Challenging others' views is fundamental to a political forum. Personal assaults are not. So I will continue to interact with other posters--whether or not they share my views. But I really do not wish any further interaction with you. Good day...
For starters, I emphatically do not believe in any religion--whether monotheistic or polytheistic. Moreover, I cannot fathom exactly what you might mean by our not being "free" of the Creator's "creative intent." If people really do not have free will, are you suggesting, then, that acts of evil by humankind are intended by God?
I don't know whether you're lying to yourself or lying to us, but so long as you cling to the lie that Christianity is anything other than a religion I can't help you. I haven't taken part in your apolagetics thread because I don't want anything to do with that nonsense. So to quote yourself, I really do not wish any further interaction with you, Good day.
As evasive rejoinders go, this one is exceptionally pathetic. Actually, the task you propose is to imagine an evil/indifferent god that has a good side; and I, for one, am not nearly retarded enough to take the job.
Not pathetic at all. For if IT does exist, you sure could not figure it out either. If God exist, IT exists out of time space, matter. And you being of time space, matter would have no way of knowing about IT. That may be a big IF, and yet it is still rational to think it. And not unreasonable, unless of course you accept the dogma that is in materialism, and think philosophical materialism is fact instead of the assumption that most philosophers acknowledge that it is. For one would have to be able to remove himself from this physical universe and stand outside it to observe in order to state it as absolute fact. And one cannot do that.
I'm just making the theological point, in theory, we don't know what God is thinking. Well, the task I propose is to imagine a god whose good and bad do not align with that of people posting on a particular internet forum. Such a god will have ideals, some which align and some which do not, with yours and mine. If you can't consider extra-natural beings who don't think exactly like you do, you might miss out on a couple of possibilities. Disclaimer: The author of this is a-bottle-of-wine-and-some drunk, but rather friendly. Please let the voice inside your head read my posts with a friendly or appeasing tone of voice.
How the hell people imagine it's intelligent to butt into conversations they haven't got a clue about, I have no idea. Great, thanks for nothing.
I think you should judge the argument on its merits. Sober me today doesn't see any wine-induced problems with the post.
That's not necessarily true. Suffering tends to build character, and push people to be better people. A god could probably see the virtue of suffering if they wanted to allow people to have free will. People who suffer will work to end that suffering, for themselves and others, and prevent it in the future.
An omnipotent God could accomplish those same goals without suffering. And free will does not account for the majority of suffering.
Gotta ask those people dying in earthquakes or children suffering from terminal cancer the virtue in suffering. I don’t think you have any idea of real poverty and lack of hope
Ok, here's a response that I stand by sober. I'm just making the theological point, in theory, we don't know what God is thinking. Well, the task I propose is to imagine a god whose good and bad do not align with that of people posting on a particular internet forum. Such a god will have ideals, some which align and some which do not, with yours and mine. If you can't consider extra-natural beings who don't think exactly like you do, you might miss out on a couple of possibilities.
Those peoples' suffering drives mankind to develop housing and other things that can withstand earthquakes and other natural disasters. Yes, suffering is never good, but it is one of the biggest driving forces behind human development. Suffering gives something to fight for. It gives mankind a common enemy.
How do I fix tsunamis? Where is your all powerful guy in the sky? Just watching people drown in agony. I bet you’re against climate control....after all, isn’t god warning us?
If viewed as a test evil can be seen as character building and a way of determining if you have what it takes. Also a lot of evil is caused by humans and since this is a test God won't intervene to see what we will do about it. In addition evil could exist to give people a motive for working together to rise above it. So I don't view the problem of evil as much of a problem. Also if we prevents people from causing evil then we no longer have free will and this is no longer a test. However if God was truely omnipotent then he would be able to accomplish all this without the need for evil, but it depends on how you define omnipotence. But I do see some other problems. First off we are not placed into equal circumstances and some are placed into circumstances that make it almost impossibly to turn out into good people or go into heaven while others are placed into near perfect situations. E.g. born into a bloody warrior culture in Africa before the Europeans came vs born into a nice Christian family today. Also nature is set up where death and killing are part of survival and this seems to conflict with a loving God. Some people experience such extreme pain and torture that it doesn't build character anymore, it just tears them down. If it is a test we need a more regulated test that is more balanced and gives more people a chance without needless suffering, pain, and evil.
Well said. Even at the genetic level, some of us are set up to succeed or fail. Most of us are, for example, born with the empathy emotion -- that which allows us to feel what others feel, and grants us a basal impulse against taking life. But the rare psychopath is born without empathy, without that subconscious check on the violent urges we all have on occasion. And the ultra-rare antisocial psychopath is born with some antisocial urge, a positive impulse to take life. So even before cultural factors, before circumstances of birth, it is clear that some of us are set up to fail even a simple Thou Shalt Not Kill test, while others are set up to pass. I will also question: What is the use of any test to an omnipotent omniscient god who knows who will pass and who will fail before they are even born? What is the use of any test to an omnipotent omniscient creator who can create any number of testees who are guaranteed to pass or guaranteed to fail?
I agree with the first paragraph, in particular. The second paragraph, not so much. (It seems to imply a moral relativism; with which, I do not agree.) It should, perhaps, be noted that not even God can do those things that are inherently self-contradictory. For instance, God cannot create a square circle. The problem does not lie with the power of God, but with the nature of the proposition: A square circle is inherently self-contradictory. Likewise, God cannot give humans free will, and yet make them morally perfect.
Where do I imply this? Yes, and that is why I mentioned that it depends on how we define omnipotence. We can either define it as being able to do things that are possible or define it as being able to do anything period even if it defies logic. You seem to support the first definition but many Christians use the second and in that case we have a problem. Interesting though. What if he gave people a good nature like he has without forcing them to make good choices? Some people are born with different natures and personalities. Also do the angels in heaven sin? If they don't then why not make us like them?
Yes, the test part does seem irrelevant as God would already know where you will go and might as well put the bad ones in hell to begin with, and for that matter why create the bad ones at all? The only purpose of the earth then would be a learning ground but in this case it makes sense to give instructions available to 100% of the population and make absolutely certain that everyone knows God exists and these instructions should be followed. But then why not just create or us with whatever the test is supposed to put into us? But then maybe its not possible to do this without actually experiencing them and embedding it is impossible.
