotsky Aug 2016 #17
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #18
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #25
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #31
trotsky Aug 2016 #46
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #49
trotsky Aug 2016 #51
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #53
trotsky Aug 2016 #54
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #57
trotsky Aug 2016 #60
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #61
trotsky Aug 2016 #65
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #24
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #32
cleanhippie Aug 2016 #39
Leontius Aug 2016 #67
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #69
trotsky Aug 2016 #70
Leontius Aug 2016 #71
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #72
edhopper Aug 2016 #28
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #34
edhopper Aug 2016 #36
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #48
Act_of_Reparation Aug 2016 #64
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #75
edhopper Aug 2016 #83
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #84
edhopper Aug 2016 #85
trotsky Aug 2016 #89
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #91
edhopper Aug 2016 #104
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #106
edhopper Aug 2016 #107
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #108
edhopper Aug 2016 #109
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #111
edhopper Aug 2016 #113
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #115
edhopper Aug 2016 #116
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #117
edhopper Aug 2016 #118
Warren Stupidity Aug 2016 #88
cleanhippie Aug 2016 #38
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #40
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #63
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #74
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #77
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #78
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #79
rug Aug 2016 #80
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #81
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #82
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #86
trotsky Aug 2016 #90
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #92
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #93
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #94
trotsky Aug 2016 #95
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #98
trotsky Aug 2016 #120
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #97
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #99
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #100
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #102
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #103
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #105
cpwm17 Aug 2016 #110
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #112
Warren Stupidity Aug 2016 #87
immoderate Aug 2016 #20
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #21
immoderate Aug 2016 #22
edhopper Aug 2016 #26
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #33
edhopper Aug 2016 #37
whatthehey Aug 2016 #56
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #58
whatthehey Aug 2016 #62
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #73
trotsky Aug 2016 #76
True Dough Aug 2016 #55
exboyfil Aug 2016 #27
bulloney Aug 2016 #29
guillaumeb Aug 2016 #35
Humanist_Activist Aug 2016 #41
trotsky Aug 2016 #47
edhopper Aug 2016 #42
pokerfan Aug 2016 #43
grubbs Aug 2016 #30
struggle4progress Aug 2016 #44
DetlefK Aug 2016 #68
Angry Dragon Aug 2016 #96
DetlefK Aug 2016 #114
Oneironaut Aug 2016 #119

Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:25 PM

1. The Fall

Of course He knew that Lucifer and Adam/Eve would rebel. Hard to get your head around it (why create man knowing that most will burn in eternal fire for eternity).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:32 PM

2. A whole arm, leg, branch of theology is dedicated to understanding your question

Theodicy (/θiːˈɒdɪsi/), in its most common form, attempts to answer the question why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy addresses the evidential problem of evil by attempting “to make the existence of an All-knowing, All-powerful and All-good or omnibenevolent God consistent with the existence of evil” or suffering in the world.[1] Unlike a defence, which tries to demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy attempts to provide a framework wherein God's existence is also plausible.[2] The German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" in 1710 in his work Théodicée, though various responses to the problem of evil had been previously proposed. The British philosopher John Hick traced the history of moral theodicy in his 1966 work, Evil and the God of Love, identifying three major traditions:

1. the Plotinian theodicy, named after Plotinus
2. the Augustinian theodicy, which Hick based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo
3. the Irenaean theodicy, which Hick developed, based on the thinking of St. Irenaeus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:52 PM

5. Theo-idiocy. NT.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:55 PM

9. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:26 AM

66. That is how my mind's eye...

...first saw that word -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:55 PM

8. You mean a whole arm is dedicated to making it what they want it to mean.

Fixed it for ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:58 AM

59. These people

Had too much time on their hands!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:57 PM

101. But ale does more than Milton can

to justify God's ways to man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:43 PM

3. Perfection is a false goal.

Perfection is sterile and stagnant. Make yourself a perfect crystal of silicon, without flaw of any kind, and what do you have? A pretty chunk of an inert mineral. Add some impurities though, and the possibilities are endless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:51 PM

4. There is nothing about this universe that requires

 

gods as an explanation. This nonsense should just be put in the shelf with the rest of the myths and fairy tales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #4)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:54 PM

6. I have other questions

Where did the universe come from??
What is the universe expanding into??

One should never quit asking until all the questions are answered

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:56 PM

10. A) nothing. B) it is the expansion.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:07 PM

13. these seem like weak answers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 06:38 PM

23. Sometimes reality doesn't meet our expectations.

It is what it is, regardless of what I would prefer that it be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 05:53 AM

45. It isn't expanding "into" anything, all of space is expanding.

 

There isn't some surrounding "void". That is a holdover concept from ancient cosmology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:38 AM

50. That's where a lot of confusion over origins comes from.

Humans can't help but try to apply their understanding of the universe to the conditions "before" or "outside" the universe. But of course those very notions are meaningless, since time and space are themselves defined by the universe itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:44 AM

52. Why? Exactly what is weak about them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #6)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:56 PM

11. Those are great questions that should be asked. Religion isn't going to answer them though.

Science may, but religion never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:09 PM

14. most organised religions already feel they already have all the answers

that is why they are not happy with questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #14)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:40 PM

19. Feynman said it best, I think

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:54 PM

7. The most sophisticated believers realized the inherent contradiction in this long ago...

and rather than take it as a sign the whole thing is phooey, they set about coming up with excuses as to why their ALL-POWERFUL god was somehow "forced" to do something one way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:05 PM

12. Free will.

Without free will there can be no choice. The Creator chose to create and gave sentient beings the same freedom of choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:10 PM

15. it would seem there are no wrong choices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:15 PM

16. Who determines wrongness?

If man is made in the image of the Creator, image generally interpreted to mean possessing reasoning power, man must be free to make choices.

And that reasoning power can sometimes lead people to disbelieve in the existence of a Creator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:23 PM

17. Do people have free will in heaven? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #17)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:24 PM

18. When I get there I will walk over and let you know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #18)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 06:49 PM

25. His question isn't flippant.

You really should consider it.

If the answer is yes, then God obviously can reveal his existence to people. If the answer is no, then free will isn't all that important to human happiness, and its existence is therefore arbitrary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:35 PM

31. If a person/intelligence/entity has free will at birth,

it would be reasonable to assume that that same person/intelligence/entity would continue to have that same characteristic in the afterlife.

And the Creator always has the option of revelation. Whether or not the revelation is recognized and/or understood is another matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 08:00 AM

46. Is it also "reasonable to assume" that since we are told that suffering is a necessary consequence..

of free will, that there is then also suffering in heaven?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #46)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:31 AM

49. Suffering is a vague term.

But free will does not imply anything about choices that are made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #49)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:40 AM

51. Actually free will is all about choices made.

That's the constant refrain that apologists like yourself give when asked why there is suffering in the world. Because of free will. People have to be free to choose whatever they want to do, including possibly hurting someone else.

You claim there is free will in heaven. Yet I can only assume there cannot be suffering in heaven. So is free will limited in heaven?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #51)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:48 AM

53. I cannot answer because I am living in the material world.

But my feeling is that the answer will be "yes".

Again, you will have to wait for that answer until you get there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:50 AM

54. Wow, so free will is restricted in heaven?

Doesn't sound like heaven then. Perhaps you've got your destinations mixed up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #54)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:54 AM

57. Here is/was my previous answer to your question:

I cannot answer because I am living in the material world.
But my feeling is that the answer will be "yes".
Again, you will have to wait for that answer until you get there.


Now if I answered that "my feeling is that the answer will be "yes", how could anyone interpret that as a negative answer?

PS.
I updated my signature line. Thanks for the inspiration.
Guillaume

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #57)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:59 AM

60. Because my question was: "So is free will limited in heaven?"

If you answer "yes," then that means you think free will is limited in heaven. You answered yes. Thus you think free will is limited in heaven.

I'm a little scared by your sig line. Usually people who claim to know what god thinks are the most dangerous ones of all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #60)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:02 AM

61. You apparently misread my answer.

And my signature line is a tongue in cheek response to yours.

And I believe, but cannot prove, that free will exists everywhere that the Creator exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #61)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:19 AM

65. Yes obviously I must have misread the words that you put in your post.

You have made repeated insinuations that my comprehension skills are lacking. So clearly that is the problem - when you get trapped by an answer you gave, you just imply that I'm dumb, and drop it. Very Christian of you.

And I believe, but cannot prove, that free will exists everywhere that the Creator exists.

Then why did you so confidently reply with "free will" to the question in the OP?

That you think you can speak for a god though, is very disturbing. Although not surprising given your history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 06:42 PM

24. So what?

Every time this topic comes up, the theists present free will like it's some kind of gift. As if it makes all the horrible things humanity endures somehow worth it.

One million children die of malnurishment every year, but fuck it, I get to pick whether I want my iPhone in gold or space gray.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #24)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:37 PM

32. You are confusing (or conflating) free will with freedom to shop.

And you are free to do so, but to what point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 09:09 PM

39. No, you're just being intentionally obtuse about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:29 AM

67. And yet you use your choice (free will) to buy an IPhone

 

instead of helping save those children from dying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leontius (Reply #67)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 11:01 AM

69. OH HAI LEO!

I'm really pleased you could drop by and be a part of this conversation. If you're not too busy purposefully misrepresenting hyperbole as literal fact, maybe you could explain why free will is worth millions of children dying from inadequate access to food.

I might not be able save a million kids a year, but my line of work necessarily entails that I help save at least a few. Which is more than can be said for your dear and fluffy lord. And I'm guessing probably you, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 11:19 AM

70. Hey he makes lots of snarky comments directed at atheists on the Internet.

That's gotta be good for feeding at least a dozen kids. I'm sure Jesus is proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #69)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 11:57 AM

71. Your lack of understanding is forgiven

 

It still does not answer the question of the use of free will or choice if you prefer that with or without God those choices are ours to make and we, all of us together, have the power and resources to save those children and yet we don't. Whose fault is that? Saying why doesn't God do it is just not good enough to excuse our lack of doing so especially if there is no God, as I believe you claim, to pass the blame to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Leontius (Reply #71)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 12:32 PM

72. THX BUDDY

The trouble is I'm not trying to decipher who is actually responsible for feeding kids, or who we should blame when shit goes south. We can talk about that in another locale, and chances are we'd be in complete agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 07:00 PM

28. I choose to be born

without sin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #28)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:44 PM

34. What if we substitute the word "flaw" for sin?

As in a non-perfect entity. Does your statement still apply?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #34)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:58 PM

36. flaws a plenty

but the idea of original sin, ie, people have sex, is abhorant.

I reject the concept of sin, as most Christians follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:29 AM

48. Original sin was about rejecting the Creator's injunction.

Not about sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:14 AM

64. Still kind of abhorrent, don't you think?

To raise your children to think they were born sick and are commanded by God to be well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #64)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:30 PM

75. That was not how we raised our children. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #48)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 06:35 PM

83. nah

it's all really about sex, no matter how many pretty words they want to sling around.

but I'll play, since Adam an Eve is a mythological story and has no resemblance with how humans came to be, what was the actual sin that iall are born with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #83)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 06:51 PM

84. Adam and Eve are archetypes.

Think of the earth giving life as substitutes for the names and the hidden meaning is apparent.

The Bible is clear on what was meant by the fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #84)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 08:39 PM

85. I am dim then

what sin is all mankind guilty of, one we are born with. and it must be something applicable to bronze age nomads?

what is the Bible so clear about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 08:07 AM

89. "The bible is clear"

Isn't it interesting how the same people who bash fundamentalist Christians for being so certain what their bible says are so quick to turn around and make a statement like "The bible is clear..." when it comes to supporting their beliefs?

There's a word for that, isn't there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 10:11 AM

91. What do you see as sin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #91)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:31 PM

104. sin to me is

a religious concept having to do with God. I don't go along. with the concept.

what is sin to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #104)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:37 PM

106. Behaving badly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #106)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:45 PM

107. it is generally accepted

that sin is violating God's law or will, it is almost never used without a religious connotation. And I can't see why it would be on this forum.

discussing original sin without religion is pretty meaningless.

I still wonder what the Bible is so clear about original sin, you haven't answered that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #107)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:50 PM

108. That varies by sect:

There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of this doctrine, (meaning original sin) with some so-called Christian groups denying it altogether. Eastern Orthodoxy, Judaism, and Islam acknowledge that the introduction of sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but deny any inherited guilt or necessary corruption of man's nature.

http://www.theopedia.com/original-sin

Is this clear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #108)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:55 PM

109. no, not really?

so it might be sex, or just man's imperfect nature, or might not exist at all.
But the Bible is very clear about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #109)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:58 PM

111. How many ways can the Bible be interpreted? Many ways.

Witness the radically different interpretations of the Second Amendment, which was not written 5800 years ago. Does this surprise you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #111)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 09:20 PM

113. I still don't understand this:

"Think of the earth giving life as substitutes for the names and the hidden meaning is apparent.

The Bible is clear on what was meant by the fall."

so it can be interpreted in many ways but is also clear and the meaning apparent.

of course if you see the Bible, not as the word of God, but the musings of men with limited knowledge, it starts making sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #113)

Sat Aug 13, 2016, 09:56 AM

115. And if this statement represents your view I understand

of course if you see the Bible, not as the word of God, but the musings of men with limited knowledge, it starts making sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #115)

Sat Aug 13, 2016, 12:49 PM

116. that's fair

but I still don't understand what you meant about the meaning of the fall being apparent and clear in the Bible?

can't you just give a declarative statement about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #116)

Sat Aug 13, 2016, 02:59 PM

117. I can give a declarative statement.

There are, or can be, many meanings/interpretations of many passages in the Bible. To the literalists there is no room for interpretation. I am not a Biblical literalist.

So when I said that the meaning is apparent and clear I should have added to each individual believer to my statement. My lack of clarity. No pun intended but you are free to interpret it that way if you wish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #117)

Sat Aug 13, 2016, 09:59 PM

118. thanks for that clarification nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #83)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:55 AM

88. See Augustine. Sex is the main event. Bad bad dirty dirty!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 09:08 PM

38. Lol. I can see you believe that, but that doesn't make it true.

You can certainly try and prove it to be true, but first you'd need to prove there is a "creator", and that it's the one you believe in.

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 10:16 PM

40. Still doesn't explain a universe full of suffering that is mostly incompatible...

 

to most life as we know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:12 AM

63. What is this free will that you speak of?

 

We are the products of our genetics and environment, neither of which we have any choice at birth. After that, we think and act based on how our brains have developed in our environment. We don't design our own brains, so our conscious selves don't ultimately control our actions and thoughts. If you believe in a god, then this god is responsible for who we are.

Free will is an illusion. We don't understand how our brains work or how they come to their conclusions. Our heads are black boxes.

We experience inputs into our brains and we experience outputs from our brains. What our brains actually do, we can't know. We experience feelings associated with our thoughts and action. This gives us the illusion that our conscious selves actually made the decision. But our feelings only drive our thoughts and actions by forcing our (outside of conscious) brains to act.

Even when you use sequential logic, ultimately your thoughts come out of your black box.

There is no free will. That is just an excuse for this imaginary god for not being able to see the future and the flaws in creation. God says, the buck don't stop here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #63)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:24 PM

74. If I accepted your argument, which I do not,

that same argument could be interpreted to mean that we have no control.

Thus if I kill someone it is not my fault?

So anything that a human does should be accepted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #74)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:48 PM

77. My position is a major argument against torture

 

and one of many reasons that hell is so wrong. But punishment by imprisonment is needed to protect the public and to prevent future crimes.

Those thoughts and motivations that caused you to write what you wrote, where did they come from?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #77)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:50 PM

78. I have no idea. They just erupted from my fingers onto the keyboard.

Plus I have no control over my fingers so I cannot stop typing lak=====jbfieorugnid44cnaodjcnadj..................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #78)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 04:11 PM

79. If we had free will, we would be able to explain where our thoughts came from.

 

We experience feelings and thoughts, with our feelings feeding back to our brains to drive our thoughts and actions. Our brains do this, but our conscious brains have no free will. Most of what happens in our brains happens outside our consciousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #79)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 04:41 PM

80. The corrollary to that is you can predict what you will do tomorrow.

 

That's as sound a position as astrology. Just substitute biochemistry for astronomy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #80)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 05:24 PM

81. Through a feelings driven process, you can plan your tomorrow.

 

Like all thought processes, most of this happens outside of consciousness. If different thoughts (plans) associated with more powerful feelings don't happened between your planning and tomorrow, you will actually go through with your plans.

Every moment of consciousness your conscious brain is a slave to your (good and bad) feeings, and without feelings, you would be in a coma-like state.


We have no way of knowing what goes on in here. We have feelings and thoughts, and stuff happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #79)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 05:42 PM

82. How much of what happens in the brain relates to automatic functions?

You do not control most of what your body does, but this is irrelevant to the concept of free will. A far better explanation than I could do is here:

These arguments leave untouched the meaning of free will that most people understand, which is consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. Hardly anyone denies that people engage in logical reasoning and self-control to make choices. There is a genuine psychological reality behind the idea of free will. The debate is merely about whether this reality deserves to be called free will. Setting aside the semantic debate, let’s try to understand what that underlying reality is.

There is no need to insist that free will is some kind of magical violation of causality. Free will is just another kind of cause. The causal process by which a person decides whether to marry is simply different from the processes that cause balls to roll downhill, ice to melt in the hot sun, a magnet to attract nails, or a stock price to rise and fall.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/09/free_will_debate_what_does_free_will_mean_and_how_did_it_evolve.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #82)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:17 PM

86. Ultimately, all decisions are outside of consciousness.

 

Definitions of free will that are relevant to religious discussions have to require that our thoughts and actions come from our conscious brains, since it is our conscious brains that would experience any rewards and punishments, such as heaven or hell.

meaning of free will that most people understand, which is consciously making choices about what to do in the absence of external coercion, and accepting responsibility for one’s actions. Hardly anyone denies that people engage in logical reasoning and self-control to make choices.


(This is all my opinion, that I haven't seen written by anyone else before) Our consciousness does play a critical role, but our consciousness isn't what makes decisions. I deny that decisions in logical reasoning ultimately come from consciousness. Consciousness is what experiences pain, pleasure, emotions, and other much more subtle feelings (along with thoughts and senses), without (consciousness) which you can have no drive. Drive is what forces us to think and do, and the strength of our feelings determine what we learn.

Every waking moment we are completely driven by our feelings, most of them very subtle. Our feelings force our brains to work (that's why we are conscious), but our non-conscious brains do the actual thinking. Thinking has to be automatic in the non-conscious brain since we have no way of knowing how our brains actually work and conscious free-will is fundamentally impossible.

I know I'm repeating myself, but one has to explain in detail how our brains actually work, rather than stating it as a matter of faith that we have free will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 08:10 AM

90. Well, "free will" really does become a matter of faith for Christians, since...

their entire theological house of cards is built on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 10:16 AM

92. I think that unless we know exactly how our brain works,

this is all speculation. Motivation is difficult to understand and explain.

But if you are willing to deny that volition exists, all acts are random and the actor bears no responsibility for actions. Explain then how this concept requires society to abandon any attempt at social rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #92)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 11:48 AM

93. It's not at all random.

 

Our brains have evolved to best allow us to pass on our genes. A brain that acts randomly could never survive, and those genes won't get passed on. Any of us that don't properly follow social rules will not be successful. People around him/her will react poorly to improper behavior.

Our brains are programmed, through learning and instinct, to give us positive and negative feedback (feelings) based on our thoughts and actions. Our feelings do give us a stake in our own existence (motivation) which automatically forces our brains to work in our own benefit. Our consciousness doesn't do the actually decision making, but it certainly plays an important role.

Science certainly has difficulty explaining consciousness, but if we had free will this wouldn't be the case. We would understand where our thoughts come from and how we reach our decisions.

The reason we can't explain how we reach our decisions is due to the fact that our consciousness does far less than we think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #93)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 01:13 PM

94. Some random comments:

First:
Our brains have evolved to best allow us to pass on our genes. A brain that acts randomly could never survive, and those genes won't get passed on. Any of us that don't properly follow social rules will not be successful. People around him/her will react poorly to improper behavior.


Social rules are not "hardwired" into the brain. They are social constructs. And these social constructs are needed if humans are to survive communally.

Second:
Our brains are programmed, through learning and instinct, to give us positive and negative feedback (feelings) based on our thoughts and actions. Our feelings do give us a stake in our own existence (motivation) which automatically forces our brains to work in our own benefit. Our consciousness doesn't do the actually decision making, but it certainly plays an important role.


The decision to eat potatoes or carrots is deliberately made. And the decision, being deliberately made, involves conscious behavior because it is not automatic behavior like breathing or digestion.

Third:
Science certainly has difficulty explaining consciousness, but if we had free will this wouldn't be the case. We would understand where our thoughts come from and how we reach our decisions.


Free will means the ability to choose freely, without coercion. If you freely choose to eat potatoes you are exercising your free will. True, the choice is a minor one, but that does not make it any less a freely made choice.

My simplified interpretation of your idea is that if any part of our decision making is automatic, rather than specifically thought out, that nullifies the concept of free will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #94)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 01:28 PM

95. "The decision to eat potatoes or carrots is deliberately made."

How do you know this for certain?

Would the process look (or feel) any different if the choice was being made for you, and you were simply rationalizing it as your choice?

Be specific in your answer please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #95)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:22 PM

98. Who or what made you respond?

That type of argument is fruitless.

If you decide to go to the movies, did you really decide, or did the aliens aim a mind control ray at your head?

And that is ultimately where this train is going.

Perhaps the Creator inspired you to write this in an attempt to test my faith.

Or perhaps what I see as the universe is merely a mental construct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #98)

Mon Aug 15, 2016, 07:55 AM

120. No, you made a claim.

Support it. Go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #94)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:17 PM

97. Each and every decision you make, where did they come from?

 

How do they pop into your conscious brain? You claim you have free will, so you have to know where your thoughts come from.

The decision to eat potatoes or carrots originates with a desire, perhaps originating with hunger. This desire is imposed on your consciousness. The desire is a motivational force which automatically makes your brain prioritizes your hunger.

Our brains are automatic brain-storming machines. So in our every waking moment stuff flows through our brains. Consciousness plays a part. In my opinion, along with being a motivational force, the desires in consciousness force our complicated brains to act as one. As thoughts pass through our conscious brains, our consciousness automatically react to these thoughts with feelings (usually subtle, sometimes not). The force of feelings automatically keeps our thoughts on track, and our brains working on one particular goal of the moment. Hunger is usually a more powerful feeling which pushes our brains in a particular direction. In the big picture, this process isn't deliberate. It's automatic. You can't stop it.

Social rules are learned. They only exist in our heads.

In every step of the way thoughts automatically pop in our heads. For difficult problems not dealt with before, we can break up our thoughts into understandable and previously learned steps. Everything is still ultimately imposed on our conscious minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #97)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:23 PM

99. Prove to my satisfaction that you exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #99)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:32 PM

100. Artificial intelligence hasn't advanced with the ability to write what I write,

 

so presumably you can assume there's a human on this side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #100)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:58 PM

102. The Turing test.

But will artificial intelligence advance to that level, and if it does, will it possess sentience?

If AI does advance to that point, would it have enforceable rights?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #102)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:28 PM

103. Some people, including some scientists, think that consciousness

 

will automatically emerge in computers if we make them complicated enough. Or at least consciousness in AI is reasonably possible.

Some think the inability to explain the role of consciousness in our brains means that consciousness has no role. They think consciousness will just appear if you make an AI computer complicated enough.

I think the fact that we experience pain and pleasure and the profound effect they have on our behavior certainly shows that consciousness has an important role.

I am skeptical of the ability to ever make a conscious computer. We don't understand how our own brains make consciousness and we will never truly understand. If man ever makes one, it would have to be artificially evolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #103)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:33 PM

105. And if consciousness appears with any sufficiently complex brain,

does that imply that it is a design feature of that brain. Meaning that when a brain reaches a certain level of complexity consciousness/sentience appears?

In my faith-based view, sentience is the divine spark, the soul. Also unprovable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #105)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 07:58 PM

110. I notice that I didn't complete my thoughts above.

 

I meant to also write that I don't think that consciousness just appears with a sufficiently complex brain, as some believe, since I think that consciousness has an important role. Our brains evolved consciousness to serve this important role.

The fact that damage to our brains causes our consciousness to diminish or die, strongly indicates that our consciousness is a process of the physical brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #110)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 08:03 PM

112. I might agree that the conscious part of the brain depends of course on

the physical part of the brain for the hardware, with sentience/consciousness being the software. To make an analogy.

But even a damaged brain still has sentience, with the amount depending on the severity of the damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 06:52 AM

87. Neurology is not finding much evidence of this alleged free will.

 

And yes it does raise interesting question about our penal system. Probably makes the case for ditching retributive punishment entirely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:45 PM

20. Being an asshole, God placed the Tree of Knowledge where he knew Adam would eat

 

from it. You can't say he was surprised. That fucked things up for everybody. Adam had no free will.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #20)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 04:48 PM

21. they just blame it on the woman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #21)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 05:02 PM

22. She had no choice either. All part of God's nefarious plan.

 

He may be incompetent, but he knows everything that has happened, and that will happen. We think we have choices, but it's all been determined.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 06:57 PM

26. A question about God

not answered for 2000 years and counting

[img][/img]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:39 PM

33. If allowing people to make choices is evil, this might make sense.

And the specifics of what comprises evil have varied in every society, which might lead one to feel that good/evil are human constructs that have no place in the Creator's thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #33)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:59 PM

37. which assumes

a thinking creator, not in evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:53 AM

56. Not all evil is human

Does free will create famine and landslides and random genetic deformities and volcanoes and floods and childhood cancer and earthquakes and type 1 diabetes and tsunamis and SIDS and torandos and the plague?

Why didn't an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator make the central nervous system register pain only until you take your hand out of the flame? Why did he design teeth for the pinnacle of his creation, his own image no less, which didn't normally last their natural lifespan until the last few decades, by human ingenuity, when he gave other creatures the ability to keep regrowing them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #56)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:58 AM

58. Your questions seem to assume that creation is something

that the Creator constantly updates and guides.

Why would you assume that?

Why would you assume that what you feel is logical would also be logical for the Creator?

And all of these things you cataloged in your first paragraph are not evil, they are simply things that happen in this universe. And probably in ever universe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #58)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:12 AM

62. So which omni is BS?

Because an entity which even designed a world containing those things and millions more like them is certainly not omniscient AND omnipotent AND omnibenevolent because those things exist, QED. If you retreat into ineffability as per usual, then we are left with a creator about which nothing meaningful can be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #62)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:22 PM

73. If you believe in a Creator,

one who created all that humans recognize as existence, the capabilities of that creator would of necessity be far beyond our own. So why would any human feel that they had the capability to understand the motivation of that creator?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #73)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:43 PM

76. ...

So why would any human feel that they had the capability to understand the motivation of that creator?

I dunno, you certainly don't seem to have any reservations about doing so, even going so far as to pretend to quote it in order to insult a scientist you've misrepresented. You seem to value humility and compassion, but your actions certainly don't match.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 09:53 AM

55. +1 for Epicurus

Who then made his way into the kitchen and cooked some tasty fish and drank an obscene amount of wine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 06:58 PM

27. Here is an interesting video

addressing this question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 07:17 PM

29. I've wondered why this all-knowing God didn't know enough to create a female counterpart

to his own species when he did with all of the other animals.

As I've gotten older, I increasingly believe the Old Testament is a collection of fairy tales that originated from a bunch of nomad men sitting around the campfire at night and telling bullshit stories to each other. These stories have a common thread in that women are subordinate to men because, according to these campfire bullshitters, woman had to be created from a part of a man (rib).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #29)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 08:48 PM

35. Your last sentence:

These stories have a common thread in that women are subordinate to men because, according to these campfire bullshitters, woman had to be created from a part of a man (rib).


If we consider that, chromosomally speaking, women are XX and men are XY, and we consider that a Y can be seen as an X missing the lower part, perhaps the story of the missing rib can be seen as a biological explanation set in Bronze Era language. It would have been obvious that men and women do not have a different number of actual ribs, but if the story is examined as metaphor.............?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 10:19 PM

41. That seems to be a stretch, particularly since, technically, female is the "default" for...

 

most vertebrate animals(including humans).

Males are an adaptation to create sexual reproduction and selection pressures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Humanist_Activist (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 08:33 AM

47. Oh you and your facts.

He's on a crusade to prove that his creation story is true. Don't be so mean!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 10:35 PM

42. You notice that when man started understaning

how the Universe really works, God stopped talking to us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 03:06 AM

43. I'm sorry but...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Wed Aug 10, 2016, 07:21 PM

30. It's all just fairy tales

We're here because we're here because we're here .,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 05:27 AM

44. Since there is no obvious other candidate world to compare to this world,

the only thing we could mean, when we say 'the world is imperfect,' is 'we would change some things if we could'

And for as long as we have records, there seem to have been humans working hard at doing so, in various ways -- say, by making 'better' shoes or trying to cure particular diseases

Although many in this forum apparently dislike those answers (to questions about the world's 'imperfections') which reference 'free will,' such an answer, when properly understood, seems to me the only possible responsible answer: it redirects our attention from meaningless abstract gooble-de-gook back to the practical problem of choosing how to spend our time productively

There's no way to make sense of the question, 'How could a perfect being create anything imperfect?' There's no way to tell whether an 'answer' to the question is 'tight' or 'wrong' -- and there's nothing obvious that we could do with a 'right answer' to the question: the only thing one can do is suggest spending time and energy to improve some 'imperfection'

Thus, to 'How could a perfect being create anything imperfect?' one simply retorts 'So that you would be able to choose to make something better,' hoping enough people take the hint

And those who refuse to take the hint? Well, we all only a limited amount of time: why waste it in pointless arguments about the whatness-of-nothing?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Thu Aug 11, 2016, 10:53 AM

68. Your question is unclear.

What do you mean by "perfect" and "imperfect"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #68)

Fri Aug 12, 2016, 01:57 PM

96. perfect would be no flaws

imperfect would be with flaws

It is said that the god of the Bible is perfect the question was ......... could a perfect being create an imperfect being or thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #96)

Sat Aug 13, 2016, 07:12 AM

114. That definition doesn't really help.

For example: The appendix on the colon. Certain herbivores need it for digesting plants. But in the human it just sits around unused. We only realize we have an appendix if it gets an inflammation.

Is the appendix a flaw?

We cannot know: If God created the human, and God has free will and a plan, then the appendix might be part of God's plan.






This is the basic problem with discovering God by his actions: No one knows what he meant by those actions.
For example: A hunter killing deer. Is he a bad person or is he preserving the deer-population by preventing over-population?

Trying to discover God by his works or by experiments or the like is a futile endavour from the very beginning: A human cannot learn more about God by using things like evidence or facts. It's philosophically impossible, because God has a free will (-> does not obey fixed rules) and is unique (-> you cannot use statistics to deduce some general behaviour of God).

God can neither be proven nor disproven by using things such as experiments, evidence, witnesses... Because God and the scientific method are based on incompatible philosophic assumptions.



Now, having discarded proving God by science, it's important to be aware of a dangerous double-speak when it comes to "faith":
"Faith" and "belief" have two radically different meanings, but some religious people jump between them as they please.
1. "Faith" and "belief" can mean guessing.
2. "Faith" and "belief" can mean the very specific cultural and religious doctrine of the person using that word. The doctrine itself. Not "faith"/"belief" as a mental state.

When a religious person scolds you for not believing, in 99.9% of the cases they are scolding you for not having the exactly same opinion as him. But they cover up this extremism by claiming to use the innocent 1st definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Original post)

Sun Aug 14, 2016, 01:56 PM

119. This is a common philosophical paradox.

It asks many questions of itself:

If God is PKG (all knowing, powerful, and good), then why are its creations imperfect?

If God purposely created imperfection, then is it a monster?

If God created the Devil, then is God an idiot? Why create something that will directly oppose you and corrupt your creations?

If God is not in 100% control of free will, then it is not PKG, and therefore not a God.

If God is in control of free will, then why is God less evil than the Devil, for he is also the architect of pure evil on earth. If God cannot control the Devil, then God is not PKG, and therefore is not a God.

If imperfection is in God's plan, and it wants us to suffer, then God is evil. No good being would torture its creations, even if its intentions are good. A PKG God would create perfect creations in the first place. Otherwise, a PKG being creating imperfect creations that are sometimes subjected to horrific torture is morally no different from the Devil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread