Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:26 am Posts: 7994 Location: Philadelphia
IT's probably been talked about a thousand times already but here's my story.
I have not believed in organized religion, any religion, since I was about 15 years old. From then until the past year or so I still believed in some sort of creator. I've since come to the belief that there is no creator or "god". I have not, however, done any research to support my new beliefs.....just kind of drew my own conclusion. I recently started reading some theory's on the non-existence of "God", I guess the Christian version in particular (in my case any God). I now can't even believe that there are reasonable people out there that can take a serious look at logic and come to the conclusion that there is "God" out there. I am totally fascinated by this.
Case in point.....can anyone read the following post and make a good case against it? I would find it hard to believe that one who would is a reasonable, logical person.
_________________ Something tells me that the first mousetrap wasn't designed to catch mice at all, but to protect little cheese "gems" from burglars.
Last edited by jimmac24 on Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 3:26 am Posts: 7994 Location: Philadelphia
Introduction Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth. This assumption is false, not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory. Proving a universal negative Many Christians, as well as atheists, claim that it is impossible to prove a universal negative. For example, while we may not have evidence that unicorns or dragons exist, we cannot prove that they do not exist. Unless we have a complete knowledge of the universe, we must admit the possibility that somewhere in the universe, there might be such creatures. But the claim that omniscience is needed to prove a universal negative presumes that the concept which we are discussing is logically coherent. If the attributes which we assign to a hypothetical object or being are self-contradictory, then we can conclude that it cannot exist, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which make their existence impossible. A cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible -- they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object.
I intend to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to demonstrate that Yahweh's existence is an impossibility.
Defining YHWH Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future. God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.
These attributes of God are related by the Bible, which Christians believe to be the perfect and true Word of God.
One verse which many Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible, and reveal the impossibility of all of them being held simultaneously by the same being. There is no foolishness in denying the impossible. Foolishness is worshipping an impossible God.
Perfection seeks even more perfection What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete -- it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing the elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
Perfection begets imperfection But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and had the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God. What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans.
The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot make itself imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.
The Freewill Argument The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God. Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.
Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
All-good God knowingly creates future suffering God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infinite punishment for finite sins God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely injust. The absurdity of this infinite punishment appears even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of the human's imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Belief more important than action Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfection's imperfect revelation The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means for overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books called the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man. No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigma. And yet the perfect God expects the imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man. Contradictory justice One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh. Contradictory history The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters? Unfulfilled prophecy The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it with Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The sign given by Isaiah to King Ahaz was meant to assure him that his enemies King Rezin and King Remaliah would be defeated. The prophecy was fulfilled in the very next chapter. Yet Matthew 1 not only misinterprets the word for "maiden" as "virgin," but claims that this already-fulfilled prophecy is fulfilled by the virgin birth of Jesus! The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.
The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.
The Omniscient changes the future A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Omniscient is surprised A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally. We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
The conclusion of the matter I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and free thinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is as contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns. While believers may find comfort in being faithful to impossibilities, there is no greater satisfaction than a clear mind. You may choose to serve an impossible God. I will choose reality.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm Posts: 39920 Gender: Male
jimmac24 wrote:
Case in point.....can anyone read the following post and make a good case against it?
No, people might try but that's impossible if you already have your beliefs.
God let's us choose to either ignore Him, think of Him sometimes, think of Him all the time, it's our own choice. It's your karma that you're going to have to deal with in your next life, no one else's.
Case in point.....can anyone read the following post and make a good case against it?
No, people might try but that's impossible if you already have your beliefs.
God let's us choose to either ignore Him, think of Him sometimes, think of Him all the time, it's our own choice. It's your karma that you're going to have to deal with in your next life, no one else's.
Hare Krishna
That's a safe answer because it insinuates that spirituality stands outside of logic (which could only ever make sense if you don't really understand what logic is, or how it functions), creating an self-contained valueless but easy-to-defend system that has no actual foothold in reality. It's similar to saying "those things dont' have to be addressed, because God just is the way he is." It protects a person from actually having to evaluate their philosophies, but does nothing to hide the falsity of the assumption.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm Posts: 39920 Gender: Male
McParadigm wrote:
godeatgod wrote:
jimmac24 wrote:
Case in point.....can anyone read the following post and make a good case against it?
No, people might try but that's impossible if you already have your beliefs.
God let's us choose to either ignore Him, think of Him sometimes, think of Him all the time, it's our own choice. It's your karma that you're going to have to deal with in your next life, no one else's.
Hare Krishna
That's a safe answer because it insinuates that spirituality stands outside of logic (which could only ever make sense if you don't really understand what logic is, or how it functions), creating an self-contained valueless but easy-to-defend system that has no actual foothold in reality. It's similar to saying "those things dont' have to be addressed, because God just is the way he is." It protects a person from actually having to evaluate their philosophies, but does nothing to hide the falsity of the assumption.
God consciousness DOES stand above and beyond maya logic, that's a simple fact if you believe Vedic injunction.
...that's a simple fact if you believe Vedic injunction.
I would argue that Vedic Injunctions are a part of the very fallacy of which I speak. It's insular; it implies that the spiritual belief itself is the home of true knowledge, which is just another religious system protecting itself from being proven false. After all, any religion must, like any species, effectively protect itself to survive.[/quote]
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm Posts: 39920 Gender: Male
McParadigm wrote:
godeatgod wrote:
...that's a simple fact if you believe Vedic injunction.
I would argue that Vedic Injunctions are a part of the very fallacy of which I speak. It's insular; it implies that the spiritual belief itself is the home of true knowledge, which is just another religious system protecting itself from being proven false. After all, any religion must, like any species, effectively protect itself to survive.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
What this article disputes isn't the existence of God per se, but the existence of God as described by the Christian belief system. That's not so much disputing if there's some creator that set "things" into motion, as it disputes the plausibility of Christian doctrine.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
The first sentence is incorrect. "Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth." Christians do not consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth, thus the concept of faith. The arrogant prick wrote this opened with a presumption to know what all Christians believe and was blatantly incorrect about it. I don't have much hope for sentence number 2.
What this article disputes isn't the existence of God per se, but the existence of God as described by the Christian belief system. That's not so much disputing if there's some creator that set "things" into motion, as it disputes the plausibility of Christian doctrine.
True. Very often the discussion of plausibility of creator gets focused on the god of Christianity in the US, simply because that religion is so predominant. However, there are similar arguments for other deity figures, and in some cases certain arguments can be crossed over.
Quote:
The arrogant prick wrote this opened with a presumption to know what all Christians believe and was blatantly incorrect about it. I don't have much hope for sentence number 2.
Agreed, he made a silly assumption. But he's obviously someone looking at the religion from the outside, and he is specifically referring to the god of the Bible based on what the Bible says. Just because he makes some good arguments doesn't mean he might not be a total asshole.
Personally, I'd be much more interested if you discussed the arguments he made rather than the opening line.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:17 pm Posts: 13551 Location: is a jerk in wyoming Gender: Female
McParadigm wrote:
malice wrote:
What this article disputes isn't the existence of God per se, but the existence of God as described by the Christian belief system. That's not so much disputing if there's some creator that set "things" into motion, as it disputes the plausibility of Christian doctrine.
True. Very often the discussion of plausibility of creator gets focused on the god of Christianity in the US, simply because that religion is so predominant. However, there are similar arguments for other deity figures, and in some cases certain arguments can be crossed over.
I'm willing to go a step further and say that what the article essentially disputes is the plausibility of the doctrine of any organized religion...
Or maybe that's just me doing the questioning.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm Posts: 14534 Location: Mesa,AZ
jimmac24 wrote:
I now can't even believe that there are reasonable people out there that can take a serious look at logic and come to the conclusion that there is "God" out there. I am totally fascinated by this.
I actually think that remark is quite arrogant. But that's just my opinion.
I don't think it is an assumption that it is easy for Christians to believe in God. In fact, if you read the Old Testament (technically the Jews), one of the major themes is "here I am, I'm God, I've done so much for my children, now why the heck do they keep choosing other gods?" "Backsliding Israel" is the usual topic, which suggests that even for the "believers" it's hard.
So, that sentence "Christians consider ... obvious truth" is wrong altogether.
That article is filled with the same, tired, irrelevant arguments that have been going on forever about the existence of God.
Quote:
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?
This is totally irrelevant. Whether or not God decides to create worlds and whatnot has nothing to do with his perfection or existence. "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist" -- I see no reason why that has to be true. Perfection involves action, if you want to get philosophical.
Quote:
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness.
Again, this is not entirely logical. If God is perfect, he must be following some sort of rules of perfection. If those attributes make him perfect, those same attributes are what would make humans perfect. God himself must have freewill, as "perfection" is not material and purely physical, it is moral. If humans are to become perfect, they cannot simply be created in that state; they must become responsible and gain experience. Experience is an attribute of perfection, and that is why humans were created with free agency. This argument does not prove that incorrect.
Quote:
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
Nope.
Quote:
All-good God knowingly creates future suffering
So what? Suffering brings experience. I've heard many great, happy people say that the suffering they've gone through is what made them. Perfection can only be brought about through adversity.
Quote:
Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment.
Stealing is a finite offence. Rebelling against God is not. Everybody has rebelled against God at some point in their lives, most of us several times a day. All of us at some point put some other god first. Again, the writer does not actually understand what is actually believed by Judeo-Christian religions.
Quote:
Belief more important than action
Actually, not every denomination believes that statement. Read James chapter 2, it clears it up a bit.
Quote:
Perfection's imperfect revelation
Again, not all denominations even claim the Bible is perfect. I don't think God ever called for a bad translation, in order to understand the Bible you have to understand the audience. The cryptic O.T. writings that are always misunderstood may have been perfectly clear to Israel. Regardless of what many preachers say, very few of the writings in the Bible were written purely for our times. There are the writings to the Jews of the Old Testament, and most of the New Testament was written to the church at the time.
Quote:
An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.
Why? He could change the future if he so desired. That would, however, thwart his plan, which requires free agency.
Quote:
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions.
He didn't even attempt to support this statement. Nice.
------------
This article is no more logical than that of the theists. It's one belief system versus another. Anyone's "proof" that there is no God is nothing more than petty arrogance, and reeks of all the exlusiveness Christianity is accused of.
_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?
This is totally irrelevant. Whether or not God decides to create worlds and whatnot has nothing to do with his perfection or existence. "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist" -- I see no reason why that has to be true. Perfection involves action, if you want to get philosophical.
It has everything to do with its perfection because, as he says, the creation of a universe implies disequilibrium. The very notion of a perfect god is at odds with the notion of a creator god.
Quote:
Quote:
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness.
Again, this is not entirely logical. If God is perfect, he must be following some sort of rules of perfection. If those attributes make him perfect, those same attributes are what would make humans perfect. God himself must have freewill, as "perfection" is not material and purely physical, it is moral. If humans are to become perfect, they cannot simply be created in that state; they must become responsible and gain experience. Experience is an attribute of perfection, and that is why humans were created with free agency. This argument does not prove that incorrect.
If god is following a set of "rules," or expectations, that are required to be obeyed in order to be deemed perfect, then that doesn't leave much room for free will because the notion of achieving perfection is by itself so very limiting.
Quote:
Quote:
All-good God knowingly creates future suffering
So what? Suffering brings experience. I've heard many great, happy people say that the suffering they've gone through is what made them. Perfection can only be brought about through adversity.
Except that a vast amount of suffering in the world serves to teach no lesson, and some of those events that DO encourage learning only do so for the ones who witness it, not those who experience it. They die.
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment.
Stealing is a finite offence. Rebelling against God is not. Everybody has rebelled against God at some point in their lives, most of us several times a day. All of us at some point put some other god first. Again, the writer does not actually understand what is actually believed by Judeo-Christian religions.
Technically, any offense you commit in this life is limited, because life is limited. The "punishment" in this case is, however, for time immeasurable, which is morally imbalanced.
Quote:
Quote:
Belief more important than action
Actually, not every denomination believes that statement. Read James chapter 2, it clears it up a bit.
True. Some emphasize belief, some emphasize action.
Quote:
Quote:
Perfection's imperfect revelation
Again, not all denominations even claim the Bible is perfect.
I should hope not, especially given the vast number of translations and interpretations out there.
Quote:
Quote:
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions.
He didn't even attempt to support this statement. Nice.
The Article wrote:
We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally. We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
?
Last edited by McParadigm on Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
McParadigm wrote:
just_b wrote:
The arrogant prick wrote this opened with a presumption to know what all Christians believe and was blatantly incorrect about it. I don't have much hope for sentence number 2.
Agreed, he made a silly assumption. But he's obviously someone looking at the religion from the outside, and he is specifically referring to the god of the Bible based on what the Bible says. Just because he makes some good arguments doesn't mean he might not be a total asshole.
Personally, I'd be much more interested if you discussed the arguments he made rather than the opening line.
Pfft! Why? If he starts his little 10 page rant with a fuck up, do I really need to spend my time poking holes in everything? I've met a lot of asshole Christians and this is an obvious cry for help from a bullied athiest.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm Posts: 14534 Location: Mesa,AZ
McParadigm wrote:
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
Quote:
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely?
This is totally irrelevant. Whether or not God decides to create worlds and whatnot has nothing to do with his perfection or existence. "A God who is perfect does nothing except exist" -- I see no reason why that has to be true. Perfection involves action, if you want to get philosophical.
It has everything to do with its perfection because, as he says, the creation of a universe implies disequilibrium. The very notion of a perfect god is at odds with the notion of a creator god.
Why does the creation of a universe imply disequilibrium? Even if it implies disequilibrium, what does that have to do with God being perfect?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness.
Again, this is not entirely logical. If God is perfect, he must be following some sort of rules of perfection. If those attributes make him perfect, those same attributes are what would make humans perfect. God himself must have freewill, as "perfection" is not material and purely physical, it is moral. If humans are to become perfect, they cannot simply be created in that state; they must become responsible and gain experience. Experience is an attribute of perfection, and that is why humans were created with free agency. This argument does not prove that incorrect.
If god is following a set of "rules," or expectations, that are required to be obeyed in order to be deemed perfect, then that doesn't leave much room for free will because the notion of achieving perfection is by itself so very limiting.
They are not "rules" set forth by someone or something, they are attributes. For example, you would expect a perfect being to not be malicious. A being who is meets that criterion by no means loses free will, but simply meets that criterion on his accord. God is not forced to be perfect, that is a paradox as you mentioned; his perfection actually implies free will. He is perfect because he always makes the right choice. That does not remove free will.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All-good God knowingly creates future suffering
So what? Suffering brings experience. I've heard many great, happy people say that the suffering they've gone through is what made them. Perfection can only be brought about through adversity.
Except that a vast amount of suffering in the world serves to teach no lesson, and some of those events that DO encourage learning only do so for the ones who witness it, not those who experience it. They die.
I'm not saying we always learn from suffering. There is, however, always something we can learn from it. And those who experience the suffering are the ones who learn the most. Once you suffer something once, it could easily be argued that it will be easier to get through it the second time, and a perfect being would be able to suffer anything. Thus, when we suffer, we get a little bit closer to perfection. Not really a huge theological theme in most Christian denominations, but I believe it is the key to our purpose here.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment.
Stealing is a finite offence. Rebelling against God is not. Everybody has rebelled against God at some point in their lives, most of us several times a day. All of us at some point put some other god first. Again, the writer does not actually understand what is actually believed by Judeo-Christian religions.
Technically, any offense you commit in this life is limited, because life is limited. The "punishment" in this case is, however, for time immeasurable, which is morally imbalanced.
How limited an offense is depends not on where or when it is committed, but the damage done. If you commit any offense, you are no longer perfect, which is infinite damage. No matter what you do, you cannot repair that damage. That is the basis for the need for a Messiah. Disagree with that if you wish, but it's not necessarily bad logic.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions.
He didn't even attempt to support this statement. Nice.
The Article wrote:
We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may react emotionally. We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
?
Well, he made the assumption that emotions are a result of new knowledge. I haven't heard of any scientific research to support that, and it seems to be oversimplifying at best. Sure, we do generally get emotional when we gain certain types of knowledge, but I don't think it's a rule. Take love, for example. Is love a result of new knowledge? I highly doubt it. Humor is not a result of new knowledge, as you sometimes laugh at the same joke twice. I just think that conclusion is a bit sketchy.
_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:10 pm Posts: 2154 Location: Rio
according to the ascension of the ishayas, i am god. so is everyone. there's only the present and i, god, have in the now the acess to the material to create universes. joy and suffering are maya, ilusion. in the now there's a fountain of eternal happiness, if we just wake up. although time doesn't exist, we have chosen to be in this world of duality, in the dimension of time and space. so, we can live lives and learn. and we're supposed to go way beyond the angels, or our masters, our teachers. the experience on the matter is fundamental, as long as we remember, (re)gain consciousness. we are sleeping gods.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm Posts: 39920 Gender: Male
dea wrote:
according to the ascension of the ishayas, i am god. so is everyone. there's only the present and i, god, have in the now the acess to the material to create universes. joy and suffering are maya, ilusion. in the now there's a fountain of eternal happiness, if we just wake up. although time doesn't exist, we have chosen to be in this world of duality, in the dimension of time and space. so, we can live lives and learn. and we're supposed to go way beyond the angels, or our masters, our teachers. the experience on the matter is fundamental, as long as we remember, (re)gain consciousness. we are sleeping gods.
Unfortunately we are under the illusion of maya, Krishna's illusionary energy. But we ourselves are not gods, we are tiny tiny parcels of Krishna. And yes we need to regain God consciousness.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:43 pm Posts: 489 Location: My Own Private Idaho
jimmac24 wrote:
I now can't even believe that there are reasonable people out there that can take a serious look at logic and come to the conclusion that there is "God" out there. I am totally fascinated by this.
Well, I think that reasonable, logical persons call what they see out there different things. I, for one, am an agnostic. I really don't know if there's a god out there/in here or not, but my guess is that if there is a god, it's not like what people often or typically envision.
I look out there, and I see the universe, of which I am a part. Other people might look out there and see a God of which they are a part. Other people might look out there and see a God that they think they are apart from. I guess, as a certain lead singer said about music, it's all a matter of interpretation. And since, imho, it is all a matter of interpretation, on a very basic level, everybody is right--and yet, no one has The Truth--i.e., is more right than anybody else in their interpretation.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
If God wanted us to believe in him so badly, it stands to reason with me that God would give us overwhelming concrete evidence of his existance. Not scientifically explainable scenarios that could be possibly contrived as being from a higher power, or asking us to "trust our feelings".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
