Why does God care?

ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Why does God care?

I haven't posted for a long time. I lost interest in the argument months ago, however Fark isn't providing the distraction from work that it once did so I'm looking for an interesting discussion.
 
I'm not going to try to disprove the existence of God here, in fact most of the time I find that in all honesty I half-believe there is a God in some form. (Standard disclaimer: The opinion presented in the previous statement is that of myself alone and does not represent the views of atheists in general. If any attempt is made to use this as 'evidence' that atheists secretly do believe I'll be very upset, most probably due to real atheists coming around to break my legs. (Secondary disclaimer: For the fundamentalists, that last part was a joke and not intended to be taken literally. Atheists are not like that (please don't hurt me)))
 
Now to the point.
 
A significant part of the major religions (at least on paper) is that God wants us to be excellent to each other (Bill and Ted said it much better than any quote attributed to God or his spokespeople). That part makes sense. God cares how we treat each other. Even the punishment (eternal damnation) although severely disproportionate to the crime makes some sense. If you can't play nice with each other then you are sent to your room for eternity while the good kids get to keep playing together.
 
The part that makes no sense is the stuff the believers seem to obsess over. So here are my questions.
 
The biggest and most obvious: Why does God care whether I believe in him? He's a big boy, why does he need constant acknowledgement? Faith or the lack of it can only affect one thing for God - his own self-esteem. I have trouble believing in a supreme being who is so insecure that he would punish us for not telling him how great he is.
 
Why does God care about attendance at church/mosque etc? Again, will he sit in a dark room listening to "My Chemical Romance" cutting himself if he doesn't get attention? Also wouldn't that church time be better spent in community service? Why doesn't Christianity tell its followers to spend their Sunday mornings helping others rather than wasting it in Church?
 
Why does God care about homosexuality? I know this doesn't apply to all believers but this is the one that makes the least sense to me. How does two men having sex or having their relationship formally recognised through marriage hurt anyone? How does it hurt God?
 

Why does God care so much about sex anyway? Sure you can get hurt or hurt other's being irresponsible or selfish but that's true of everything in life. He created sex and made it central to life (biologically) why does he have so many issues with it?
 

These (and others - feel free to add them, anyone) actually contradict with the part that make sense. The part that makes sense is about peace and love. Many of these other things create conflict and hate.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:The biggest and most

 

Quote:
The biggest and most obvious: Why does God care whether I believe in him?

Because he wants to. 
Quote:
He's a big boy, why does he need constant acknowledgement?
He doesn't. 
Quote:
Faith or the lack of it can only affect one thing for God - his own self-esteem.
More generally (and accurately) his feelings--this would not be limited to his self esteem because, I think, it could also be accurately contended that if faith aids man in life and God wants to aid man in life, then faith or the lack thereof affects God's feelings related to man's well being. 
Quote:
I have trouble believing in a supreme being who is so insecure that he would punish us for not telling him how great he is.
Not sure that's how it works. 
Quote:
Why does God care about attendance at church/mosque etc?
Because it's good for you. 
Quote:
Again, will he sit in a dark room listening to "My Chemical Romance" cutting himself if he doesn't get attention?
No.  
Quote:
Also wouldn't that church time be better spent in community service?
Probably.  So, maybe he would rather you be doing community service than going to church.  
Quote:
Why doesn't Christianity tell its followers to spend their Sunday mornings helping others rather than wasting it in Church?
Presumption being that church doesn't help others. Many Christians would probably disagree that they derive nor give any aid to other Christians through fellowship in Church. Or.. maybe there are other benefits within church to others. 
Quote:
Why does God care about homosexuality?
Because it's bad for you. 
Quote:
I know this doesn't apply to all believers but this is the one that makes the least sense to me. How does two men having sex or having their relationship formally recognised through marriage hurt anyone?
How does a marriage of between a brother and his sister hurt anyone? Yet, society seems to think so.  I think most atheists would agree that they have no problems outlawing that sort of marriage. So.. I won't argue how homosexuality hurts anyone, because I don't know if it actually it does.  All I'm saying is that IF it does, God would have reason to care about whether humans do it or not. 
Quote:
How does it hurt God?
By hurting you.  I'm hurt when my Dog hurts itself.. and I had no hand in it's creation. 
Quote:
Why does God care so much about sex anyway?
Quote:
See above. 
Quote:
Sure you can get hurt or hurt other's being irresponsible or selfish but that's true of everything in life.
I would suppose that if a person adhering to all the aforementioned thought were to remain consistent, that he would have to agree that God would probably care about all those other things in life as well. 
Quote:
He created sex and made it central to life (biologically) why does he have so many issues with it?
Because there are many ways that it could be detrimental to an individual.

 


Fanas
Posts: 249
Joined: 2008-03-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Because he wants

Quote:
Because he wants to.
Supreme being can't have desires, it's for us - mortal and sinful human beings. 
Quote:
More generally (and accurately) his feelings--this would not be limited to his self esteem because, I think, it could also be accurately contended that if faith aids man in life and God wants to aid man in life, then faith or the lack thereof affects God's feelings related to man's well being.
Well i don't need faith, and i feel better without it. So if god wants my well being, then he wants me to be an atheist.
Quote:
Why does God care about homosexuality?Because it's bad for you.
I can't see any harm in that. Actually god could have created us to reproduce asexually if he hates sex so much. 
Quote:
How does a marriage of between a brother and his sister hurt anyone? Yet, society seems to think so.  I think most atheists would agree that they have no problems outlawing that sort of marriage.
Well i don't see any problem in sister and brother marrying. The problem is in their children: they tend to mutate and be sick more often. 

 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
I seem to have seriously

I seem to have seriously damaged the quote structure. Hopefully it all makes sense still

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
The biggest and most obvious: Why does God care whether I believe in him?

Because he wants to. 
 Why does he want to?  
Quote:
He's a big boy, why does he need constant acknowledgement?
He doesn't. 
 So he doesn't need me or anyone to believe. Just as I thought. Can someone please explain this to the evangelists 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
Faith or the lack of it can only affect one thing for God - his own self-esteem.
More generally (and accurately) his feelings--this would not be limited to his self esteem because, I think, it could also be accurately contended that if faith aids man in life and God wants to aid man in life, then faith or the lack thereof affects God's feelings related to man's well being. 
 What about the people who handle life quite well without faith? This site is full of them. Or the people who suffer because they have faith or those who cause the suffering of other due to their faith. Faith does not always have a positive effect on people. I accept that some people are happier and perhaps even better people because they have faith but that is not true for everyone. Some people are or would be better off without faith and others iyt would make no difference to. Surely God wouldn't want everyone to have it when it having it only benefits some. Especially when in some cases it harms rather than helps. He certainly wouldn't be upset with those who choose not to accept faith. 
Quote:
 
Quote:
 
Quote:
I have trouble believing in a supreme being who is so insecure that he would punish us for not telling him how great he is.
Not sure that's how it works. 
 I don't think that's how it works either but that's generally how it's sold. Believe or God will get upset and hurt you. 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
Why does God care about attendance at church/mosque etc?
Because it's good for you. 
 It's good for some people. It wasn't good for me. Same deal as with faith. It is a positive for some and a negative for others. God's got no reason to be angry if I decide that it's not how I want to spent my Sundays. 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
Again, will he sit in a dark room listening to "My Chemical Romance" cutting himself if he doesn't get attention?
No.  
 Damn, I was really begining to like the image of an Emo God. 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
Also wouldn't that church time be better spent in community service?
Probably.  So, maybe he would rather you be doing community service than going to church.  
Quote:
Why doesn't Christianity tell its followers to spend their Sunday mornings helping others rather than wasting it in Church?
Presumption being that church doesn't help others. Many Christians would probably disagree that they derive nor give any aid to other Christians through fellowship in Church. Or.. maybe there are other benefits within church to others. 
 So, as far as God is concerned church is optional? If if helps you or you help others there then go. Otherwise there's no obligation and no negative judgement of you by God or his other followers for choosing to not attend? 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
Why does God care about homosexuality?
Because it's bad for you. 
 You can't just assert that it's bad. Explain how it is bad. 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
I know this doesn't apply to all believers but this is the one that makes the least sense to me. How does two men having sex or having their relationship formally recognised through marriage hurt anyone?
How does a marriage of between a brother and his sister hurt anyone? Yet, society seems to think so.  I think most atheists would agree that they have no problems outlawing that sort of marriage. 
 It has a high probability of hurting any offspring by increasing the probabiliy of genetic problems manifesting. That's one social taboo that exists for a reason. I'm not sure where I'd stand on the outlawing of it though. We don't steralise people with genetic problems so protecting the genetic integrity of future children is clearly not an absolute priority. I'd suggest that it would point to some issues in the family however. We're fairly strongly wired against those sort of relationships.  This has nothing to do with homosexuality though 
Quote:
Quote:
 So.. I won't argue how homosexuality hurts anyone, because I don't know if it actually it does.  All I'm saying is that IF it does, God would have reason to care about whether humans do it or not. 
 I agree. However I see no reason to believe that homosexuality is any more harmful than heterosexuality. You could argue that many homosexuals engage in a lifestyle that is higer risk (for both emotional and physical harm) and I'd probably agree but that's a culture thing and not inate to being attracted to the same sex. 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
How does it hurt God?
By hurting you.  I'm hurt when my Dog hurts itself.. and I had no hand in it's creation. 
 Proove there is harm and you have half an answer. The other half is the punishment. If your dog hurts itself do you get mad and hurt it more? 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
Sure you can get hurt or hurt other's being irresponsible or selfish but that's true of everything in life.
I would suppose that if a person adhering to all the aforementioned thought were to remain consistent, that he would have to agree that God would probably care about all those other things in life as well. 
 Why then such an obsession with controling people's sex lives from so many believers? If it's just one of an endless list of things that if done irresponsibly or selfishly can hurt yourself or others. 
Quote:
Quote:
 
Quote:
He created sex and made it central to life (biologically) why does he have so many issues with it?
Because there are many ways that it could be detrimental to an individual.

 

There are many ways faith could be detrimental to the individual.

Where's the push for safe-faith. (I'm abstinence only with regard to faith)

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

 

 
Quote:
Why does God care about attendance at church/mosque etc?
RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Because it's good for you.
Proof?I doubt you would find churchgoers to be any more well off than non-churchgoers.I'd say I'm better off than them 

 

  
Quote:
Why does God care about homosexuality?
RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Because it's bad for you.
Is it now? You will provide literature on that? I know that homosexual relationships are said to sometimes be more emotionally damaging, but the fact still remains that they are happy. Unless you can show that only hetersexual reltionships are ever good for you, and are constantly so, you have no reason to be saying this.If anyone has ever been damanged by a hetersexual relationship,your claim is a ad hominim. 

 

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Nice to see you here

Nice to see you here again , ParanoidAgnostic

Why does God care? 

   Well , the short answer is You care , and what is you ? God of course , what else can anything be  .... I am god as you,  too  >>>>           <<<<   


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Partial answers.. no more

 Partial answers.. no more time:

 

Quote:
Supreme being can't have desires, it's for us - mortal and sinful human beings.

Supreme being can have desires, it is for everything that is sentient.

 

..both of these sentences are mere assertions.. assumptions.  I can prove mine no more than you can prove yours.

 

Quote:
Well i don't need faith, and i feel better without it. So if god wants my well being, then he wants me to be an atheist.

Well.. I believe the analogy might be that of an alcoholic.  Many probably don't believe they are better without being sober all the time.  Does the same logic apply?

 

Quote:
Because it's bad for you.

I can't see any harm in that. Actually god could have created us to reproduce asexually if he hates sex so much.

Who said he hates sex so much?

 

Quote:
Well i don't see any problem in sister and brother marrying. The problem is in their children: they tend to mutate and be sick more often.

So.. you would think it is wrong for people to marry based upon the probability that they might have genetically ill children?

 

Quote:
Why does he want to?

I don't know.  He just does.  I mean, I suppose I could speculate.. but, it would just be speculation.  

 

Hmm.. maybe he wants to because he created us, therefore (1) wants some sort of freely willed connection between his creation and himself, (2) because it's good for you, and he wants what is best for his creation.

 

Quote:
So he doesn't need me or anyone to believe. Just as I thought. Can someone please explain this to the evangelists

God doesn't 'need' anything.

 

That would be sort of a strange thought.. maybe I should think on it more.

 

Quote:
 

What about the people who handle life quite well without faith? This site is full of them. Or the people who suffer because they have faith or those who cause the suffering of other due to their faith. Faith does not always have a positive effect on people.

 

I accept that some people are happier and perhaps even better people because they have faith but that is not true for everyone. Some people are or would be better off without faith and others iyt would make no difference to.

 

Surely God wouldn't want everyone to have it when it having it only benefits some. Especially when in some cases it harms rather than helps.

 

He certainly wouldn't be upset with those who choose not to accept faith.

Here will be a bit of special pleading.  

 

I thought we were under the presumption that when I said "faith," I meant "faith in God"--not merely "faith."  I would venture to say that "faith in God," whatever that might mean, does not have negative effects.

 

As for your "evidence" that some people around here are doing fine.. see above for an example on this issue.  Subjective understanding of "wellness" does not always correlate with an objective one.

 

 

Quote:
I don't think that's how it works either but that's generally how it's sold. Believe or God will get upset and hurt you.

Not what I believe.

 

Quote:
It's good for some people. It wasn't good for me. Same deal as with faith. It is a positive for some and a negative for others.

 

God's got no reason to be angry if I decide that it's not how I want to spent my Sundays.

I would venture to say that God doesn't get "angry" about you or anyone not going to church.. depends on what activity you have replaced it with.  If you kick little children from 9-12p, he might be a little angry about that.... maybe.

 

Quote:
So, as far as God is concerned church is optional?

 

If if helps you or you help others there then go. Otherwise there's no obligation and no negative judgement of you by God or his other followers for choosing to not attend?

If church neither helps you nor helps others, then yes.. I don't think there is an "obligation" to go.

 

There is a general presumption (amongst christendom) that it does, in some way.

 

Personally, I think it's all a matter of what congregation you're a part of.  Maybe I'll have to give some more thought to that.

 

Quote:
You can't just assert that it's bad. Explain how it is bad.

Why can't I? I was positing one possible explanation for God's concern about it.  In the same way that I would be concerned about my siblings alcoholism whether he realized it was bad for him or not.. so God might too be concerned about homosexuality whether we realize it is bad for us or not.

 

I personally don't go either way on it.  I'm not a homosexual, and I have heard arguments from either side as to why it is something God cares about and why it is "not."

 

Quote:
It has a high probability of hurting any offspring by increasing the probabiliy of genetic problems manifesting.

 

That's one social taboo that exists for a reason.

 

...

 

This has nothing to do with homosexuality though.

 

It merely suggested that there are certain things that people have "moral problems" with, even though there is no "hurt" beyond a general, unsettling, feeling about the idea.

 

You say that the parents have a high probability of hurting their children because of genetic problems.  I would contend that people do not "hurt" their children by passing along genetic information.

 

Two parents who procreate, even with 100% certainty that a child will have a certain genetic birth defect, do not hurt the child, they merely are creating a child that has a birth defect... that is who the baby is.

 

They are not punching the baby.. they are passing along their genetic information as part of the process of creating it.  

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Fanas wrote: Supreme being

Fanas wrote:
Supreme being can't have desires, it's for us - mortal and sinful human beings.

Name 1 god that has NO desires, let alone emotions, and needs... there arent any! unless theres an all powerful god of pure pragmatism in which case i would be wrong... -_-

 

Fanas wrote:
Well i don't see any problem in sister and brother marrying. The problem is in their children: they tend to mutate and be sick more often.

 I vote Fanas gets the "Inbreeding is OK" tag ^_^

 

edit; and no i dont know why the post is wonky

What Would Kharn Do?


Fanas
Posts: 249
Joined: 2008-03-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Supreme being can have

Quote:
Supreme being can have desires, it is for everything that is sentient.

Yea, but nobody who is perfect can't have desires which influence others.

 

Quote:
Well.. I believe the analogy might be that of an alcoholic.  Many probably don't believe they are better without being sober all the time.  Does the same logic apply?

lol, this made me laugh. I guess I am addicted to being atheist. You see being alcoholic is really bad. And being atheist is much better. I am atheist, and yet i did not commit a murder, i am moral member of society. I feel good. I am no different than any other human, except for religion. Some people need religion to feel and be good, some don't. I don't need that, so god does not need to worry. So if god wants for me to be better, he would really want me being atheist. He should wan't me to worship him only if he's not perfect.

 

Quote:
Who said he hates sex so much?

Because according to religion, sex is sinful.

 

Quote:
So.. you would think it is wrong for people to marry based upon the probability that they might have genetically ill children?

It's not wrong for them to marry, it's wrong for them to have children.

Tell me: if you knew that if (you/your wife) conceived, your child would have a genetical mutation which would make him paralized for the rest of his life. Would you conceive? We yet can't predict it 100% sure, but if there was at least 1% probability for that i wouldn't dare to doom my children for suffering.

 

Quote:
I vote Fanas gets the "Inbreeding is OK" tag ^_^

I am exactly opposite.

 


hazindu
Superfan
hazindu's picture
Posts: 219
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I can't see any harm

Quote:
I can't see any harm in that. Actually god could have created us to reproduce asexually if he hates sex so much.
He did.  Then he got pissed at us for reproducing asexually and ripped us apart making us horrid abominations.  Luckily one of his demigods, Apollo I believe, sewed us back together, only he wasn't as powerful as Zeus, so he made us incomplete which is why we have two genders.  God doesn't approve of anything relating in any way to human reproduction, but luckily for us, he can't control his kids.

"I've yet to witness circumstance successfully manipulated through the babbling of ritualistic nonsense to an imaginary deity." -- me (josh)

If god can do anything, can he make a hot dog so big even he can't eat all of it?


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Supreme

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Supreme being can have desires, it is for everything that is sentient.

 

..both of these sentences are mere assertions.. assumptions.  I can prove mine no more than you can prove yours.

 

No, it is illogical to posit an omnipotent being that has desires. If there is anything more than zero time between the forming of a desire in God's mind and the realization of that desire, then God is limited in his ability to do things and not omnipotent. But if the realization of God's desire really takes zero time, then the desire cannot be said to have happened in the sense that we use the word at all. It would have to be as if all God's desires and their realizations occurred simultaneously, which means God never really had a desire at all.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Well.. I believe the analogy might be that of an alcoholic.  Many probably don't believe they are better without being sober all the time.  Does the same logic apply?

 

Alcoholics are demonstrably worse off when they are drinking. The same thing cannot be said for atheists. Before you try to arrogantly claim that we are suffering from some deficiency of which we are unaware, I suggest you point directly to that deficiency and tell us in clear terms what it is.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I don't know.  He just does.  I mean, I suppose I could speculate.. but, it would just be speculation. 

 

Actually, speculation is ALL you have on all your assertions about God, his nature and his desires. If you disagree with me, please present the evidence that would back up your claims.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Hmm.. maybe he wants to because he created us, therefore (1) wants some sort of freely willed connection between his creation and himself,

 

How can humans have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God?

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

(2) because it's good for you, and he wants what is best for his creation.

 

ORLY? If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?

  

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Here will be a bit of special pleading.  

 

I thought we were under the presumption that when I said "faith," I meant "faith in God"--not merely "faith."  I would venture to say that "faith in God," whatever that might mean, does not have negative effects.

 

Would you consider deliberately flying a planeload of commuters into a building a "negative effect"?

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

As for your "evidence" that some people around here are doing fine.. see above for an example on this issue.  Subjective understanding of "wellness" does not always correlate with an objective one.

 

You just sawed off the branch you are sitting on, my friend. I can just as easily say that theists are deluded when they think that their faith makes them happy. But I can also point to the relative rates of murder, poverty, teen pregnancy, infant mortality and a number of other social ills that are more prevalent as a society becomes more religious and make a scientific claim that religion is bad for society and the people in it.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Not what I believe.

 

On what evidence? The Bible says that if you displease God he will kill you. Are you a greater authority on God than the writers of the Bible?

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I would venture to say that God doesn't get "angry" about you or anyone not going to church.. depends on what activity you have replaced it with.  If you kick little children from 9-12p, he might be a little angry about that.... maybe.

 

My, you have a lot of detailed information on what God likes and dislikes. Has he told you all this directly?

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

If church neither helps you nor helps others, then yes.. I don't think there is an "obligation" to go.

 

There is a general presumption (amongst christendom) that it does, in some way.

 

Personally, I think it's all a matter of what congregation you're a part of.  Maybe I'll have to give some more thought to that.

 

I think you better. Because going to church has to be either a) optional or b) required. The confusion on this point speaks rather poorly of the omnipotent being who is apparently unable to carry out an act of communication even as well as your local TV station.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Why can't I? I was positing one possible explanation for God's concern about it.  In the same way that I would be concerned about my siblings alcoholism whether he realized it was bad for him or not.. so God might too be concerned about homosexuality whether we realize it is bad for us or not.

 

I personally don't go either way on it.  I'm not a homosexual, and I have heard arguments from either side as to why it is something God cares about and why it is "not."

 

Again, a misery-inducing point of confusion that an omnibenevolent God would be obligated to clear up. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
  To Tilberian:First off,

  To Tilberian:

First off, I will respond to everyone of your responses mentioned (or presuming) an omnipotent being in this way:

You can't say an omnipotent being "can't" do something.  Half your arguments are therefore thrown out the window.

If omnipotent God wants to do something -> done.  This would include 'wanting' to wait.

And if anything seems like it would be illogical to complete, well then, an omnipotent God could do the illogical.

According to my understanding, an all-powerful has no limits.. which means, well, he has no limits.

There, done.

Quote:
Would you consider deliberately flying a planeload of commuters into a building a "negative effect"?

True.  I rescind my argument on that point.

Quote:
You just sawed off the branch you are sitting on, my friend. I can just as easily say that theists are deluded when they think that their faith makes them happy.

True, you can, never said you couldn't.

Quote:
But I can also point to the relative rates of murder, poverty, teen pregnancy, infant mortality and a number of other social ills that are more prevalent as a society becomes more religious and make a scientific claim that religion is bad for society and the people in it.

Your claim would be ill supported one, but okay.

Quote:
I think you better. Because going to church has to be either a) optional or b) required. The confusion on this point speaks rather poorly of the omnipotent being who is apparently unable to carry out an act of communication even as well as your local TV station.

Optional then.

Quote:
My, you have a lot of detailed information on what God likes and dislikes. Has he told you all this directly?

Heh, no, but for the sake of argument I felt it might be easier if I'm a little made statements that were unqualified.  I suppose I could go back into qualifying mode.. if it helps, just imagine that "it's possible" is tacked onto the beginning of every assertion regarding God.

Quote:
Actually, speculation is ALL you have on all your assertions about God, his nature and his desires. If you disagree with me, please present the evidence that would back up your claims.

True. Conceded.  Well.. partially.  But I don't feel like getting into a nit-picky argument.. all the prior stuff will probably be enough for now.

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:ORLY? If God wants

 

Quote:
ORLY? If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?

Because he wants to wait and let you choose it for yourself.

 

Quote:
On what evidence? The Bible says that if you displease God he will kill you. Are you a greater authority on God than the writers of the Bible?

Did you just suggest the bible is evidence?

 

Umm.. okay.. well, anyways, what you have stated is one interpretation of the Bible.

 

Quote:
Alcoholics are demonstrably worse off when they are drinking. The same thing cannot be said for atheists. Before you try to arrogantly claim that we are suffering from some deficiency of which we are unaware, I suggest you point directly to that deficiency and tell us in clear terms what it is.

Heh.. calm down. I realize it will be futile to try and judge that sort of thing.  But, the original thread asked, so I created a system of conditional statements that would make sense of the whole thing.

 

IF X then Y.

 

So if atheist worst for people, and God wants best for people, then God wants non-atheist for people.

 

That answered the original question.

 

Quote:
Because according to religion, sex is sinful.

No it's not.

 

Quote:
Tell me: if you knew that if (you/your wife) conceived, your child would have a genetical mutation which would make him paralized for the rest of his life. Would you conceive? We yet can't predict it 100% sure, but if there was at least 1% probability for that i wouldn't dare to doom my children for suffering.

No.  But the reason for me not doing it would not be because it was wrong.

 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Dammit, Went to bed and

Dammit, Went to bed and missed the debate.

 

Rhad. I can't disagree with anything in your last few posts. I guess I was hoping to pick a fight with a slightly less reasonable believer.

 

Where did they all go anyway?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:  To

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

  To Tilberian:

First off, I will respond to everyone of your responses mentioned (or presuming) an omnipotent being in this way:

You can't say an omnipotent being "can't" do something.  Half your arguments are therefore thrown out the window.

If omnipotent God wants to do something -> done.  This would include 'wanting' to wait.

And if anything seems like it would be illogical to complete, well then, an omnipotent God could do the illogical.

According to my understanding, an all-powerful has no limits.. which means, well, he has no limits.

There, done.

I agree with everything you just wrote. If an omnipotent God exists, then everything must be EXACTLY as he wants it to be. Which means God is 100% solely and perfectly responsible for every single evil thing and every single bit of suffering and injustice that has ever occurred in the universe.

Even if I grant that free will is possible in the presence of an omnipotent God (and I don't, since that is illogical) everything that has happened because of free will is still perfectly and totally God's fault. Why? Because an omnipotent God makes all the rules. If free will is necessary for something or other, that is only because God wants it to be that way.

And that means God is evil. Evil to an extent that is quite literally impossible to imagine. What we have here is a being that could have made things any way he wanted, but instead chose to create and commit every kind of evil there is as surely as if it happened by his own hand.

You will be tempted at this point to say that God can just decide that he's not evil and make it so. This is God that violates logic and is therefore impossible for us to comprehend in any meaningful sense. Time to pack up the tent and go home, religion, you can serve no useful purpose.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
You just sawed off the branch you are sitting on, my friend. I can just as easily say that theists are deluded when they think that their faith makes them happy.

True, you can, never said you couldn't.

Then why come in here saying that atheists might only think they are happy when they really aren't? What is your point, if you acknowledge that that could go for theists as well?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
But I can also point to the relative rates of murder, poverty, teen pregnancy, infant mortality and a number of other social ills that are more prevalent as a society becomes more religious and make a scientific claim that religion is bad for society and the people in it.

Your claim would be ill supported one, but okay.

Not really. Read Letter to a Christian Nation.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
My, you have a lot of detailed information on what God likes and dislikes. Has he told you all this directly?

Heh, no, but for the sake of argument I felt it might be easier if I'm a little made statements that were unqualified.  I suppose I could go back into qualifying mode.. if it helps, just imagine that "it's possible" is tacked onto the beginning of every assertion regarding God.

I see. So what we are doing here is not so much discussing God as a real entity but God as a theoretical construct that we are allowed to believe in if he holds together without logical holes. In other words, a work of speculative fiction.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
ORLY? If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?

Because he wants to wait and let you choose it for yourself.

 

Because he is evil. OK, I get that.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
On what evidence? The Bible says that if you displease God he will kill you. Are you a greater authority on God than the writers of the Bible?

Did you just suggest the bible is evidence?

 

No, I just decided to pre-emptively cut off that one particular predictable theist response.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Umm.. okay.. well, anyways, what you have stated is one interpretation of the Bible.

 

There's no interpretation involved. The OT is full of examples of God killing people for not doing what he says.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Alcoholics are demonstrably worse off when they are drinking. The same thing cannot be said for atheists. Before you try to arrogantly claim that we are suffering from some deficiency of which we are unaware, I suggest you point directly to that deficiency and tell us in clear terms what it is.

Heh.. calm down. I realize it will be futile to try and judge that sort of thing.  But, the original thread asked, so I created a system of conditional statements that would make sense of the whole thing.

 

IF X then Y.

 

So if atheist worst for people, and God wants best for people, then God wants non-atheist for people.

 

That answered the original question.

 

Sorry, but that made no sense at all.

 

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

 

Quote:
Because according to religion, sex is sinful.

No it's not.

 

Quote:
Tell me: if you knew that if (you/your wife) conceived, your child would have a genetical mutation which would make him paralized for the rest of his life. Would you conceive? We yet can't predict it 100% sure, but if there was at least 1% probability for that i wouldn't dare to doom my children for suffering.

No.  But the reason for me not doing it would not be because it was wrong.

 

I didn't write any of that stuff.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Where did they all

 

Quote:
Where did they all go anyway?

I 'unno... but thanks for the kind words.  It's tough to get them around here sometimes.

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: How can

Tilberian wrote:

 

How can humans have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God?

 

*POke*

This problem is solved simply if the human being is not singular.

 

 

 

Tilberian wrote:

If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?

 

 Why assume that is not already the case?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic wrote: The

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

 

 
The biggest and most obvious: Why does God care whether I believe in him? He's a big boy, why does he need constant acknowledgement? Faith or the lack of it can only affect one thing for God - his own self-esteem. I have trouble believing in a supreme being who is so insecure that he would punish us for not telling him how great he is.

I agree with your position PA, So lets assume that since "he" shouldn't care, then he mustn't care. But if God doesn't care does that necessarily mean that we should not care? No. 

One could say it means we are not, then, compelled to care by God's emotions or probable reaction, and one could say it means we are in no way 'required' to care as of some point of contention in God's decree. But it cannot negate that there may be reasons why we could choose to believe in God and care in regards to our making of that choice.

Suppose it perhaps that there exists a single basic law or mechanism by which life operates. Suppose it further that belief in God is defined by some specialised use of this same mechanism. Then God need not care that humankind apply the 'special procedure' only humans ultimately care whether they get among the benefits of applying the "god belief" procedure, God, need not, yet it would still be fair and in humanity's interest for him to promote said procedure to us, right? This promotional campaign might seem to imply that God cares if you believe in him, then, but that wouldn't be the point, the point would be believing in him and what doing so mattered to humanity.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

 

 
The biggest and most obvious: Why does God care whether I believe in him? He's a big boy, why does he need constant acknowledgement? Faith or the lack of it can only affect one thing for God - his own self-esteem. I have trouble believing in a supreme being who is so insecure that he would punish us for not telling him how great he is.

I agree with your position PA, So lets assume that since "he" shouldn't care, then he mustn't care. But if God doesn't care does that necessarily mean that we should not care? No. 

One could say it means we are not, then, compelled to care by God's emotions or probable reaction, and one could say it means we are in no way 'required' to care as of some point of contention in God's decree. But it cannot negate that there may be reasons why we could choose to believe in God and care in regards to our making of that choice.

Suppose it perhaps that there exists a single basic law or mechanism by which life operates. Suppose it further that belief in God is defined by some specialised use of this same mechanism. Then God need not care that humankind apply the 'special procedure' only humans ultimately care whether they get among the benefits of applying the "god belief" procedure, God, need not, yet it would still be fair and in humanity's interest for him to promote said procedure to us, right? This promotional campaign might seem to imply that God cares if you believe in him, then, but that wouldn't be the point, the point would be believing in him and what doing so mattered to humanity.

So god belief is for the benefit of the humans who believe?

Makes sense...Humans invented him after all.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Tilberian

Eloise wrote:

Tilberian wrote:

 

How can humans have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God?

 

*POke*

This problem is solved simply if the human being is not singular.

 

So there's some upper limit on how many people's behaviour God can predict?

 

 

 

Tilberian wrote:

If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?

 

 Why assume that is not already the case?

It is demonstrably not the case, unless you want to make the case that human misery is really joy.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Eloise

 

 

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Quote:

How can humans have free will in the presence of an omnipotent God?

 

*POke*

This problem is solved simply if the human being is not singular.

 

So there's some upper limit on how many people's behaviour God can predict?

 

No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self'  the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance. 

 

 

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Quote:

If God wants what is best for us, why doesn't he just give it to us?

 

 Why assume that is not already the case?

It is demonstrably not the case, unless you want to make the case that human misery is really joy.

I believe I just did. But in any event, the question is of whether misery is what's best for humans not what is or isn't ideal in temporal human experiences. The difference between a full composition that is a human life and the smaller components of such that are individual experiences is not to be overlooked.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:No the upper

Eloise wrote:

No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self'  the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.

 

Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual? If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.

 

Eloise wrote:

I believe I just did. But in any event, the question is of whether misery is what's best for humans not what is or isn't ideal in temporal human experiences. The difference between a full composition that is a human life and the smaller components of such that are individual experiences is not to be overlooked.

But God could have designed things such that we would be unable to experience misery in any context.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Eloise

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self'  the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.

Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual? If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.

I think... and I could be wrong on this, and if so, Eloise, please do correct and enlighten me, but I think what Eloise might be saying there is:

The issue of 'free will' in the face of an omnipotent Creator is not problematic if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all, but merely facets of a 'universal will' that our limited perspectives are unable to comprehend in its entirety at once. ie; as our atoms are merely motes in the physical universe, so our consciousnesses might be merely individual cells of a greater consciousness, with our conflicting goals and decisions being expressions of the internally-conflicting impulses and thoughts any consciousness has. Thus, taken in aggregate, the complete picture of neural activity across the planet might represent one planetary will... or the complete picture of consciousness across the entire cosmos might represent one singular, indubitably slow-functioning, universal will.

If that's the case, on either scale, such a planetary (or universal) consciousness might well be thought of as 'God'.

At least, that what I think she might be saying. I could be wrong.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Me too BMcD .... Reading

Me too BMcD .... Reading minds ! We are ONE !


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote:Tilberian

BMcD wrote:

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self'  the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.

Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual? If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.

I think... and I could be wrong on this, and if so, Eloise, please do correct and enlighten me, but I think what Eloise might be saying there is:

The issue of 'free will' in the face of an omnipotent Creator is not problematic if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all, but merely facets of a 'universal will' that our limited perspectives are unable to comprehend in its entirety at once. ie; as our atoms are merely motes in the physical universe, so our consciousnesses might be merely individual cells of a greater consciousness, with our conflicting goals and decisions being expressions of the internally-conflicting impulses and thoughts any consciousness has. Thus, taken in aggregate, the complete picture of neural activity across the planet might represent one planetary will... or the complete picture of consciousness across the entire cosmos might represent one singular, indubitably slow-functioning, universal will.

If that's the case, on either scale, such a planetary (or universal) consciousness might well be thought of as 'God'.

At least, that what I think she might be saying. I could be wrong.

 

Thanks BMac, although this explanation is probably just a bit too watered down, I really appreciate the respect and thought given.

What is especially relevant here is - you said: "if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all" - this is very close to the heart of what I am saying - there is freedom in terms of this perception, probably a lot more than one would ordinarily suppose, consider that I am suggesting this to the degree that we are not incapable of literally forming each other out of these, aforementioned, ambiguous soul divisions.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Eloise

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

No the upper limit is on what an ego or person can attend as their 'self'  the rest is someone or something else, behaviours and outcomes relative to this division and ones relative to some other division are different to each other yet simultaneous, the omnipotent being would be the determiner of both, and the 'soul' would be free to be defined at either in any given instance.

 

Eloise, you must be a lot smarter than me because I can almost never understand your points. Can you break this down for me a little more? Are you saying that the soul can choose to be associated with the actions of a collective group or an individual?

 

It's probably not helpful to phrase it that way, No. By saying 'defined at' I am attempting to steer away from implying a mere association.

 

Tilberian wrote:

If so, I still don't see how that keeps the omnipotent being from determining everything as the being would know which way the soul was going to choose.

 

This is implied by the idea of the soul being a discrete object which would distinguish it none from the definition of self that gives us the original problem of free will vs omnipotence.  As opposed to that what I am implying is something more along the lines of a Banach-Tarski paradox - you can slice up this soul and rotate and translate the components (the self would satisfy the definition of a component) then reconstruct it to define a much larger or smaller soul.

 

 

 

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I believe I just did. But in any event, the question is of whether misery is what's best for humans not what is or isn't ideal in temporal human experiences. The difference between a full composition that is a human life and the smaller components of such that are individual experiences is not to be overlooked.

But God could have designed things such that we would be unable to experience misery in any context.

I think we have had a similar discussion to this, previously. To do so would constitute an arbitrary withholding of a freedom and arbitrary denial of existence, that wouldn't be omnibenevolent, it would be selectively benevolent (Most theology will tell you that selective benevolence is not out of the question it just has an "appointed time&quotEye-wink.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Wow Eloise, that is poetry

Wow Eloise, that is poetry of the "ONENESS"  .....  feels good   


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Thanks BMac,

Eloise wrote:

Thanks BMac, although this explanation is probably just a bit too watered down, I really appreciate the respect and thought given.

What is especially relevant here is - you said: "if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all" - this is very close to the heart of what I am saying - there is freedom in terms of this perception, probably a lot more than one would ordinarily suppose, consider that I am suggesting this to the degree that we are not incapable of literally forming each other out of these, aforementioned, ambiguous soul divisions.

OK, so all souls are really one big soul that creates smaller reflections of itself that have separate identity.

Is God the big soul? Or is he apart from it?

In what way does this solve the problem than an omnipotent God would know every past, present and future action of any soul, big or small?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:I think we have

Eloise wrote:

I think we have had a similar discussion to this, previously. To do so would constitute an arbitrary withholding of a freedom and arbitrary denial of existence, that wouldn't be omnibenevolent, it would be selectively benevolent (Most theology will tell you that selective benevolence is not out of the question it just has an "appointed time&quotEye-wink.

You are limiting God by suggesting that he couldn't achieve freedom and existence without preventing evil.

"Selective benevolence"? I'd say your view of God is a long way off the Christian mainstream.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Eloise

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

I think we have had a similar discussion to this, previously. To do so would constitute an arbitrary withholding of a freedom and arbitrary denial of existence, that wouldn't be omnibenevolent, it would be selectively benevolent (Most theology will tell you that selective benevolence is not out of the question it just has an "appointed time&quotEye-wink.

You are limiting God by suggesting that he couldn't achieve freedom and existence without preventing evil.

This is the same answer you gave last time we had this discussion, and to reiterate my response, this is not a limit placed on God it's an axiomatic statement, arbitrary removal of some part of everything = arbitrary removal of some part of everything. I haven't said God cannot choose arbitrarily what to create or not create only that it would be arbitrary in, our terms now, to exclude evil considering that we know it is possible to create evil.  And again, as I said last time, it is entirely possible that God has created you in your perfect existence in the absence of evil and that this life and existence is a projection of your own mental creation (a live play for example) being examined by you from the safety and security of that world.

Tilberian wrote:

"Selective benevolence"? I'd say your view of God is a long way off the Christian mainstream.

I am a long long way from mainstream religion of any sort.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote:Eloise

Tilberian wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Thanks BMac, although this explanation is probably just a bit too watered down, I really appreciate the respect and thought given.

What is especially relevant here is - you said: "if what you perceive as your will, and what I perceive as my will, are not actually separate conditions at all" - this is very close to the heart of what I am saying - there is freedom in terms of this perception, probably a lot more than one would ordinarily suppose, consider that I am suggesting this to the degree that we are not incapable of literally forming each other out of these, aforementioned, ambiguous soul divisions.

OK, so all souls are really one big soul that creates smaller reflections of itself that have separate identity.

well paraphrased, Tilberian, I see no glaring misunderstandings in this statement.

Tilberian wrote:

Is God the big soul? Or is he apart from it?

This is where misunderstanding begins to creep in. It is more imperative that we formalise some model of our own existence under this premise, than God's. How can we even begin to suggest what God is or isn't when we so clearly lack a proper concept of what we are. The likeness of God and man is core theology across the board and the point I'm implying is that self (see post #26) a component slice equipped with isomorphisms up to universality equally defines God and Man. It's not worth considering the difference between God and man without first comprehending that the translation rotation steps which define objects relative to man also define God relative to man. Or in other words, there is actually no thing that is apart from or not the big soul, a little soul is a complete reconstruction of the big soul.

 

Tilberian wrote:

In what way does this solve the problem than an omnipotent God would know every past, present and future action of any soul, big or small?

This is the main question so getting straight to it the shortest answer is that we have already reduced the concept of past-present-future to basically an application of isometrics so they are constructions relative to an event, for God to know these constructions is merely for God to know what frameworks are available to us in which to perceive an event, this has no affect on volition.

More in depth, God can thus know every past present and future action, in fact he must know, because they all happen and they all exist equally, and this does not affect the volition of the entity because the volition exists within the perception of the entity. This perception actually has no separation from the event, that is, a perception is as much as a selection between equally real events. So you may say then that God then must know which perception the soul will select, which is also true, he must know, the selection and the event are equally defined and the event and the soul are equally defined. Therefore in order to know the soul God must necessarily know the selection that defines it. But this does not affect volition either because each "little" soul is a reconstruction of the "big" soul, that is, God knowing the selection that the little soul makes is precisely equal to knowing all perceivably real states at once and no different to giving the little soul absolute free will within those states.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
volition: the power of

volition: the power of choosing or determining. Go Alan Watts, I meant Eloise. "She's so heavy", I meant cool .....   ((((  Beatles song !

  Asking what is god is asking what am I ?

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I just caught this google

I just caught this google add here at RRS

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm?gclid=CJ7-0Krq0pMCFScuagodHhZijA

Pantheism as "Sexed up Atheism"  Starts,

Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism - the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists - is the only one that passes the muster of the world's most militant atheist.

So what's the difference between Atheism and Pantheism? As far as disbelief in supernatural beings, forces or realms, there is no difference. World Pantheism also shares the respect for evidence, science, and logic that's typical of atheism.

  Continues .....


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
tupence of opinion...

Omniscience demands predeterminism... (one can not be said to KNOW a thing in advance if that thing is subject to random change)

Thus, in the face of omniscience, free will is impossible

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Omniscience demands predeterminism... (one can not be said to KNOW a thing in advance if that thing is subject to random change)

Thus, in the face of omniscience, free will is impossible

LC >;-}>

 

Several million christians would argue with you,although not well enough to convince you.Apparently free will can exist with god,though I'm yet to be convinced. Trying to show them that never ends well,just look at any one of the many free will threads to have existed here.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.