Well in the ontological argument put forward since the middle ages and in general our theological view of god is that he is limitless in knowledge, power, presence and goodness.  SO the classical theodicy presentation that I made has been around a long time unresolved.

I understand the apology of c--> r  but x

The response is that it does not have to be that  way. God is capable of a perfection of heaven and of a future Kingdom of perfection according to the claims. He could therefore allowed the well-being and joy of those states rather than the suffering of the world.  But to say that it is by free agency the agency still comes from its creator.  Secondly he could protect and correct the suffering of at least the innocent if not all. For me these types of thoughts come from a mythological view of a fall from a Paradise that never was. Evolution explains the real state of the world better. Einstein's view was not of a personal god and he really was referring to the ultimate source of nature as god much like the force in Star Wars I think reading his biographies. I have not problems with using the term, god,  like Hawkings does metaphorically of the absolute. There is the difference though one must concede between a force and a Person.

The religious result seems to be primitive and insulting especially if you have had seen all of the abused and molested babies I have. Why is sacrifice required because of an imperfectly created world. I agree that flaws can exist with a metaphysical creator. My conclusion though is as many contemporaries that a creator can not have all of the attributes historically contributed with these flaws. And it leaves us in a situation of deciding what they are. We paint our own god in that process. If god is all powerful and loving then stop children from starving to death on the dry breasts of their mothers. If he is not all powerful but all loving then he should manifest that compassion such as a Buddha perhaps. This calls again in question the Christian presentation of god. If he is not an all good god then it explains a lot of the terrible things he did and had done in the OT.  The process theology of several theologians present a god that interacts with his creation grows learns and changes.

The above have been several approaches to the "WHY and how to justify why?  The theodicy presentation defeats or at least suspends the validity of the premise of the Ontological Argument for God. This all said and done seems to leave us with calling simply where ever the universe came from if we like as God.  A gap in the study of consciousness and what it is reamins as is witnessed by such works as Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, David Chalmers two major books on consciousness, the work of Krick (DNA)  and Kristoff Koch in the Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC).Is the "force"conscious or not?  It seems more plausible to simply see the world as a process of expansion and evolution with as Laplace said of god...no need for that hypothesis.

 Just reading up on another forum you're involved in.  The Christian vistors one.  I figured on here, we wouldn't get lost in convo and you're leveling with me.   Do you honestly believe that Jesus abolished OT law or that he replaced it in a way?  What did you mean by the law being a school teacher?  I take the law as God's way of showing us that it is not capable for us to be sinless in a sinful world and that we'd need his help.   The Israelites were very high on themselves and thought they could follow the law to God's standards.  

I am simply quoting the meaning of Paul's writing. I don't have to believe that there's a god to interpret and translate what the text of Paul were sayin. He says that the law was a school teacher ( or guardian ) until Christ came. He says we are made free from the law.  I take simply a belief that paul had that he added to Christianity in his interpretation of the historical Jesus as the mythic Christ. The old covenant of written in ink or stone is replaced by the new one written in Spirit.  Paul see the croos and resurrection as the abolishing of the law with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through belief and baptism.  I think sin is a primitive thing caused mostly by religion. Suffering on the other hand is just the evolutionary process of existence since there is no god or god is the process itself.

 

 

TGBaker wrote:

I am simply quoting the meaning of Paul's writing. I don't have to believe that there's a god to interpret and translate what the text of Paul were sayin. He says that the law was a school teacher ( or guardian ) until Christ came. He says we are made free from the law.  I take simply a belief that paul had that he added to Christianity in his interpretation of the historical Jesus as the mythic Christ. The old covenant of written in ink or stone is replaced by the new one written in Spirit.  Paul see the croos and resurrection as the abolishing of the law with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through belief and baptism.  I think sin is a primitive thing caused mostly by religion. Suffering on the other hand is just the evolutionary process of existence since there is no god or god is the process itself.

 

 

Ah.  

Sin is generally agreed upon as wrong in the secular world without being labeled as sin.  This of course is considering with an exception of the religious specific 'sins' such as using God's name in vane or having other Gods before Him.

Suffering is a result of us allowing it to happen to others, again with exception of certain aspects of it that are obviously out of our hands at this point.... Though sufferings like cancers I believe could possibly be prevented if enough effort was taken into the study of what might be the cause or reason behind the manifestation in the first place.  This would again take a collaboration that just isn't possible due to greed and selfishness in this world.

TGBaker wrote:

Yes and morality really is a secular function with a higher degree of rightness than religious morality. Christians do not follow through with everything that is morally commanded in the OT. They do not stone disobedient children. They find the genocide of the OT immoral though it was done supposedly in the name of God. Christians pick and choose what they follow and are very eclectic based upon the culture they are in. But that is not what I was saying about Paul. Paul saw that the reception of the Holy Spirit was a New Covenant in which a Christian knew right from wrong and god's will by its indwelling. That was why he said that contrary to Calvin that if the Galatians went for circumcision then they are severed from Christ and fallen from grace. Because the grace was the gift of the Spirit as new life. It is the New Covenant in 2 Cor. 3 not written in stone or ink but Spirit.  It is amazing that those like 7 Day Adventist go back to the law for Sabbath and do exactly what Paul was saying about circumcision in Galatians and special days in Colossians.

But the thing like cancer is based upon a natural world of evolution and does not fit with an infinite theism that could have made a word of well being without cancer. Your argument is after the fact. The theodicy argument I present assumes god's omniscience and that he could have chosen a world like heaven for his freewill creatures. Also  the aspect of creating  a creature entails that the creator places what properties are in that creature/ Freewill does not necessarily mean sin or suffering.  The fall is a mythical Mesopotamian myth.  But evolution does not show a fall. It shows a progress.

 EDIT In a post to WOWSER1 I am addressing a similar topic:

I think as far as interpretation we can hang on most everything but the obligation of god to make a place of maximum well-being. That would be entailed by the attribute of all good or loving cum omnipotent.  The attribute of omniscience would entail him seeing all possible worlds and a la Plantinga choosing the world with the least suffering and evil.  My defeater back when Sennett and Plantinga were going around with this was a simple one. The omnscience of a possible world makes all of its constituents known. So the the actualization of the first cause of the world entails the determinism of all contents of that world. Thus god is responsible for the results of all that world. The mythological view of Heaven, paradise and the Kingdom Cone at least posits the possible worlds of freewill and perfect well-being in the mix. So any world that has freewill beings that commit evil and which has suffering are god's responsibility morally.

 

I'm only going to reply to points made in each reply.  Our conversation so far is too broad and unfocused to bring up previous points.  

1.  You mention Christians do not folllow through with everything morally commanded in the OT.  Doesn't that have a lot to do with Jesus Christ?  With the consequence of the wrongdoing paid for, why would something like stoning still be obligated?   The penalty for sin is death, that's basically what that punishment was detailing along with all other morally obligated results of sin.  Something or someone always had to die to absolve sin.  Now that Jesus died, nothing or no one has to suffer under punishment for it anymore.  

2.  You seem to think that if God was real, then everything would be perfect and that free will would not have to be impinged upon.  I'm curious on how that's possible?  God knows e  It is possible to come up with a conspiracy theory here that states that someone or a people group way back when did something insignificant that caused what we know today to be cancers.  We see it as a natural evolutionary thing, but what started this natural process?  There's always a cause.  Think about it, if God made this world perfect, then made every effort to keep it that way, you then would be prevented from doing many actions you otherwise would not have thought twice about... you'd also be forced not to complain about it because complaining has no place in a perfect world... and so on.

3.  someone of your knowledge, it surprises me that you can look at the Christian religion and wonder why it's generally seen as Christians picking and choosing what they want to follow.  Any study of the Churches would lead to that answer explaining how each and every sect or denomination got started within Christiandom because someone didn't agree or didn't like the perspective of another and decided to go off on their own and take whoever agreed with them.  Where does that leave us?  With over 5000 different denominations in this country alone that don't know what they're following.  

It seems to me your disbelief is based on a bitterness toward this imperfect world rather than your knowledge.  i understand it's your knowledge that has confirmed for you what you believe.  I'm looking for that one thing that atheists think they can so simply explain that would spark that first step in questioning for me.  What was it for you that caused you to question first and foremost?  

 v

TGBaker wrote:

It is not a matter of correcting the suffering it is a matter that he created a world which has suffering in it in the first place. That is the theodicy problem. he could of created a heaven of freewill,. So to me your statement is an after the fact with a presupposition that the world necessarily requires suffering for free will which is not the case. I was using the children as an example. But that is because of the structure of the world and not firstly greed. There would have ot be suffering first for people to respond or not respond to it. So greed is a very secondary issue. The question of god leaving us or us leaving god is really a symptom of the question of god's existence.  The fact is that we do not have sufficient evidence to determine whether there was a god that left us or we left him. If we had evidence then we would not have left god or could not.  We could reject or perhaps disagree if we were made with defective understanding. 

I see DNA as proof that there is no intelligent design. It is an accumulation of chemical changes based upon which process can survive in an environment ( natural selection).  The coded information is completely natural.  As is most coded information. Once  this information is coded into specialized nerve cells they have cretain processes of the environment. The brain of higher animals itself naturally codes collective past experience as instinct and present experience as qualia that are mental images stored like a language  in modules of the cortx. The more cortex the better the process such as dos or humans. I do not see any gaps in evolution aprat from a creationist interpretation.

 

it's interesting you say that God created a world which has suffering in it in the first place... I don't see that in the Adam and Eve story.  Only that there was a garden with a tree of knowledge in it.  As far as we know before the fruit was eaten, there was no suffering or no knowledge of it in the world.  Therefore, to say that God created a world with suffering in it is speculation out of context.  

The sufficient evidence question comes up many times... now that is a perspective based conclusion.  Well educated believers would disagree that there's not sufficient evidence and would present evidences that convince them depending on their expertise and knowledge... These categories would include real world focuses such as science, history and archeology.  A large aspect of it of course is personal experience which then leaves open the window of doubt as to whether the source is telling the truth or not, or is just delusional depending on the magnitude of personal experience.  i personally can say I've seen things I can't otherwise explain and have heard stories from sources that otherwise would not be doubted and therefore have a hard time accepting that there is no sufficient evidence to determine the existence of a metaphysical being we refer to as God.  

SO... I ultimately ask the inevitable question that so far hasn't had a rational answer from an atheist or non-believer.  What exactly are you looking for as far as sufficient evidence?  OR, if you're not looking for evidence to believe in God... what would you be looking for if you were?  

It's funny you say DNA is proof that there is no intelligent design.  I would disagree.  In fact, one of the people who discovered DNA is a believer and still is from what I understand.  DNA is such a complex thing with such a vast amount of information it is hard for me to grasp the concept that something that complex accidentally formed.  It'd be like me saying that a pile of metal and plastic pieces I threw at your feet will turn into an advanced computer in about 10,000,000 years under the right conditions.  You and I know that's absurd.  

You also claim that; "coded information is completely natural"... What is your basis for comparison?  If your answer is; 'it's natural because we see it happen in nature', I can just as easily claim intelligence behind it.  Just like programming a computer to code specific information and modify it according to specific input.  Basically what i'm saying is I need more than just "it happens naturally" to reconsider my belief in God.  To me that's a poor excuse for disbelief and a stalemate type conversation unless you do have a basis for comparison.   

Also, I know how you want to discuss in this thread and I'm noticing that our conversation is already starting to branch out.  I'm ok with you taking just a small part of what I replied on here and going with it for a while.  We can always get back to the other stuff later.  I am curious on what you would be looking for as sufficient evidence.   Or what you would need to consider the evidence sufficient to support the idea of a metaphysical existence.  

3)I do not wonder why it's generally seen that Christians pick and choose. As I pointed out they do so based upon the culture and their environment. Compare an urban church with a rural one, an Anglican/Episcopal with a Southern Baptist. You will see economic and social contrast that are defining. But the ultimate point I was making is that morality originates from are humanity and is often picked over a religious morality. For instance Copan defends the killing of the women and children Canaanites at god's command  with an ethical rationale that the children will at least go to heaven being spared from the corruption of the Canaanite culture.   An omnipotent god could not have come up with a better way of sparing children from becoming sinners? Such reasoning would justify us killing every newborn to insure that it would go to heaven before it was corrupted by "sin".  Such reasoning is found with the jihadist Muslim because Allah has the right to wipe out all Americans because they are incorrigible and wicked. There are 38,000 Christian sects and a lot of them are different Christianities that are incompatible with each other.  Obviously god is a poor communicator that the basics can not even be understood. God could have spelled out the essentials and said look you can debate theologically on the rest which are non-essentials.  Not very good revelation if you ask me. I am really not taking jabs at Christianity I am presenting areas which I think show it not to be valid.

My disbelief is not based upon bitterness.  I simply came to a disbelief based upon studying the New Testament  and especially the gospels. Once you determine that inerrancy or infallibility is not valid then normal historical analysis is easy to apply to the scripture. It became obvious to me that the gospels were in no sense historical or accurate. They were in fact fabrications and plagiarism.  So it is exactly the opposite from what you presuppose.  My analysis of the problem of theodicy was much later. But atheism certainly explains an "imperfect" world or a world with those who suffer better than a theism.

 

TGBaker wrote:

1)Yes lets try to contract and focus our discussions and replies so we do not loose track.  I think it is not so much the follow through as the contrast set if one followed through. What type of god would even originally command such stuff as the destruction of Canaanite women and children.  The idea of stoning as commanded by god in the first place sheds light on the concept or nature of god as cruel and barbaric. So the penalty for sin is death. It does not have to be that way. So you have indications of the primitive Jews along with there neighbors sacrificing their children sedate an angry god. This was later replaced by animal sacrifice because blood is needed ( silly thing and primitive thinking either on the people or god's part).  Then we go back to jesus as a sacrifice of a child or the son of god. It certainly sounds more cruel and pagan than Buddhism.  We continue to pick and choose as christians today what we follow morally from scripture. Many have over come the homophobic aspect of the NT and Paul.  Suppression of women is not continued as with I Corinthians and the pastoral Epistles though it is there ( well by some Pentecostal and extreme conservative fundamentalists).

Taking this paragraph alone:

Stoning was and is a severe consequence for breaking a sacred law.  To call God barbaric for that command is to suggest that anyone supporting the death penalty is barbaric.  Some may think so, but it's a bit of a jump to conclude.  The problem I see here is we look at death as the end.  You more than most should understand that death was a consequence/punishment and not an end.  You say that the penalty for sin being death doesn't have to be.   Are you sure?  Do you know for sure what sin does to us spiritually?  To start discussing on this level, we'd have to start taking into consideration spiritual ramifications of sin and what that might actually mean.  For example, to sin is to go against God's command or law regarding a particular idea or rule.  It'd be the same as any U.S. citizen betraying the country by doing something that ultimately would be against the laws and rules of this country as expected from citizens.  I  know our country has pretty severe consequences for such people, why can the U.S. or other countries do that, but not God?  Or do you consider severe consequences unjust for anyone betraying our country?

Granted I know the topics are different, but it's like opening a weakness in our defenses, sin opens a door for satan (it is said)

TGBaker wrote:

2)If you say that god knows everything and all the results of all our actions even though we never will then contrary to your statements there is no freewill for god in seeing all the possible worlds actualizes the first cause of a fully known system which must actualize as it is infallibly known. Also he sees all of the suffering and evil as well as the good that must necessarily follow if he knows the contents of the entire process of the world actualization from beforehand. So as there is no freewill and god is responsible for the complete unfolding of what he knows will occur he is responsible for the complete unfolding and actualization of all the suffering and evil of that or this world. We are prevented from doing many actions that we would like to do so that as an argument from free will does not actually work should we grant that god does not have omniscience and thus allows freewill in the start of his creation as actualized in a first cause. If you apply your reasoning of freewill thus evil then compare this world to  to heaven then are you saying the world is better than a perfect heaven or Kingdom Cothat me?  Will I be forced in heaven since it is perfect as you say or the Kingdom of God?

 

3 and 4 to be continued. I gonna watch Frazier with my pretty wife.

Nice.. you do have a beautiful family BTW.  

Though this last one was a bit hard to follow, it seems that you're basically in a round about way placing complete blame for the state of the world on God and pulling freewill away from people altogether.

Here's the problem i have with this perspective:

1.  Free will suggests that you have more choice than your home computer... which cannot do anything on its own accord without its operator pushing a button or programming it to do something in a given time frame.  Regardless of what the computer would prefer to do, it must obey the operators command.  this would be what it's like to not have free will.  Just because you know what might happen to someone else doesn't mean you have complete control over them and have taken all their freedom.  We're both fathers.  Think of your son.  You know him well enough i'm assuming that you'd know in many given situations what choices he would likely make.  You also know what the results of those likey choices would be.  some good some bad.  The big question is, if you know your son is going to make a choice that might not have the outcome you would like, do you prevent him from making that choice... always?   Next thing, if he does something wrong, is he to blame or are you to blame?  My guess is you do not have strings attached to your son.  He is free to make choices and pay the consequences of those choices whether good or bad.  Some of those consequences may come from you as the parent, but you still allow him to make the mistake so he can learn from it.  

2.  How can you be held responsible for something your son did on his own unless you told him to do it?  From what I'm seeing above, you would be blamed for every bad choice your son makes throughout his life that you might have been aware of regardless of the reprecussions you may have given to your son.  No you can't always be right there watching your sons every move... but then again, would you want to be or would you want to let your son live?  God is viewed as our father.  I believe the father roles are similar, though of course there's a lot more responsibility and a lot more children to look after for God.

TGBaker wrote:

Sorry missed this post somehow. AS to a mythical Eden which let's grant for a second. There would have still been suffering of the animals being killed for food etc.  But again you have to look at the type of god you present. God created millions of years because of his design that animals suffered, were in pain and died.  This was before freewill of Adam and Eve. Unless you want to posit a fall of the animals before Adam and EVE.  Or you can go against science and go with the animals were created and brought before Adam to name which is mythic. I f he is omnipotent and omniscient then if he  sees suffering and evil in the whole course of the world's history and then still creates it he creates the suffering and the evil as well. You are looking at a completely deterministic world since it is predetermined what would happen in that world before it was made.  It is not a matter of speculation out of context. If I assume that the Bible is accurate then god's creation of the world with him knowing of the fall requires the fall if he creates that world because in his omniscience he has determined that the fall will be an aspect of the world he is going to create and does so anyway.

Don't worry, I understand you're a busy person with a life outside this site.  We need to be a little more focused anyway.    You make an assumption that animals were killed or suffered and died before the fall.  There is nothing in scripture to suggest this.  You also seem to think that Adam and Eve didn't always have free will.. not sure where you're getting that from. 

You think that God knew the fall was going to happen before he created it all.  If this was the case, then I dont' think God would have ultimately regretted creating man as said in Genesis 6.  Due to the fact that the fall had a spiritual influence, namely Satan or the deceiver, it is possible that though God would know what choice they would make if deceived, he might not have been fully aware that Satan was going to betray Him like that.  he is aware of all the choices of his children, that is made clear, but is he aware of all the choices of the spiritual beings as well? I dont' know... maybe, either way, until it happened, I'm sure he didn't know for sure that it was going to happen when he started creating.  Genesis 6 seems to support this perspective.  

on DNA.  I'm not ignoring all you wrote, but again, we need to be more focused.  I responded on this topic for now.  I'll make a quick note on DNA and if you want me to focus on something specific about it, just let me know and I will.  DNA, no matter what you call it, code or not does the same thing that it does.  To me to suggest that everything follows the same rule only further points to a creator.  If it was completely random and not congruent throughout the universe, that might make me question a creator more.  The fact that your article states that DNA "facilitates" suggests an intelligence behind the construction, or at least an intelligence within the DNA which doesn't really make much sense without a creator.

Actually the killing was by Israelites of the Canaanites because God commanded them to kill them all. They killed innocent children and women because god commanded it to be so. They did not think about an afterlife. That was a contemporary theologian. Copan is a evanagelical Christian theologian that justified God  telling the Israelites to kill the children as well. He stated at least they would not grow up in a corrupted culture and be sent to hell. No I am saying that if sin is certain as one grows older and the wages of sin is death then if this is really really true then it is logical to kill your babies so that they will be saved rather than the uncertain possibility that they will sin and go to hell for eternal pain and suffering. Copan's logic is right technically and yet our secular morality goes against it and  against a god who would command such. I think that the true answer id that god is presented by a primitive tribe and  god was considered the Commander of that tribe. And that is the way tribes act. It's just Old Testament Myth. But If you accept the Old Testament god then you accept the myths.

TGBaker wrote:

1) I see death as the result of life evolving on this earth. Thus there was no fall of man. There was suffering and pain long before man came along. It is simply part of the process of life. If there is a god he is responsible for animal suffering too unless you want to posit as a few do a fall of the animals prior to man. The fact that we do not stone people today for things that some do not even consider  a sin shows that we are more humane than god and thus the barbaric god. The idea that sin warrants death is in conflict with the post resurrection idea that one can sin and be forgiven. The assumption that the crucifixion is a propitiation is dependent on the myth of the fall.  As far as I can tell sin is simply doing what should not do intentionally.

the idea that sin warrants death is not in conflict with the post resurrection idea.  Jesus died so that we may live... That never said that we can't or shouldn't die anymore.  In fact, as you know it goes on to say that we must die to sin so that we may live.  This again goes into the spiritual versus the physical.  The physical body still must die because it is in sin.  Jesus died for us to live spiritually.  This does not posit a view I have of heaven or hell, just that when we die, we don't "die" as an atheist might look at it.  I think you know what I'm saying.   It's like cutting off an infection so the rest of the body doesn't get infected.  We must get cut off from then physical body we sin in so that we can live without sin.  

this again is an odd view coming from someone of your expertise.  May I ask what denomination or otherwise you were a part of?

2) Freewill and creation.  The problem is not the same as with our sons. Imagine that you are an omnipotent and omniscient creator that wants to create the best possible world.  Lets imagine  5 spheres.  Those spheres are possible worlds. God looks at them all and can see everything that is in those worlds which will happen if he actualizes them. Any one of those worlds is completely predetermined if he actualizes it. Everything in any of them must take place if he touches the first cause of that world. For the subsequent events are fully known not just estimated and reasoned as we do with our sons. Rather they are fully seen to follow. I know that if I start up this world in 4 billion years 6 billion people will be killed by nuclear warfare. If I do not they will not. In fact in other world it does not happen but Bambi's mother dies in a forest fire. Finally I see that if I actualize this other  world every creature will be in a heaven of well being for that world is heaven. It is a possible world since we know if Christianity is true it is the future world of those saved.So it is not a matter of creating freewill. It is a matter creating a world like heaven that has free will in it.

But regarding our sons:  If I had an enemy and he placed a car bomb in my car and I found out about it I would not drive it.   If my son has free will and may or may not use it.I can leave it up to his free will or I can tell him about it ( Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil) And if he does not  believe me I can let him be blown up or I can stop him.  He still has free will but I will sure  as hell stop him.  Thus those who see this in the issue of theodicy look at God as not having omniscience contrary to orthodoxy ( process theology, liberal theologians etc, One argument is that for God to create a creature with freewill he had to sacrifice his omniscience or created a world such that built in randomness was unknowable by even god.

To carry the Eden analogy a little further God not only tells us not to drive the car he blows it up when we do. The Serpent ( I doubt that it was Satan) tells Eve rightfully that they will not die if they it of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They will instead become like God knowing Good and Evil. God when he finds out that they had become like him and his court knowing good and evil takes away the Tree of Life.  ( he blows up the car with the son in it). 

I conclude these stories are an attempt to explain suffering ( like child birth, death, etc. and are not factual. See the next post on animal suffering.

TGBaker wrote:

Yes there were animals for billions of years before man. The dinosaurs were all gone by the time man came about.  There is pelnty of evidence of paleontology. Obviously this conflicts with the evidence of scripture and that is our discussion isn't it?

well, actually this doesnt' conflict with evidence in scripture.  If you look at Genesis as chronological, then man was the last thing created, the beasts were created before man... there's nothing to say that some were created and destroyed in the process and it's not relevant to the story at hand.  A lack of detail does not suggest it didn't happen.

TGBaker wrote:

No I was not saying that Adam and Eve did not have freewill but I am saying that the fall and animal suffering is supposed to be because Adam and Eve were around to have free will and made a bad choice. But animal suffering was before there was free will ( and  Adam And Eve ). I think that what the article means is that DNA accumulates meaning through natural selection in a since. There is information but no intelligence. It is the same as a crystal that in a solution facilitates the formation of more crystals which is what DNA is in a complex analogy.  Or it is as physical law facilitates the composition of water from the reaction of hydrogen and oxygen or curvature of space in a gravitational field.

Not much is said scripturally about the animal kingdom mainly because scripture is about people not animals.  Therefore, we can speculate all we want on whether animal suffering is on account of the fall or whether it happened anyway.  The only thing promised in scripture was life to people, namely adam and eve... nothing was said of animals.  To speculate some more, the death of an animal may have been God's way of teaching about death.  As far as we know, he had great plans for them with the tree of life in due time, but they jumped the gun and decided to take it all on.  

As far as law is concerned, as I've said, law typically requires a law maker.  As far as we are concerned scientifically speaking, scientific laws are such because... well... that's just the way it is.  I like to make it clear that just because we can explain something scientifically doesn't in any way suggest that God is not real or a brain behind the operation.  We study, we know and discover.  Any well versed theist can say "God did it" and use that as a good counter to any scientific jargon one can throw at them.  Why?  because no matter the logic in science, it is understood by believers that God created it, so the laws in science are thus created to be that way.  If God wanted it differently and said that "an object in motion must stop no matter what" we'd see it that way and never question it because it's the law of science and always has been.   In other words, to dispute God through science, a scientist would have to explain how the law came to be or is without a creator and a theist would have to explain how God created the laws.  No one can do that, so no one empirically in science can prove or disprove God, only rationalize through what we know to be true such as any scientific understanding that we accept as true that we can't test in a lab.  

 

I will stick to the bible then and ask you to read post again.  I think you miss the point again in trying to justify your belief system. You did not address the actual points. God had babies killed and commanded it to be so.  Is that not evil? I would say that it is. If not then I would rather fallow a different god or belief than such a deity.  As I said Copan tries to justify your god's actions by saying at least the babies will go to heaven. But then he could have killed off the culture before the children were born.  He seems to selectively choose his actions does he not.  God did not give the babies a choice. If it is simplya primitive myth then the Israelite tribes simply attributed therir actions to their deity and they were the actors of the genocide.

TGBaker wrote:

You miss the point. Death was about before there were people to sin. Suffering and pain were about throughout the life that was around before the mythical fall or the actual origination of humans. The idea of the myth of Eden is there was no death until sin and secondly this is repeated by Jesus and Paul.  There was however death prior to humanity a i said and there is no evidence of a fall since animals existing for milons of years prior to humans demonstrates the mythic aspect of the Genesis account.  So I do not see how your statement goes to my point. The idea that the physical body is sin is a precursor to its radical form gnosticism. There is no indication apart from as I said these mythic statements taken literally that even justify a propitiation since pain and suffer and evil are  simply a produce of natural selection as various species compete for survival. Since the earth started this way and it IS NOT a FALL then if there is a god then he created suffering and evil. If the fall was literal then god still created suffering and evil in that he could have created a heaven on earth instead of a competition of survival between living things.

you seem to be assuming the promise of living forever was for every being and not just humans.  I dont' think I did miss your point.  I see what you're saying.  Death existed before Adam and eve.  Animals died before people existed and therefore Genesis is a myth because death didn't start with them.  

Here's my take.  I don't believe this is an issue in the story.  Notice that God threatened them with "death" if they ate the fruit...  my question then would be... if nothing ever died before them... how would they know what death is?  Why would it be a threat to them if they never saw it happen or never knew what it was?  Sure God could have described that to them, but it doesn't seem like that was necessary in the conversation.   They seemed to understand just fine.  The promise of living forever was given to Adam and Eve.  I don't believe animals were a part of this promise, nor is there any suggestion that this was the case.  Living beings dying before people does not in any way to me suggest this story does not hold up in history.  In fact, by the dialect between God and Adam/Eve, it seems pretty clear to me that death was a very familiar term to them and needed no explanation.  Why?  It's likely they've witnessed it among animals.  

TGBaker wrote:

AGAIN you do not follow the point of the post. So there was death and suffering prior to man. And that is in conflict with Christology which states that death entered through man and is the result of sin.

I know you prefer a lump reply instead of pulling it apart. For me at times it's easier to answer to specific statements and I do not expect you to reply in the same manner.  

This from what I understand is not stated scripturally unless you can quote it for me and it is in doctrine and not the Word.  

TGBaker wrote:

Secondly that there was suffering and pain before the alleged Fall  means that god is responsible for that suffering and pain and therefore not all powerful to prevent it or all good in that he did not care.

Let's take it from this angle.  You allow your son who would be logically old enough in our hypothetical situation to handle a knife and he cuts himself.  Is it fair for me to call social services on you due to neglect and allowing your son to cut himself or was this on his own accord and as far as you and our society was concerned, completely capable of not only handling the knife but also handling the fact that he cut himself?  

I get what you're saying.  God knows all, so he could predict that you'd  cut your finger and stop it before it happens.  This goes back to would you prevent your son from every possibly dangerous opportunity knowing he'd likely hurt himself (in a minor way) from our perspective?  most good parents would allow their children to live and learn or suffer the likelihood consequence that they would end up being sheltered and not experienced enough with life to function on their own.  

Your'e not a believer in the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" saying are you.  From God's perspective your soul still survives, therefore death isn't exactly killing you, but making you stronger still.

TGBaker wrote:

Science and the methodology would be the only means to decide. For study of the scripture is historical and is subject to scientific principles. If however you are claiming subjective revelation to the understanding by inspiration then again you should be able to explain the text scientifically and not just state they are true because you believe them to be. But a theist can not say the laws were created that way and be correct because that is pure unmitigated asininity.  Laws are subject to scientific explanation and often conflict with theism. That is probably why there is boards and discussions like ours. And to say that it is such that if god wanted something different and could say  "an object in motion must stop no matter what"  then HE HAVE CREATED A WORLD WITH FREEWILL AND WITHOUT SUFFERING, PAIN AND EVIL. which was my original point. And so I will post it again.  

I have used science in the past to explain my perspective along with history and other topics.  What exactly would you be looking for in science?

TGBaker wrote:

Why god is not real is there is no reason or evidence to believe that he is real. As to the disproof of god I would again present  my disproof since we seem to have gotten off topic:

The problem with this statement is that a theist can say the same thing from their perspective' e.g. "there's no reason to believe that God is not real, there is no evidence against his existence"  So far, with all the intelligent people I have discussed with, that statement seems to hold true.  I'm willing to look at new reasoning however.  Always willing to consider any perspective.

I don't have a real issue with it because it is mythical but it says what it says. Joshua 9-11; Deut. 7:1ff; 20:1ff. If you bible is correct and historical then god commands genocide.

Here's an apologetic if you want one or you can google William Lane Craig's apologies but they are pure 24 unmitigated asininity.

http://www.andrewperriman.com/node/1523

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

 

TGBaker wrote:

Romans 8 natures corruption was from Adam's fallAgain you then allow god to create suffering and contrary to a son cutting his finger with a knofe we are talking about millions of babies slowing starving to death, being sacrificed and tortured throughout history as well as adult men and women. I mention the children because wither your theology is that they are innocent or like other christianities they are sinful because they are norn insin. If the latter your god sucks. If the former your god is not following what does not kill you makes you stronger. He's damn well watching innocent children suffering in long untold pain. And it damn well happens today. I was a child protective services investiigator of abuse and molestation and even a god that allows it because of freewill today SUCKS.  You simply seem to me to be a defense attorney for a sadist.

Perfect, you as a child protective services investigator should know more than most that its' people's choices... not God's that causes suffering in children.  Can you say through all your experience in that line of work you have not learned a thing?  Sometimes the suffering of others is a way of learning how to better yourself so that others around you don't suffer the same consequences.  

Atheists look at suffering in the world and say "God let that happen".  The average schmo out there who could care less about the God debate says people are to blame.   Both can't be at fault, one has to be responsible.  By your case, I am a defense attorney for a sadist... therefore, it is completely Gods fault that there is suffering in this world and everyone who has brought suffering on a human being or child for that matter is completely innocent of their actions.  This of course assuming God is real.  For some reason I can't see your perspective as justified.  It's strange to see that your perspective is that people are completely innocent regardless of their intentions and actions.  

TGBaker wrote:

As to science I was responding to your statement that you have deleted so you can read it again if you want. You were putting belief on a par with science if I remember.

You stated:

We study, we know and discover.  Any well versed theist can say "God did it" and use that as a good counter to any scientific jargon one can throw at them.  Why?  because no matter the logic in science, it is understood by believers that God created it, so the laws in science are thus created to be that way.  If God wanted it differently and said that "an object in motion must stop no matter what" we'd see it that way and never question it because it's the law of science and always has been.   In other words, to dispute God through science, a scientist would have to explain how the law came to be or is without a creator and a theist would have to explain how God created the laws.  No one can do that, so no one empirically in science can prove or disprove God, only rationalize through what we know to be true such as any scientific understanding that we accept as true that we can't test in a lab. 

I don't delete my posts... must have been a MOD or a glitch.  

TGBaker wrote:

Your response below does not address my statement:

I have used science in the past to explain my perspective along with history and other topics.  What exactly would you be looking for in science?

What I am looking for are answers to my questions.

You again state: The problem with this statement is that a theist can say the same thing from their perspective' e.g. "there's no reason to believe that God is not real, there is no evidence against his existence"  So far, with all the intelligent people I have discussed with, that statement seems to hold true.  I'm willing to look at new reasoning however.  Always willing to consider any perspective.

 

AS a response to my statement:

Why god is not real is there is no reason or evidence to believe that he is real. As to the disproof of god I would again present  my disproof since we seem to have gotten off topic .....

and then have not presented any logical proof of a god that could be omniscient, omnipresent. and all good given my arguemtn.

As to your statement the onus is always on someone to prove their claims and not on someone who denies them since he has no proof. Produce your proof. I even gave you a proof anyway of why there is not your type of god.

 A person who produces a food which has a chemical that reacts with eating and turns to poison is responsible for the poison.  A god who who creates a world that turns into pain, suffering and evil is responsible for that pain, suffering and evil. 

I don't believe that I have been ignoring any questions you've asked.  I may try to use examples to better explain my answer, but please tell me strait out and restate specifically if you feel I have completely ignored.  You seem to be on top of that.  

I have yet to get anywhere with reasoning or as you would say "proof" because we have yet to settle on a focus.  I will say that this is how the megathread you originated with me on got started and just took off with no focus what so ever.  I have told you it's best to start with the existence of a metaphysical being first and foremost.  ON the other site, i have discussed some reasoning behind that.  Bring that on here if you want.  That way we can continue on a specific focus.  We can debate the rationality of God all day long.  I will say again that unless we can agree on the existence of such a God the debate on the rationality of this alleged God will not make progress.  You will have your take on the point that this God must be responsible for everything if He exists (not that it matters to you because he obviously doesn't right?) I will make my point that God has put things in place that are designed to run on their own.  (again, it doesn't matter to you because God obviously doesn't exist according to you)  No matter what evidences I show you, because of your lack of acceptance of Gods existence, you will make minimal effort at understanding how my perspective on God holds water.  Am I right?  Your concern is convincing me that this God is not real.  It's not going to work by showing me the problems you have with this God.   Evidence, reasoning and rationality will convince me.   

 

 

   Don't mean to interrupt, really I m not interrupting or stepping on anyone's toes.  You might not  recognize what is at the heart of the following statement, or what it implies.     This may make it easier to understand one another, i think:

 

TGBaker wrote:

The belief in god is built on a more primary belief: The Bible is his revelation about himself and therefore inspired. It is either infallible or inerrant but at the authoritative means of a god. No bible no  known god since god is dependent upon it as his revelation. So what happens is the the primary belief is in the bible as a necessary thing. God is whatever it says in whatever way. And since there are  many ways that god is presented in the differing books there are many different types of Christianity, few of which are compatible. Many Christians are really biblio-idolators so indoctrinated that they do not even realize that their object of worship is scripture and what it speaks  IT IS THE WORD OF GOD.

 

 

 

 

   Don't mean to interrupt, really I m not interrupting or stepping on anyone's toes.  You might not  recognize what is at the heart of the following statement, or what it implies.     This may make it easier to understand one another, i think:

 

TGBaker wrote:

The belief in god is built on a more primary belief: The Bible is his revelation about himself and therefore inspired. It is either infallible or inerrant but at the authoritative means of a god. No bible no  known god since god is dependent upon it as his revelation. So what happens is the the primary belief is in the bible as a necessary thing. God is whatever it says in whatever way. And since there are  many ways that god is presented in the differing books there are many different types of Christianity, few of which are compatible. Many Christians are really biblio-idolators so indoctrinated that they do not even realize that their object of worship is scripture and what it speaks  IT IS THE WORD OF GOD.

 

 

TGBaker wrote:

The focus has been very specifically God's attributes I thought. And I started very specifically with a modal logic argument about the state of suffering and god's attributes as omniscience and omni-benevolence.

Perfect, you as a child protective services investigator should know more than most that its' people's choices... not God's that causes suffering in children. 

 

This statement indicates you miss what I am saying in all the other posts. That it is only secondarily the people's actions. They are not choices because that are predetermined in God's foreknowledge . He sees all of the things that will happen if he creates a world since he says all of the constituents in that world's complete history. If he creates it those people will do what he sees they will do. They have no choice. They are a consequence of his creating.

CAPOSKIA:  The focus has been God's attributes... unfortunately, that's a very broad topic and a topic as I mentioned that likely won't get far if you can't grasp the existence of this God to begin with.  As far as your concerned, his attributes are petty anyway be it that we might as well be talking about the attributes of Spongebob am I right? 

 

TGB:  I hardly think the attributes are petty or broad.  I say that they are not possible together because they conflict.  One example as I attempted to indicate which was NOT braod was the argument about theodicy. It demonstrates the conflict between the attributes ( three of them ) and free will. 

Foreknowledge demonstrates pre-determinism quite simply. If it is known before hand you have pre-determined it as such. So if god knows everything about a possible world then there is no freedom in that world because it must conform to his foreknowledge (omniscience) or his knowledge fails which means he is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

TGBaker wrote:

 

TGB:  I hardly think the attributes are petty or broad.  I say that they are not possible together because they conflict.  One example as I attempted to indicate which was NOT braod was the argument about theodicy. It demonstrates the conflict between the attributes ( three of them ) and free will. 

Foreknowledge demonstrates pre-determinism quite simply. If it is known before hand you have pre-determined it as such. So if god knows everything about a possible world then there is no freedom in that world because it must conform to his foreknowledge (omniscience) or his knowledge fails which means he is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

TGB: I am not stuck anywhere.   Again  you miss the whole point. There is a difference between the foreknowledge of which you example with your brother.  You did not cerate your brother. The difference is that the ontological and epistemological conform for god sees the whole contents of history of all the worlds he could create. Whatever he creates he is responsible for because there is no free will in them. As mentioned above they must conform to his omniscience as foreknowledge.