This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Do you believe in God?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Magician22773
Please rationalize to me why you think someone should burn or be destroyed because they don't believe in or worship god, why is that a suitable punishment, hell, why should there even be a punishment? Please, rationalize it, why is not believing in/not worshiping him such a terrible crime? Why is it even a crime to begin with? Why? Is anyone being hurt by it? What is the point? What is the reason? And don't say "because he's god and he can do whatever he wants" because I'm not going to accept such an argument, I hate the "because I said so" justification with every fiber of my being.
Because God created you, and everything around you. Without Him, you would not even be here. Your life here is simply a grain of sand on a beach to what your life with Him will be.
Consider it a test if you want. The same test he gave Adam and Eve. If you want to live forever in a paradise, you have to follow a simple commandment. If you choose to not follow that simple rule, you will be banished.
You keep looking at this like your life is your's, and it is not...at least not after you leave this world.
Look at it this way. I have several cats. I really love my cats. But I have one rule, they have to use the litterbox. If they don't use the littebox, they don't get to stay inside. Inside, they have everything they could want....food, water, warmth, and attention. Those that crap on my floor, get to live outside. Its cold out there.
Post by
b4xx
The god made all humans though. When you're dealing with an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator then you have someone who knows precisely how things will play out when they start the ball rolling? When the god made Adam and Eve and a forbidden tree and a serpent they knew where that was going. If they did not then they are not omniscient.
When I said "made them wicked" I meant that as "created them wicked" rather than "forced them to be wicked". However, if you don't like that line of reasoning then that's fine as it's an aside to my main point.
Also, why have a forbidden tree in the first place? In theatre this would be known as Checkhov's Gun - you don't put a gun in the first act if it isn't intended to go off in act 3.
God intended humans to live in His paradise. But, as He gave us our free will, He gave us the chance to not obey Him.
You'll see this phenomenon quite often in the Bible. God is testing people, giving them tasks and waiting to see whether they will complete them or not. Why do this if He already knows what the person will decide?
Adamsm already gave the answer: Humans are given the right to choose, even though God already knows their choice.
Post by
Monday
Yes, he decided what he finds to be right and wrong, so he should practice what he preaches, or else he's a hypocrite. And I don't really give a crap about what he thinks is right or wrong, all I care about is what I find to be right or wrong, and I think he has pretty screwed up views on what justifies the things he does, assuming he even cares about right or wrong to begin with, that is.
Who are you to create morality in the face of an omniscient being? He created morality in His wisdom, possessing all knowledge. He knows more than we ever can, and He made morality in line with that knowledge.
or destroy their soul (aka their consciousness)
Sorry, not sure if I did this earlier, but
If I did do that earlier, and you responded, feel free to reply in an appropriately irritated fashion.
I don't understand how anyone can think that sending someone to burn for all eternity, or destroy their soul (aka their consciousness), simply for not believing in him, or not worshiping him, or whatever, is anything other than tyrannical. How is that okay in any way shape or form? How can anyone be okay with that? I'm not like trying to get you or anyone else to see differently, because I think that's futile, I just don't understand how someone can find nothing immoral about that.
Because beings tainted by sin literally cannot live with Him. God cannot look on sin with any degree of allowance. If He did, He would not be God anymore. The sacrifice of His Son was the way to allow us back into Heaven despite being imperfect beings.
Post by
asakawa
He knew that there was a chance they would take the Fruit, and He also knew that there was a chance that they would not: But it was all about Free Will and the right every mortal has to make a choice.
And it was a good analogy: By Free Will, everyone has the choice to be Good or Evil, it's all about the choices that are made, and just like how there are laws for when you do bad things, the same happens from God.
On a side note, when speaking of the Christian/Catholic God, whether you believe in It or not, things referring to It should be capitalized.
So not omniscient or omnipresent then? Fair enough.
The fact remains though that, whether one considers it a setup or not, one man's mistake (the mistake, failing to follow an unexplained and seemingly illogical restriction) requires a punishment be inflicted on his entire progeny. When a mob boss threatens to not only punish the man in front of him but also his family and children in a film, we all know that this means that the mob boss is overreacting and crossing the line, even if the guy did something pretty bad to the mob. Also, if Hitler (I know but he's a useful "evil" that we can all agree on without need for further explanation) had a great, great, great grandson, we wouldn't be okay with him going to trial for war-crimes.
As I said originally, "original sin" is a concept that makes me incredibly uneasy - that's the point I'm trying to make.
Regarding your note on protocol: I don't think so.
I'm not sure why you name "Christian/Catholic". Catholicism is just a sect of Christianity, as are many hundreds of other, similar (though less powerful) sects. Christianity is just one of many organised religions who choose to believe in a god. For believers that god may require capitalisation though I've never seen any doctrine that specifically requires it. For me to follow such a doctrine, though, would be disingenuous or even pandering.
Post by
Adamsm
He is though Asa, as He knows all of the paths that a person will take, but as it still comes down to Free Will, a human is free to make that choice without feeling like the Hand of God is pushing them.
And it's merely a sign of respect, since I'm not a follower of their religion after all.
Post by
asakawa
If the moves that will be made in a game are known then the person who set the board up made the only choices that matter. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.
The users of this site have my respect. They don't require my use of the shift key to demonstrate that. If that is how you choose to show your respect then I certainly wouldn't not try to make you behave differently and so I ask that you show me a little respect by not causing silly disputes over pedantry.
Note how I don't require that you use the correct capitalisation of my username on this site? ^_^(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Adamsm
If the moves that will be made in a game are known then the person who set the board up made the only choices that matter. If there is a being who knows the entire future infallibly, then no human act is free.
But they are still free to act as they wish; it's like there is a good DM running a game, and the players choose to go the opposite way from where the DM had intended. He'll still be able to know what to do for that, but they are free to do what they want.
Post by
asakawa
We're rather going round in circles about this and it was really just an aside that I find interesting but not particularly concerning.
If there is a being who knows the
entire
future
infallibly
, then no human act is free.
Conversely if there is a choice in human actions then the knowledge is either not entire or not infallible. I mean that makes logical sense right?
I don't mind if that's the case, it was just an interesting thought brought up while making a point.
As I said originally, "original sin" is a concept that makes me incredibly uneasy - that's the point I'm trying to make.
I don't, like, demand responses to this or anything - it's entirely possible that it's really only me who finds this point interesting - but the idea of responsibility is often complicated in religion and I don't really want this line of discussion to get lost amongst others.
I hope MyTie won't mind me paraphrasing a point he made recently in a thread about racism (that I agree with) where he said that otherwise innocent, modern-day white people shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of white racists and slave-owners of years past. Is original sin not a comparable problem?(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
And it's merely a sign of respect, since I'm not a follower of their religion after all.asakawa was correct in his usage, because he wasn't using it as a proper noun. Saying "The god that did X" is correct, because the presence of "the" makes it an improper noun. Saying "God did X" is also correct, because it is used as a proper noun. Just like saying "Adamsm did X" uses a proper noun, while saying "A person did X" uses an improper noun. "A Person" would be incorrect, just like "The God" would.
@Original Sin
I just can't buy the apologetics needed to justify this story. I'm going to name every instance I can think of off the top of my head in which it could have been improved.
God doesn't make the tree, or doesn't make it a sin to eat from it. Humans are happy, otherwise free willed, and don't have to die.
God makes the wages of sin
not
be death. Humans sin, have to suffer a little bit (physical pain, shame, whatever), and are then forgiven by a loving god.
God gives humans knowledge of good and evil beforehand, allowing humans to know that sinning is evil, and thus should be avoided. (How were they supposed to know not to sin if they didn't know the difference between good and evil?)
God makes Adam and Eve die for their sin, but their children are allowed to choose for themselves. Those who choose sin must be redeemed, those who don't get to keep immortality.
God creates Adam and Eve and lets them choose between good and evil, but doesn't create the serpent that tempts them. Adam and Eve get a fair choice, not weighted by the temptations of the devil.
God creates Adam and Eve, but only makes more serious offenses, like murder, into sins. Adam and Eve can have immortality
and
knowledge, and only lose their lives by killing someone else.
God makes the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and makes it a sin to eat from it, and creates the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve, and makes the wages of sin be death, but allows them back into his presence in the afterlife, as they have died and thus carried out their sentence.
God gives humans the wisdom to know that while they have the choice to eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, it is a dumb choice because they would die and be separated from God.
God creates Adam and Eve, God creates the Tree, God makes eating the fruit a sin, God makes the wages of sin be death, God makes the serpent to tempt them, God makes humans foolish enough to do it, and then God immediately sends his son to die in their place to exonerate them should they choose to accept his redemption. Adam and Eve promptly do, having seen and heard God and having just witnessed God's Son's seemingly meaningless sacrifice on their behalf, and, original sin being forgiven, all are saved besides those who equally foolishly eat from the fruit and separate themselves from God's self-evident presence.
Post by
Orranis
If there is a being who knows the
entire
future
infallibly
, then no human act is free.
See that's the problem: Christian philosophy does not agree with that assumption. It's not something they all have an easy time doing, but it is still an assumption that foreknowledge renders free-will nonexistent.
Post by
Skreeran
If there is a being who knows the
entire
future
infallibly
, then no human act is free.
See that's the problem: Christian philosophy does not agree with that assumption. It's not something they all have an easy time doing, but it is still an assumption that foreknowledge renders free-will nonexistent.Question 1: Can you explain how free will can be compatible with omniscience?
Question 2: Out of simple curiosity, are you just playing the devil's advocate, or did find Jesus when I wasn't looking? :P
Post by
Squishalot
Do we have free will, even without omniscience? From a deterministic view, no. The thing is, imagine that God is a giant supercomputer that can perfectly predict all movements deterministically in the world. So in that respect, if we can't have 'free will' from a world view, then God's omniscience isn't precluding you from having free will, it's the deterministic nature of the universe.
Post by
asakawa
I could see an argument that knowledge of the choice that will be made is not the same as forcing the choice to be made except that we are also told that the god of the Bible created everything. They placed all the dominoes in a line and then pushed the first one.
Every event in the history of the universe stems from their initial action and they know how every choice will be decided. If they started the universe one inch to the left then things might be really different but they would still know every decision that gets made and they would still have made the first action. The only free decision that ever got made was the first one.
This is a tricky concept and it could very well be that I'm not equal to the task of explaining myself but I hope that makes some sense.
edit:@Squish, but without a prime mover that
does
have free will (and, therefore, chose how we all act) then we are all playing our part according to natural laws and while perhaps not true free will it, at least, isn't perverse. We aren't set up for failure and told to atone.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
Do we have free will, even without omniscience? From a deterministic view, no. The thing is, imagine that God is a giant supercomputer that can perfectly predict all movements deterministically in the world. So in that respect, if we can't have 'free will' from a world view, then God's omniscience isn't precluding you from having free will, it's the deterministic nature of the universe.Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that. I used to be a determinist, but after looking into quantum theory I'm not so much anymore. Still on the fence on the matter of free will from a cosmic perspective, though either truth doesn't much change my personal experience.
Post by
Squishalot
Let's suppose that the world is not deterministic, because otherwise, the question of omniscience is irrelevant.
Does omniscience preclude you from having free will just because the outcome is known? My understanding is that God exists outside of time - he has been to the end of days and knows all the choices that people have made between now and the end of the world.
Post by
asakawa
I think I addressed that
above
. Let me know if you don't think I covered what you're thinking of.
Post by
Squishalot
I think I addressed that
above
. Let me know if you don't think I covered what you're thinking of.
I don't think that's it. That implicitly assumes that it's deterministic - that one domino can't step aside and make a different decision.
I've tried to refer to it as a book before. Each character in a book has free will in the context of their world. However, to God, it's a book that sits on the shelf that simply exists and is known. Hence, God exists outside of our concept of time, which is trapped within the bounds of our universe.
Post by
asakawa
In your book analogy the god isn't the author but that doesn't work because the god of our scenario started it all. With an act of their free will they made a single action, the first action. Due to their omniscience they made that action knowing the ultimate consequences down to the individual choices made by every individual. If that omniscience was infallible then the only free choice ever made was theirs.
Post by
Squishalot
Not quite. The concept of omniscience has only ever been ascribed to our universe (i.e. the finished book). In my book analogy, it is as if God created a blank book with the starting scenario, and it played itself out. In God's 'timeline', he has the finished product sitting on his shelf. He didn't know what the book would end up as when he created that starting scenario. However, if he interacts with people in the book, within the book's timeline, it's done in the knowledge that the book has already been written from God's perspective.
Post by
asakawa
He didn't know what the book would end up as when he created that starting scenario.
This is, by definition, not all-knowing.
As laid out above, if the omniscience is infallible and if the god is the prime mover then what follows can not be free will.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.