Caposkia and TGBaker discussion

TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Caposkia and TGBaker discussion

Does God exist? IS Christianity valid?  Is the New Testament inerrant and a proof of God?  There are several ways to begin this discussion. Having been a Christian before "falling from grace"1.* I would suggest that the evangelical approach would be to share the good news or try to give an explanation that would cause me to consider acceptance of Christ as my savior. 

1.*) Galatians 5:4 (NASB) You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. I know depending on your denominational background that even the meaning of this text will be debated. 

Again I will share that the loss of my faith came from actual scholarly studies of the scripture.  I see philosophically no way one would arrive at a theism through a natural theology without a presupposition of a god and it being derived from holy scripture. To me Christians defend their believe in their faith based upon cultural bonds with their context. It is hard for them to develop a temporary skeptical approach to their faith claims that they may see if those claims hold up from an objective prospective. Most Christian presentation seems apologetic with secondary arguments that support the primary unproven premises.  Hey but that is just me.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
 To start I will

 To start I will immediately say that it was scholarly study that has helped me find my faith.   That is my belief in the Christian God and the attributes thereof.  Also, personal experience and experience from 'trusted sources' play a role.  Personal experience plays a role in any belief or disbelief and is the reason why you accept something as true or false.  

I came onto this site originally to discuss why a debate Sapient was involved in was a poor debate on both sides.  Turns out he's not much of a conversationalist, but has a similar state of mind that I do.  He is convinced of his belief that God is non-existent just as I am convinced that God is.  We both agree that we're willing to see evidences or reasoning people have to present and if the evidences or reasoning is valid, they will be considered and I would change my perspective appropriately.  I'm willing to take it to the next level and explain if I find the reasoning not valid why I feel that way empirically.  By this approach I'm hoping for either a different way of explaining be it that I might have misunderstood, or an agreement from the opposer that my reasoning behind not accepting their reasoning is acceptable and that they might have to reconsider their reasoning.  

I would like to note that I would never expect anything from anyone that they wouldn't be expecting from me and I intend to keep it a level conversation on that front.  So far, I have learned a lot from non-believers challenging my belief and have changed my perspective on their account.  The changes however weren't away from my belief in God, but perspective on a certain aspect of that particular topic.  All of those changes have so far only further confirmed to me what I believe is true.  

Again i hold the view that a debate will never convince anyone and that it's really just firing opinions around.  I have gone through all the stages of belief including disbelief and growing up in a belief.  The belief I grew up in and what I believe now are not the same.  It took me disbelieving to study appropriately and understand what should be believed when it comes to God.  Due to this study and my approach I believe faith has no place for opinion or stubborn belief.  I also believe that most Christians should be more educated in their belief than they already are.  This belief has come through my experience on this site and the reasoning people have given me for not believing.  This of course does not apply to all non-believers on this site and excludes TGBaker as well.   It's rational reasoning and logical conclusion that has lead me to believe using real world information.  

There is a difference between discussing a perspective of God (Christianity) and discussing the existence of God.  I feel both conversations should stay separate.  I think we should start with reasoning behind the existence of God... this would apply to God as a metaphysical being that has created the universe and everything in it like many religions around the world believe.    I think that if we can't come to an agreement on the existence of God, then it's quite obvious that we'd never come to an agreement on a perspective of God.  

So with that said, how should we start? What focus and whereto?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: To start I

caposkia wrote:

 To start I will immediately say that it was scholarly study that has helped me find my faith.   That is my belief in the Christian God and the attributes thereof.  Also, personal experience and experience from 'trusted sources' play a role.  Personal experience plays a role in any belief or disbelief and is the reason why you accept something as true or false.  

I came onto this site originally to discuss why a debate Sapient was involved in was a poor debate on both sides.  Turns out he's not much of a conversationalist, but has a similar state of mind that I do.  He is convinced of his belief that God is non-existent just as I am convinced that God is.  We both agree that we're willing to see evidences or reasoning people have to present and if the evidences or reasoning is valid, they will be considered and I would change my perspective appropriately.  I'm willing to take it to the next level and explain if I find the reasoning not valid why I feel that way empirically.  By this approach I'm hoping for either a different way of explaining be it that I might have misunderstood, or an agreement from the opposer that my reasoning behind not accepting their reasoning is acceptable and that they might have to reconsider their reasoning.  

I would like to note that I would never expect anything from anyone that they wouldn't be expecting from me and I intend to keep it a level conversation on that front.  So far, I have learned a lot from non-believers challenging my belief and have changed my perspective on their account.  The changes however weren't away from my belief in God, but perspective on a certain aspect of that particular topic.  All of those changes have so far only further confirmed to me what I believe is true.  

Again i hold the view that a debate will never convince anyone and that it's really just firing opinions around.  I have gone through all the stages of belief including disbelief and growing up in a belief.  The belief I grew up in and what I believe now are not the same.  It took me disbelieving to study appropriately and understand what should be believed when it comes to God.  Due to this study and my approach I believe faith has no place for opinion or stubborn belief.  I also believe that most Christians should be more educated in their belief than they already are.  This belief has come through my experience on this site and the reasoning people have given me for not believing.  This of course does not apply to all non-believers on this site and excludes TGBaker as well.   It's rational reasoning and logical conclusion that has lead me to believe using real world information.  

There is a difference between discussing a perspective of God (Christianity) and discussing the existence of God.  I feel both conversations should stay separate.  I think we should start with reasoning behind the existence of God... this would apply to God as a metaphysical being that has created the universe and everything in it like many religions around the world believe.    I think that if we can't come to an agreement on the existence of God, then it's quite obvious that we'd never come to an agreement on a perspective of God.  

So with that said, how should we start? What focus and whereto?

I agree with you about debates. And interestingly so does Richard Dawkins. It is only through a dialogue that there can be mutually responsive questions and answers. Debate as a structure creates a formal presentation of an already presupposed side and its antithesis.  That said I agree that the question of the existence of God is primary to a perspective of God which I thought was well put by you.  However, it is only in perspectives that we come to a position that there is a god as far as I've been able to determine. others who speak of god generically have come to that position from abstraction from particular perspectives. This includes the Greek philosophers of 600 BCE and following. They are responsive to the idea of their gods then a primacy of the idea of god in general.

The problem of the existence of god is inherent in the definition.  As I stated above I believe that general philosophic approaches to the question derive from actual perspectives of god as you called it or religions in most cases.  In other discussions such as with Mr. metaphysics and his ontological argument there is a presupposition in the premise ( God) that is derivative not from any particular place in the bible but from the multi-generational writings and interpretation of god in the various books as well as secular and cultural influence of philosophy predominately Greek and Neo-Platonic that becomes the world view of the early 4 centuries of the church and becomes standard as general theism in philosophy thereafter.  That is the conjunction of attributes: god is omnipotent; omniscient; omnipresent; and all good or loving (these last two attributes vary but to a large extent reach for the same thing, i.e.; god is the source of morality and goodness ).  T will call this the classical god. I agree with many theologians  that there is no working metaphysic.  There has been no true resolution of the theodicy issue since its development concerning the classical god.  Each side will be content with their arguments by refining or changing to some extent the premises of those arguments.  The question then becomes is it more plausible to posit a definition of god different from that of the classical one such as a process theology, panentheism, Peter Rollin's Christian a/theism etc.;  I have written really too much. I would like our responses personally to be one topic at a time and manageable without all the quotes (partially because I never can get these posts to quote right my ignorance or laziness I'm sure).  I would offer again my theodicy argument:

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a  world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds.  A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.

The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic. 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I agree with

TGBaker wrote:

I agree with you about debates. And interestingly so does Richard Dawkins. It is only through a dialogue that there can be mutually responsive questions and answers. Debate as a structure creates a formal presentation of an already presupposed side and its antithesis.  That said I agree that the question of the existence of God is primary to a perspective of God which I thought was well put by you.  However, it is only in perspectives that we come to a position that there is a god as far as I've been able to determine. others who speak of god generically have come to that position from abstraction from particular perspectives. This includes the Greek philosophers of 600 BCE and following. They are responsive to the idea of their gods then a primacy of the idea of god in general.

perspective always has a place in understanding, but I was specifically talking about religious perspective.  Be it that today we have a much better grasp of the sciences, history, archeology, etc.  it seems valid to suggest the conversations be separate.  Otherwise, I just see it as;  "yea, that sounds appealing to me... so God exists then".  Though that is my take on it.  It might not be yours and if not, we can discuss however you would like.  Let's just agree that if we seem to hit a wall, we can both back up a bit and figure out how to get around it.

TGBaker wrote:

The problem of the existence of god is inherent in the definition.  As I stated above I believe that general philosophic approaches to the question derive from actual perspectives of god as you called it or religions in most cases.  In other discussions such as with Mr. metaphysics and his ontological argument there is a presupposition in the premise ( God) that is derivative not from any particular place in the bible but from the multi-generational writings and interpretation of god in the various books as well as secular and cultural influence of philosophy predominately Greek and Neo-Platonic that becomes the world view of the early 4 centuries of the church and becomes standard as general theism in philosophy thereafter.  That is the conjunction of attributes: god is omnipotent; omniscient; omnipresent; and all good or loving (these last two attributes vary but to a large extent reach for the same thing, i.e.; god is the source of morality and goodness ).  T will call this the classical god. I agree with many theologians  that there is no working metaphysic.  There has been no true resolution of the theodicy issue since its development concerning the classical god.  Each side will be content with their arguments by refining or changing to some extent the premises of those arguments.  The question then becomes is it more plausible to posit a definition of god different from that of the classical one such as a process theology, panentheism, Peter Rollin's Christian a/theism etc.;  I have written really too much. I would like our responses personally to be one topic at a time and manageable without all the quotes (partially because I never can get these posts to quote right my ignorance or laziness I'm sure).  I would offer again my theodicy argument:

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a  world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds.  A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.

The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic. 

 

It sounds to me that your take on the existence of God is that due to the flaws in life, a limitless well being as painted to be God as Christians know him could not possibly exist.  correct me if i'm wrong.  

There are many directions to go with this, one could be the Christian perspective:  choice (c) causes results (r) despite the intentions of God (x)  Therefore X exists regardless of R due to C.  

Einstine's perspective:  X exists but is too big to care about our petty C's and R's.  (impersonal in other words)

Religious perspective:  X is but sacrifice (s) is required for a good result (p). no S = -R

and there are many more.  The point is, flaws can exist in a world with a metaphysical creator.  The question then comes is why and how do we justify why?


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:It sounds to

caposkia wrote:

It sounds to me that your take on the existence of God is that due to the flaws in life, a limitless well being as painted to be God as Christians know him could not possibly exist.  correct me if i'm wrong.  

There are many directions to go with this, one could be the Christian perspective:  choice (c) causes results (r) despite the intentions of God (x)  Therefore X exists regardless of R due to C.  

Einstine's perspective:  X exists but is too big to care about our petty C's and R's.  (impersonal in other words)

Religious perspective:  X is but sacrifice (s) is required for a good result (p). no S = -R

and there are many more.  The point is, flaws can exist in a world with a metaphysical creator.  The question then comes is why and how do we justify why?

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.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well in the

TGBaker wrote:

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.

God could correct the suffering of all, but in order to do that, he would need to impose upon free will and the choice of others... this would include forcing belief and following on those who oppress the believers.  Either that or he would need to annihilate them all.  Then we have a problem with God being a masochist.  Or at least that would be the view and not a loving caring and forgiving God.

What i see with your concern of stopping children from starving to death is that we as a people have the power to stop it and God knows it.  Certain groups and individuals have enough money if they collaborated to abolish all poverty in the world.  Greed however takes precedence and therefore this easy cure just won't happen.  Again, God leaves choice up to us.  it is my view that when He returns as he will according to Revelation, he's going to bring to light that and all the other things we could have done and use that to show that we need him.  I also see it as it's not God that left us alone, but we that left God.  It is Biblically sound to say that God is not where we don't bring him or welcome him.  

Now I could make this post really long and go into all the places we took God out of and the changes I observed, but I'll follow your lead in the conversation.

You say it seems more plausible to see the world as a process of expansion and evolution.  It seems more plausible for me to see the world as created by an intelligence considering DNA, the study of consciousness... the ironic  interspecial gaps in the (neo)Darwinist view of evolution and the statistical likelihood of life among other studies.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
OT law vs. Jesus

 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.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Just

caposkia wrote:

 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.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

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.

God could correct the suffering of all, but in order to do that, he would need to impose upon free will and the choice of others... this would include forcing belief and following on those who oppress the believers.  Either that or he would need to annihilate them all.  Then we have a problem with God being a masochist.  Or at least that would be the view and not a loving caring and forgiving God.

What i see with your concern of stopping children from starving to death is that we as a people have the power to stop it and God knows it.  Certain groups and individuals have enough money if they collaborated to abolish all poverty in the world.  Greed however takes precedence and therefore this easy cure just won't happen.  Again, God leaves choice up to us.  it is my view that when He returns as he will according to Revelation, he's going to bring to light that and all the other things we could have done and use that to show that we need him.  I also see it as it's not God that left us alone, but we that left God.  It is Biblically sound to say that God is not where we don't bring him or welcome him.  

Now I could make this post really long and go into all the places we took God out of and the changes I observed, but I'll follow your lead in the conversation.

You say it seems more plausible to see the world as a process of expansion and evolution.  It seems more plausible for me to see the world as created by an intelligence considering DNA, the study of consciousness... the ironic  interspecial gaps in the (neo)Darwinist view of evolution and the statistical likelihood of life among other studies.

 

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.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I am simply

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.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:It is not a

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.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.

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.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Yes and

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 everything and all the results of all our actions even though we never will.  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?  

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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

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).


 

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 Come?  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.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.  


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?  

 

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.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.  

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.

 

RE: Sufficient evidence.  I think I shared elsewhere a theological construct of god and creation that was philosophically aimed at using what is known of science ( bigbang etc) as a wholistic evidence for the philosophical construct.  It does not carry though.  Evidence of a god would depend on the type of god. Evidence of the type I think you beleive in would require a meaningful revelation for our culture or time,  miracles such as feeding all the starving people at once, stopping war,  if he is omnipotent he couls put a billboard 100 miles tall somewhere, a better collection of gospels would need to be found and perhaps a new Genesis for are time.  Interference with nature is evidence perhaps. The consistent localizing of  improbable outcomes with some goal or purpose at the outcome. Things like that.

AS to DNA. Francis Collins I assume is who you are talking about with the genome project did not discover DNA  but he did finish the recording of the human gene.  He did not become a Christian because of his science but because of a waterfall that was frozen he encountered while hiking. He was inspired and accepted Jesus at that moment on his knees.  DNA was discovered by Watson and Krick. Once Krick had finished with the DNA research he went on to study consciousness and the neural correlates of consciousness  along with Christoff Koch.

Your example of metal and plastic pieces is not like the development of DNA at all. It is a matter of natural construction. Natural selection simply is seen everywhere. Something that is compatible with its environment endures. Those things that are not do not. Chemical processes over 3 billion years ago in a different environment  allowed various compounds to endure and sustain while other compounds broke up. AS the environment changes then the processes that can survive in that environment. As you can see such a process is exponential. The earth was only a billion years old when life developed. This will touch on my understanding of  coded information being natural. WE can discuss it more but it is after midnight and I gotta go to theclinni at 7 am .  Let me share this article:

There’s been a rather tired argument making its way around the theist blogosphere of late, arguing that DNA is a code, and codes are designed things.  The very fact of it being a code proves that there must have been someone who designed the code.

As usual, this argument comes down to using words improperly.  A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings.  It is a system of symbols that either arbitrarily or by some system represent various things.  The alphabet I’m using to write this blog is a code.  There’s nothing about the individual letters that have any inherent meaning.  They don’t do anything in and of themselves.  By agreement between multiple humans, we have a legend, or a key, which most of us learned in grammar school.  By using this legend, we can look at anything in the code “English” and through substitution, come to the knowledge of the concepts sybolized by the various letters.

This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code.  The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code.  DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides.   There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine.  These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there’s nothing magical about them.  We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they’d still be the same.  Our language — the code we humans use to communicate — is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.

The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the “blueprints” or “code” which define a sequence of messenger RNA which in turn defines at least one protein.  In a sense, these proteins are the building blocks of life, and DNA is the “code” which determines the qualities of the life that will be built.

The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings.  In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process.  When you see an explosion on TV, you’re watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of “code.”   Crystals grow based on such a code.  Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code.

All DNA is, to the chagrin of creationists, is a very, very complicated organic molecule that can react in a staggeringly large number of ways with other organic molecules.  Unlike an explosion or a crystal, which can be described mathematically with a few simple formulas, the process of building a living thing is several orders of magnitude more complicated.  It takes perhaps 10 billion bits to convey all the necessary information needed to build a human, and the process is never really finished until the human dies, so we’re talking about a very, very long process by comparison with an explosion, and billions more unique steps than the formation of a crystal.

Yet, it’s the same process.  This molecule, when in the presence of that molecule, will bond and make this new molecule.  It’s just chemistry.

The thing is, we humans recognize the complexity of the chemical process we call life, and we notice that it is not completely dissimilar from the process by which we build a skyscraper or a watch.  We have a set of instructions, and we refer back to them throughout the whole process of putting materials together in very specific ways, until we have a finished product.  We like to argue that messenger RNA is “referring to the instructions” to figure out which protein to build in the same way, but it’s not.  Neither DNA nor RNA is sentient.  They are both just doing what chemicals do.  DNA is more akin to a catalyst than a set of instructions.  That is, the DNA stays essentially the same throughout the building process, but it is facilitating chemical reactions the whole time it is part of a living thing.

So, here is the ultimate problem with this particular theist argument.  DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that “stand for” something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend.  It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution.  DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.

Sure, it seems magical that something as simple as four little nucleotides could be responsible for all the diverse life on the planet, but our sense of wonder at the versatility of carbon shouldn’t woo us into the false belief that incredible versatility is equivalent to design.  DNA is not a “code” in the normal sense of the word.  We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.

That’s it.  When we look at a particular sequence of nucleotides, we can recognize that the chemical reaction they facilitate will produce a certain protein.  This is no different from looking at a few grams of sodium or potassium and recognizing that in the presence of water, they will react in very specific ways to produce a violent exothermic reaction.  If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe.  It’s just the consistency of the laws of nature.  This, in the presence of that, will do the other.

So no, DNA is not a code.  It is analogous to a code in enough ways that it makes sense for us to refer to things like the “genetic code,” but in the end, we’re just not talking about the kind of code that would make the theist argument valid.  Sorry, theists, but you fail on this one, too.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:1)Yes lets try

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 Come?  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.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:3)I do not

TGBaker wrote:

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.

 

You mention a particular sect killing children with the justification that at least they'd be spared and go to heaven.  Do you really think that was God's idea of sparing children?  You can't blame God for our misunderstandings.  you say that God should have made his expectations clearer.  To me they're as clear as day, you just have to sit down and read it in context.  might require a little bit of homework on your part through the languages, but if you're going to take a strong stance on anything (strong enough to separate youself from others over) then you better know what you're talking about in and out.  If challenged, you should be able to back it up thoroughly through many avenures.  most people can't.  

Let's put it this way.  You take a history test and fail... whos fault is it that you failed, yours or this historians for not making it clear enough for you to understand correctly?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Sorry missed

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.

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.

 

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.

 

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,Eye-wink 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.Eye-wink and are not factual. See the next post on animal suffering.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

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.

 

You mention a particular sect killing children with the justification that at least they'd be spared and go to heaven.  Do you really think that was God's idea of sparing children?  You can't blame God for our misunderstandings.  you say that God should have made his expectations clearer.  To me they're as clear as day, you just have to sit down and read it in context.  might require a little bit of homework on your part through the languages, but if you're going to take a strong stance on anything (strong enough to separate youself from others over) then you better know what you're talking about in and out.  If challenged, you should be able to back it up thoroughly through many avenures.  most people can't.  

Let's put it this way.  You take a history test and fail... whos fault is it that you failed, yours or this historians for not making it clear enough for you to understand correctly?

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.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.

 

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? 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.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:1) I see death

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?

TGBaker wrote:

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,Eye-wink 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.Eye-wink and are not factual. See the next post on animal suffering.

I see you're a believer in predestination... or at least you were.  If that is true from what you said, then why does it say in Genesis that God was sorry he made man?  ch 5 I believe.  What is your take on that verse?

The problem with your example in regards to our sons is you're taking the authority of God and our own authority and comparing the same situation.  It can't be done.  On a spiritual level, getting blown up in a car does nothing to your spirit, only hurts your physical life.  On a human level, it obliterates everything that you are and were and nothing exists of you anymore.  

To put it in perspective, if you want to compare Gods reaction to someone driving a car with a bomb in, we'd have to compare to something as severe on a humanistic level.. in other words, something that might hurt you physically, but won't obliterate everything that you are and make you no more.  Or even change you physically for that matter because again, getting blown up in a car will not scar your spirit necessarily as far as we know.  nothing physical can touch your spirit.  

So on a humanistic standard, we'd have to compare God not intervening in a car bomb situation to you as a father not intervening when your son is say... whittling.  Assuming your son was old enough to play with a knife and whittle, would you stop him if he ended up cutting his finger... or better yet, would you prevent him from starting knowing that his inexperience would cause him to cut his finger or would you let him do it anyway knowing that your sons finger will heal with likely no scar or permanent damage.  Granted as a father you'd likely warn him of the dangers and teach him a bit, which God did in the Bible, but you walk out your door every day knowing that anything could happen, so it's no secret that you could possibly get blown up today.  As far as you're concerned it won't happen and as far as your son is concerned he's not going to cut his finger.  The only thing you can do as a father (or choose to do actually) is teach him and let him experience and learn from it.    God does the same thing. 

We don't know what happens after death, so who are we to say that there is nothing to gain from death?

This question is probably irrelevant to you be it that you don't believe in God anyway or an afterlife, so we might want to stick to the existence of God until we can come to an agreement.  Discussing the problems you have with this God or the differences in our beliefs on that front is fun, but it's not going to get us anywhere if we can't agree on the basic fundamental question of God.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Actually the

TGBaker wrote:

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.

I see your perspective and it again goes back to misunderstanding intentions or history.

yes, there were commands in the OT to kill whole nations.  God's reasoning behind it seems to be in question and a humanistic justification of the action isn't necessarily the reasoning.  This is really a whole other conversation about why God would ask of such an obliteration.  I think in the history forum I'm a  part of with pauljohntheskeptic (OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real)  there was a section where we discussed what God's reasoning could have been for such an action.  The idea that it was saving the children of that culture from anything never came up.

I see your logic that the wages of sin is death, but to not let them live is sin, so you're stuck in a paradox.  Do you sacrifice yourself eternally to save a few Children or allow them to grow up possibly choosing to be saved anyway while at the same time keeping yourself safe?  I choose the latter.  See, either way the children have to die, so are you saving them from death by killing them?  Seems to me as if that's reasonable to you you need to recheck what you're trying to save them from.  What you're actually doing is giving them the consequence they'd achieve on their own anyway at a much earlier point in life.  

To take it beyond that, going into the eternal punishment, what exactly is hell... Biblically?  Do you know for sure?  See, the Bible is so vague as to what hell actually is that any idea of an eternal hellfire or suffering as we view it is speculation only.  From my research, I see it as God gives us a choice and that choice will be made clear to us.  Either you choose to be with God or not.  According to revelation, there would be a second chance i think for those who did not choose in life, but they will have to go through the trials of the end times.  This again goes into speculation a bit, but it seems to be a consistent theme in the Bible that God grants second chances.  Now one may argue that the second chance is Jesus, while another might say it's the second resurrection in Revelation.  
 

ultimately is it reasonable to kill children so that they don't choose wrong later in life (heaven vs. hell)  No, to kill them leaves you in sin and eternal punishment and may guarantee them life, but not really because you have deprived them of living life to begin with.  If they have a second chance, then even if you kill them, spiritually they may still have to make a choice eventually and thus you've only delayed the inevitable.    Again, to say that you're doing good in either choice is speculation only by what you think you know about the afterlife.  What we really know about it is too minimal to take such drastic action on.  We should stick with what we're taught Biblically.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Yes there were

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.  

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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?

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.

TGBaker wrote:

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,Eye-wink 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.Eye-wink and are not factual. See the next post on animal suffering.

I see you're a believer in predestination... or at least you were.  If that is true from what you said, then why does it say in Genesis that God was sorry he made man?  ch 5 I believe.  What is your take on that verse?

The problem with your example in regards to our sons is you're taking the authority of God and our own authority and comparing the same situation.  It can't be done.  On a spiritual level, getting blown up in a car does nothing to your spirit, only hurts your physical life.  On a human level, it obliterates everything that you are and were and nothing exists of you anymore.  

To put it in perspective, if you want to compare Gods reaction to someone driving a car with a bomb in, we'd have to compare to something as severe on a humanistic level.. in other words, something that might hurt you physically, but won't obliterate everything that you are and make you no more.  Or even change you physically for that matter because again, getting blown up in a car will not scar your spirit necessarily as far as we know.  nothing physical can touch your spirit.  

So on a humanistic standard, we'd have to compare God not intervening in a car bomb situation to you as a father not intervening when your son is say... whittling.  Assuming your son was old enough to play with a knife and whittle, would you stop him if he ended up cutting his finger... or better yet, would you prevent him from starting knowing that his inexperience would cause him to cut his finger or would you let him do it anyway knowing that your sons finger will heal with likely no scar or permanent damage.  Granted as a father you'd likely warn him of the dangers and teach him a bit, which God did in the Bible, but you walk out your door every day knowing that anything could happen, so it's no secret that you could possibly get blown up today.  As far as you're concerned it won't happen and as far as your son is concerned he's not going to cut his finger.  The only thing you can do as a father (or choose to do actually) is teach him and let him experience and learn from it.    God does the same thing. 

We don't know what happens after death, so who are we to say that there is nothing to gain from death?

This question is probably irrelevant to you be it that you don't believe in God anyway or an afterlife, so we might want to stick to the existence of God until we can come to an agreement.  Discussing the problems you have with this God or the differences in our beliefs on that front is fun, but it's not going to get us anywhere if we can't agree on the basic fundamental question of God.

You miss the point. There was death before there were people to sin.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

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.

I see your perspective and it again goes back to misunderstanding intentions or history.

yes, there were commands in the OT to kill whole nations.  God's reasoning behind it seems to be in question and a humanistic justification of the action isn't necessarily the reasoning.  This is really a whole other conversation about why God would ask of such an obliteration.  I think in the history forum I'm a  part of with pauljohntheskeptic (OT Stories - Myths,Legends, Parables, or Real)  there was a section where we discussed what God's reasoning could have been for such an action.  The idea that it was saving the children of that culture from anything never came up.

I see your logic that the wages of sin is death, but to not let them live is sin, so you're stuck in a paradox.  Do you sacrifice yourself eternally to save a few Children or allow them to grow up possibly choosing to be saved anyway while at the same time keeping yourself safe?  I choose the latter.  See, either way the children have to die, so are you saving them from death by killing them?  Seems to me as if that's reasonable to you you need to recheck what you're trying to save them from.  What you're actually doing is giving them the consequence they'd achieve on their own anyway at a much earlier point in life.  

To take it beyond that, going into the eternal punishment, what exactly is hell... Biblically?  Do you know for sure?  See, the Bible is so vague as to what hell actually is that any idea of an eternal hellfire or suffering as we view it is speculation only.  From my research, I see it as God gives us a choice and that choice will be made clear to us.  Either you choose to be with God or not.  According to revelation, there would be a second chance i think for those who did not choose in life, but they will have to go through the trials of the end times.  This again goes into speculation a bit, but it seems to be a consistent theme in the Bible that God grants second chances.  Now one may argue that the second chance is Jesus, while another might say it's the second resurrection in Revelation.  
 

ultimately is it reasonable to kill children so that they don't choose wrong later in life (heaven vs. hell)  No, to kill them leaves you in sin and eternal punishment and may guarantee them life, but not really because you have deprived them of living life to begin with.  If they have a second chance, then even if you kill them, spiritually they may still have to make a choice eventually and thus you've only delayed the inevitable.    Again, to say that you're doing good in either choice is speculation only by what you think you know about the afterlife.  What we really know about it is too minimal to take such drastic action on.  We should stick with what we're taught Biblically.  

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.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.  

 

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. 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. We do not have to speculate as you state  as to whether animal suffering was result of the fall. It was BEFORE the fall as you stated. We do not have to speculate as you claim. We have plenty of fossils and records of millions of years of life and death prior to Adam and Eve and that is in conflict with the whole fall scenario and in turn leaves Christology ( the sacrifice of Christ) resting on a mistake, a myth. To say a theist can say that God did it and that is as good as scientific "jargon" is absurd.  I can say Buddha did it with the same effect. 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 would disagree. Laws do not require a law maker. Laws may require someone to articulate them in language but physical laws are really simply properties of the physical world. And if the physical world came to be without a creator so did those laws. And of course just because we can explain something scientifically does not mean that god is not real. 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:

) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being. Also a  world of limitless well being would necessarily exist in all possible worlds. Since it does not do in ours then it is not necessary and therefore is a choice of many worlds.  A limitless good entity, god or such would choose the best to create. Since we do not live in that world no limitless good being/god actualized our world.

The argument at least places the question as to whether our attributes of god in conflict with themselves show that they are really in conflict with his actual properties and therefore invalid or simply relative compliments of worship that are not literal but poetic.

Your previous post asking about why god was sorry he made man shows that there is a lack of foreknowledge, omniscience or absoluteness for god is relativized in his change. He repents of his actions and wishes he had not done them.


 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:You miss the

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.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I will stick

TGBaker wrote:

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.

sounds like this is one topic you have a real issue with, so lets focus on that story for the moment.  What Chapter/verse is it you're looking at exactly?  is it the killing of the firstborn in the Moses story?  If so, before I reply to your reference, answer me why specifically it was the first borns targeted and not all babies or children?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:AGAIN you do

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.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.  

Here's my take on that. There is no evidence for your speculation that there was death beforehand. Your statement I don't believe is all that I see as valid.  Whereas the plain blunt scripture states that death entered through Adam. Not that I believe the text but I understand what the Greek means and the proper translation.  How did they understand anything the first time not just death. The story is just a story.  Either you posit they understood language from day one and named the animals to boot or you go with evolution and process of development. and again FOR MILLIONS of YEARS.  And if you want to posit your Mitochondrial Eve as first human then you have about humans dying for another 700,000 years or more.  Secondly how many variations and mythical aspects are you going to try to interpret around to defend an obviously mythical account.


And again god could have created a world without animal suffering if he was able. Or if he was kind and good.  The amount and kind of animal suffering was excessive and cruel.  That he would use it as a lesson for Adam and Eve is cruel.  Animals experience pain and have differing degrees of consciousness. So your explanation still does not resolve your idea of god from evil. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

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.

sounds like this is one topic you have a real issue with, so lets focus on that story for the moment.  What Chapter/verse is it you're looking at exactly?  is it the killing of the firstborn in the Moses story?  If so, before I reply to your reference, answer me why specifically it was the first borns targeted and not all babies or children?

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

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.

Romans 5: 

12

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

 13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

 

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.

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. 

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. 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Here's my take

TGBaker wrote:

Here's my take on that. There is no evidence for your speculation that there was death beforehand. Your statement I don't believe is all that I see as valid.  Whereas the plain blunt scripture states that death entered through Adam. Not that I believe the text but I understand what the Greek means and the proper translation.  How did they understand anything the first time not just death. The story is just a story.  Either you posit they understood language from day one and named the animals to boot or you go with evolution and process of development. and again FOR MILLIONS of YEARS.  And if you want to posit your Mitochondrial Eve as first human then you have about humans dying for another 700,000 years or more.  Secondly how many variations and mythical aspects are you going to try to interpret around to defend an obviously mythical account.

 

And again god could have created a world without animal suffering if he was able. Or if he was kind and good.  The amount and kind of animal suffering was excessive and cruel.  That he would use it as a lesson for Adam and Eve is cruel.  Animals experience pain and have differing degrees of consciousness. So your explanation still does not resolve your idea of god from evil. 

To start off, let me make one thing clear.  Here you seem to indicate that I'm going to explain my way out of admitting a false story; "...how many variations and mythical aspects are you going to try to interpret around to defend an obviously mythical account"   I am here so that those who want to can challenge what I think I know can... that way I can research and be sure what i think I know is actually true.  However, if you are going to challenge what I Know, i am going to challenge your perspective the same way you would mine in any case that goes against what you believe is true.   I am not in any way trying to "interpret around" or otherwise "defend" something baselessly and just to avoid embarrassment or whatever you might think.  

If you're going to challenge the validity of Genesis, I am going to look at it from a perspective taking into account history, science, archaeology along with any other acceptable aspect of understanding.  The reason is if this story is true, then there would be reasoning using those avenues.  To suggest as you have that death started through Adam including all living species is reading further into the scripture than what is actually there.  A question to you might be who was the Bible written for people?  Animals? both?  Be it that animals can't read or understand scripture if it is read to them, my safe assumption is that it was written to humans.  

This again then poses the question how do they know what they do?  What does the Bible say?  God formed Adam from the ground and made Eve from Adam's rib.  Ok, unproveable.  The only evidence is that most men have less ribs than women.  Atheists would say this is the way it is and in no way validates the story.  

If God is real, is it possible that he formed them as adults?  Sure it is, he's God right?  However, there is no time specifications set per-se in Genesis as far as the creation of man, therefore, is it possible, though not explicitly stated in the story that God formed Adam as a Baby then raised him to know what he does... Eve in the same manner??? sure, again, no time frame, therefore, who knows how many years they were alive before the major event depicted in the Bible happened.    

You suggest that Death didn't exist before Adam according to the Bible, there are a few problems with this perspective...  

To punish with death would make no sense.  If death didn't exist, then death had no meaning and again wasn't even a concept, therefore, God could have threatened them with the touch of an Avacado and it would have meant just as much to them.  Historically it doesn't add up as you clearly pointed out.  If these stories are true as believers accept, it is reasonable to take into consideration the idea that Animals or things around them died before death was a concern for them.  I take the scripture in reference as death for humans came up through Adam.... though be it that the scripture was written to only humans, it seems clearly implied taking into consideration historical evidence of death in all living things.     To imply otherwise is speculation only.  To decide beyond what history says to conclude the stories validity is speculation and holds no ground.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I don't have a

TGBaker wrote:

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

 

I personally don't like apologetics and prefer looking at it myself and coming up with my own reasoning.  That way, if I'm wrong, i can correct myself, vs. looking at someone elses reasoning, then getting clouded from what is the real understanding.  

Looking through those references, here's the problem.  To suggest anhiliation of a culture historically has never meant literally killing every man, woman, child of that culture, but to basically destroy their defenses so that whatever's left can be taken by the invaders to themselves.  Deut. 7 as a whole chapter never from what i saw made any specific reference to children let alone killing them.   Deut. 20 does make reference to children, but instead of killing them as you suggest it says, it actually says in verse 14 that they are to take the woman, children and animals for themselves.   Sounds to me here as if it was suggested not to kill them, but to raise them as their own children.  Interesting.

Maybe we need to look at Deut 20 verses 16-18 as one of the apologists did.  There it says in certain cities to not leave anything in it that breathes alive... well that must be in reference to children too right?   Though here's an interesting perspective because again, historically anihilation claims and other such utter destroying claims don't literally mean such.. Is it possible that they mean the same thing as an upset high school student telling another that they're going to kill them when they literally mean beat them up after school?  I know I've said kill when I didn't mean it as kill.  Could it be that if this story is true, that the sentence to not leave anything that breathes alive was angry words and just meant to destroy the culture as literally as historically seen in reference?  

Now let's not take this to the next level and say, but there were cultures that killed children and everything... yes, but in historical writings, typically though it was said to utterly destroy a culture, it's not what was done and not literally waht was meant.  In fact, it's pretty counter productive for the attackers that once the threat is diminised, to keep wasting your energy and time to make sure that every last inhabitant was killed.  Just doesn't make logistic sense.  Makes better sense to take the rest as prisoners, or better yet, move in and just run the rest of the people under their own authority.  

Just a thought.

Sidenote.  I'd have to check, but Joshua might actually be the book that PJTS and I agreed may lack the support in history to be a true story.  There are other stories in scripture that hold this same possibility.  This in no way from what I can tell invalidates the whole Bible be it that each story stands on its own.  

Finally Joshua..  I'm not sure exactly to what you're referencing to.  There are many chapters and verses.  Looking at chapter 9 (I figured maybe you meant 9:11 I didn't see any reference.)


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Romans 8

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.   


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.   

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.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1471
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Dying to hear more about biblio-idolators

 

 

   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
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:    

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

   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.

 

 

Thanks for the interjection. Idolatry is the worship of an image or symbol for god.  If theologies and doctrines so construe god to be such that he can be defined to conform to a one denomination over the other then only one at the most can be correct. Given there are a plethora of denominations (38,000) the mojority of them worship their theological construct rather than god .  That is idolatry.  And if a christianity builds all of its concepts from propositions derived from the bible and determines any truth claims as valid based upon thes proof texts then truth and the knowledge of god is dependent on the Bible.  Then god must act according to the interpretation of what that bible seems to say. So if god deviates from what is understood from the interpretation of the Bible he is considered either false or misunderstood. Therefore god is subject to the bible. He can not deviate from the way he is presented in a limited collection of narratives.  Therefore the conservative evangelical and inerrantist's god is not a person but a construct from the Bible. These types of Christians really worship the Bible and the idea that they derive from it.  That is biblio-idolatry. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The focus has

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.

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?  

The statement indicates that you're trying to split the blame.  You're stuck on foreknowledge as a means of predetermining an outcome.  The problem with that is if this was the case, than anyone knowing a possible outcome should be held accountable for the outcome and not the person who made the action... e.g.  if I knew that my brother was going to go out and kill someone, then it happened because I did nothing, then my brother should get off scott free and I should be the only one getting the death penalty.  It's my fault because I knew he was going to do it and I did nothing about it am I right?  Or is it possible that I did try to talk him out of it but he did it anyway, which is kind of what God does through scripture by giving the laws and expectations, yet he's still guilty so regardless, unless I physically tried to wrestle my brother to the ground and prevent him, I'm guilty and he's innocent, right?  

If you're going to come back with an authority counter here, then replace my brother with me being his father and again only threatening him with consequences and trying to talk him out of it, again I'd be guilty and he'd be innocent because I allowed it to happen by your standards.

See, I don't believe in predestination.  I believe that the future is not yet written.  Again, if your statement is true about God, then the part in Genesis that talks about God regretting making man would make absolutely no sense.  How can you regret something you determined to happen that way and knew about it from the start?   In other words, by your explanation, it had to have been carefully planned out.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:    

danatemporary wrote:

 

 

   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.

 

 

Thank you for your input, it's always nice to get a new perspective.  You say many Christians are so indoctrinated that they don' realize that the object of worship is scripture.  What then would you say when Christians believe when they say that the Bible is the "living breathing word of God"?   Beyond that, is it the text that Christians worship, or who the text is written about?  there are many accounts of God outside the scripture.  The scripture only gives light to the personality of God and not the existence of God.  The simple idea that the majority of the worlds population gives credit to a metaphysical being should suggest the existence of a god.  Christianity is a labeled branch of belief, but does that mean that non-christian believers are not saved?  Many Christians that are not indoctrinated believe this is not true and that someone who doesn't claim to be a christian but follows God can still be saved.  The acceptance is Jesus.  This of course would make one assume then that they must be Christians, but then my question is, does Christiandom actually follow Jesus christ?  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Thanks for the

TGBaker wrote:
Thanks for the interjection. Idolatry is the worship of an image or symbol for god.  If theologies and doctrines so construe god to be such that he can be defined to conform to a one denomination over the other then only one at the most can be correct. Given there are a plethora of denominations (38,000) the mojority of them worship their theological construct rather than god .  That is idolatry.  And if a christianity builds all of its concepts from propositions derived from the bible and determines any truth claims as valid based upon thes proof texts then truth and the knowledge of god is dependent on the Bible.  Then god must act according to the interpretation of what that bible seems to say. So if god deviates from what is understood from the interpretation of the Bible he is considered either false or misunderstood. Therefore god is subject to the bible. He can not deviate from the way he is presented in a limited collection of narratives.  Therefore the conservative evangelical and inerrantist's god is not a person but a construct from the Bible. These types of Christians really worship the Bible and the idea that they derive from it.  That is biblio-idolatry. 

 

The Bible in many ways, especially in the English language is very misunderstood due to translational, cultural and generational language differences.  People try to take an English translation literally and determine from their own literal interpretation who God must be.  They fail to recognize the context of the claim in many cases as well as the intentions behind the claim.  

Beyond that, by saying that God is subject to the Bible is to say that you are subject to a biography of you.  Of course you are why?  Because it's written about you and who you are.  Assumign the Biography is correct, you are who they wrote about?  Then again, because a Biography is written about you, does it mean you can never change from who was written about?  Of course not, but then again, God promises in scripture that he does not change, therefore he himself through his own biography has promised to be who is written about.  Misinterpretation is not what God is subject to, but what is really written as intended by the writers and God himself.  The catch today is we know God by the scripture, but people followed this God long before the scripture was written... so what's their excuse for having a set understanding of who God is?  Or is it that they just constructed him along the way, and if so, then what support do you have for such a claim?  These are legitimate questions and not me trying to give credit to scripture.  I really want to know if you have more information.   It all just seems so far fetched to claim such things because I've seen nothign more than opinions on this focus.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.

 

 

CAPOSKIA:  The statement indicates that you're trying to split the blame.  You're stuck on foreknowledge as a means of predetermining an outcome.  The problem with that is if this was the case, than anyone knowing a possible outcome should be held accountable for the outcome and not the person who made the action... e.g.  if I knew that my brother was going to go out and kill someone, then it happened because I did nothing, then my brother should get off scott free

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. 

 

 

CAPOSKIA:......Yand I should be the only one getting the death penalty.  It's my fault because I knew he was going to do it and I did nothing about it am I right?  Or is it possible that I did try to talk him out of it but he did it anyway, which is kind of what God does through scripture by giving the laws and expectations, yet he's still guilty so regardless, unless I physically tried to wrestle my brother to the ground and prevent him, I'm guilty and he's innocent, right? 

TGB:  If you were god you should get the death penalty. If god tries to talk someone out of something and fails then he is not omnipotent. He did not have the power to do so. So again the attributes of god are inconsistent and fail to describe anything that could be real for they fail to be non-contradictory when jointly applied to one entity. Secondly they are self contradictory. The classical one is can god make a rock to heavy for him to pick up. 

CAPOSKIA:  If you're going to come back with an authority counter here, then replace my brother with me being his father and again only threatening him with consequences and trying to talk him out of it, again I'd be guilty and he'd be innocent because I allowed it to happen by your standards.

TGB: Again it is not authority it is the attributes that are at issue.

See, I don't believe in predestination.  I believe that the future is not yet written.  Again, if your statement is true about God, then the part in Genesis that talks about God regretting making man would make absolutely no sense.  How can you regret something you determined to happen that way and knew about it from the start?   In other words, by your explanation, it had to have been carefully planned out.

TGB: It does not matter whether you believe in predestination or not. If you believe in god as omniscient then he has already determined what will happen before hand ( That is what foreknowledge means).  God then actualizing a world he completely knows predestines everything in that world.  Genesis is anthropomorphic and prior to Greek philosophy being incorporated into Christianity. The view that you have of god as omniscient and omnipotent is from a later time than the god who regrets as you quote him. He may not know the future as for as the writer of that scripture picture him.   I doubt that they are really even the same god.  For they are symbols made of words to represent something. And they differ as much as one idol from another. They are examples when taken literally become idols and the act idolatry.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Thanks for the interjection. Idolatry is the worship of an image or symbol for god.  If theologies and doctrines so construe god to be such that he can be defined to conform to a one denomination over the other then only one at the most can be correct. Given there are a plethora of denominations (38,000) the mojority of them worship their theological construct rather than god .  That is idolatry.  And if a christianity builds all of its concepts from propositions derived from the bible and determines any truth claims as valid based upon thes proof texts then truth and the knowledge of god is dependent on the Bible.  Then god must act according to the interpretation of what that bible seems to say. So if god deviates from what is understood from the interpretation of the Bible he is considered either false or misunderstood. Therefore god is subject to the bible. He can not deviate from the way he is presented in a limited collection of narratives.  Therefore the conservative evangelical and inerrantist's god is not a person but a construct from the Bible. These types of Christians really worship the Bible and the idea that they derive from it.  That is biblio-idolatry. 

 

The Bible in many ways, especially in the English language is very misunderstood due to translational, cultural and generational language differences.  People try to take an English translation literally and determine from their own literal interpretation who God must be.  They fail to recognize the context of the claim in many cases as well as the intentions behind the claim.  

Beyond that, by saying that God is subject to the Bible is to say that you are subject to a biography of you.  Of course you are why?  Because it's written about you and who you are.  Assumign the Biography is correct, you are who they wrote about?  Then again, because a Biography is written about you, does it mean you can never change from who was written about?  Of course not, but then again, God promises in scripture that he does not change, therefore he himself through his own biography has promised to be who is written about.  Misinterpretation is not what God is subject to, but what is really written as intended by the writers and God himself.  The catch today is we know God by the scripture, but people followed this God long before the scripture was written... so what's their excuse for having a set understanding of who God is?  Or is it that they just constructed him along the way, and if so, then what support do you have for such a claim?  These are legitimate questions and not me trying to give credit to scripture.  I really want to know if you have more information.   It all just seems so far fetched to claim such things because I've seen nothign more than opinions on this focus.

The scriptures were not settled upon until late fourth century with a lot of squabbles for another few centuries. The Gospel of Peter is better represented than Mark in the earliest remains of manuscripts from the 2nd century.  It was considered a scripture and Mark was not by many. There was no one god believed in by Christians until it was settled. Marcion believed that the Old Testament god was an evil and different god from Jesus. Many other churches or forms of Christianity thought the same. They had different scripture.   The surviving manuscripts all show editing and reworking in an attempt to have different New Testament documents conform to the particular form of Christianity that believed it.  The Trinitarian god was not created until the late secon and early third centuries.  The Jews do not see the Trinity as god. Muslims know it to be a heresy.  These gods are all constructs by constructing  collections of scripture. 

Contrary to what you state the scripture has continued to change up until the invention of the printing press. I have years of professional experience in determining the oldest and the best family of manuscripts to reconstruct the original readings of the New Testament documents.  God changes from author to author and from time to time culture to culture. 

The support I have for my claims is common textual criticism that is used to determine the original reading of the New Testament. I refer you to Bart Ehrman's book on the variation of the early manuscripts in his book Misquoting Jesus. Also read some Bruce Metzger.  Your particular view of god WAS CONSTRUCTED on the way largley influenced by pagan Greek philosophy.The reason you have seen nothing more than opinion on this focus is because you are reading apologetics instead the various variations of the Greek text of the gospels or Paul. And you apparently have not read much historical critical work in this area.  Read several of Bart Ehrman's books since they are quite accessible to the laymen and dead with lost christianites, lost scriptures and what have you.   Most of what I put out is common biblical scholarship. Though I have some research that has been my own discoveries. 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: TGB:  I

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.

First of all, I can see you're starting to do what you didn't want to do in this thread... which is split up the post.  I'm sorry if I'm making it look like that needs to happen.  If it doesn' t bother you I"m fine with the way you're doing it... but I'm willing to try and get back to the paragraph replies if that works.

Back to focus.  I'm glad you don't feel the attributes are petty or broad... though unfortunately to categorize the attributes of any relational being would be broad, so I have a hard time understanding how God's would not be.

The conflicts are attributed to your belief that the Bible promotes the idea of predestination.  This being the case, then God would have had to not only allow the evil, but make it happen himself.  This goes against my belief so it would be a hard thing for me to dispute with you.  I do believe that God allows choice, which in turn is God allowing evil indirectly, but by our own choice and not His.  

Foreknowledge that i"m mentioning is as much foreknowledge... maybe a slight bit more due to his abilities... as you would have for your own children... just because you know something is going to happen, or might happen doesnt' mean you stop it.  If you stopped every "evil" from happening to your child, no matter how minor in your eyes, you child would grow up being completely unprepared for life and completely dependent on you.  

If you don't believe God falls into this category then how do you explain Gods regret for making man?

TGBaker wrote:

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. 

...and this is where you and I differ in belief.  I don't believe in what you're claiming.  I have no reason scripturally or otherwise to believe that.  

TGBaker wrote:

TGB:  If you were god you should get the death penalty. If god tries to talk someone out of something and fails then he is not omnipotent. He did not have the power to do so. So again the attributes of god are inconsistent and fail to describe anything that could be real for they fail to be non-contradictory when jointly applied to one entity. Secondly they are self contradictory. The classical one is can god make a rock to heavy for him to pick up. 

God of course would not try to talk someone out of something.. Instead, he will set the rules down and let us do what we will.  There are natural and spiritual consequences for breaking the rules, but we're still free to make a choice.  

Again, you can demote the power of God all you want, but due to the fact that I don't believe in what you're claiming, I can't argue it.  

Just so no one sees this as a copout or an inability to defend my belief, I'll tear it apart bit by bit:

TGB:  If God tries to talk someone out of something....

Cap:  God doesn't

TGB:  He did not have the power to do so... attributes of God are inconsistent...

CAP:  The dispute seems to be that if evil is here and God didn't know it was going to happen before it did the way it did, then he can't be God.  (omnipotent suggests "like God" by definition.)  Though if God knew it beforehand, then allowed it to happen, or made it happen... then he can't be God...   

Summary:  If Evil exists, then God doesn't....

Conclusion:  It's a catch 22.  if Evil exists, God must exist because Evil is not of God and needs reference to God in order to be deemed evil... otherwise, there is no evil... but if evil doesn't exist, then God (according to atheists) exists because an omnipotent God could prevent evil from happening.

sounds to me like Evil being the control is the problem here.  This control can be or not and God still exists logically.... or not depending on how you want to look at it... What control could we use besides evil maybe that could better determine the existence of God?  

TGBaker wrote:
 

 It does not matter whether you believe in predestination or not. If you believe in god as omniscient then he has already determined what will happen before hand ( That is what foreknowledge means).  God then actualizing a world he completely knows predestines everything in that world.  Genesis is anthropomorphic and prior to Greek philosophy being incorporated into Christianity. The view that you have of god as omniscient and omnipotent is from a later time than the god who regrets as you quote him. He may not know the future as for as the writer of that scripture picture him.   I doubt that they are really even the same god.  For they are symbols made of words to represent something. And they differ as much as one idol from another. They are examples when taken literally become idols and the act idolatry.

 

 

I wouldn't even say that I believe in a god that is omniscient in the magnitude that atheists try to make him... He may know all, but that's what you're not understanding... He may know that there's a meteor that's going to hit Earth in the year 4872, or that generations through circumstance will eventually make a rule about how long hotdogs can get, but as far as what we might collectively make as a choice or every choice made, he may know something about it, but has no control (because he chooses not to) over what that choice is.  

It seems that it's hard for you to believe that God can know something without it being predetermined.  Let's put it this way... if I tell you that on one of the many drawings for the powerball game that happen, a 6 will eventually be drawn, will you deem me a prophet or will you say that it was bound to happen through the simple understanding that a 6 is one of many possibilities?  My guess is, a 6 will be drawn at some point and I'm not going to be shocked when it is.  As far as guessing exactly when and what other numbers might accompany it, now that's getting beyond my abilities.  

God on the other hand, has a lot more resources and likely could scientifically figure out the number pattern before it is drawn.  Be it that he is the creator of the world and everything in it, he might know that Tuesday's drawing is going to reveil specific numbers because of the location of the Earth to the sun and position of the moon at the time of drawing as well as atmospheric pressure and any imbalance in the balls that might be present.  The positioning of the balls before it starts and how the wind current will manipulate them and exactly when the button will be pushed to release the chosen number.  among other things.  

Honestly, if I had all that information at my disposal and knew how to analyze it correctly, I'm willing to bet that I'd get the numbers right too.  What you see as predestination might simply just be better resources and a better understanding of those resources than you and I ever thought.  

My point is you're trying to blame God for something he happened to know through reasoning and likely didn't have  direct involvement in.  It seems to be implied in scripture that things were kind of set in motion and let to run on their own.  Nowhere do I see reasoning to believe that God chose for it all to happen, which is what predestination would suggest.

 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:The scriptures

TGBaker wrote:

The scriptures were not settled upon until late fourth century with a lot of squabbles for another few centuries. The Gospel of Peter is better represented than Mark in the earliest remains of manuscripts from the 2nd century.  It was considered a scripture and Mark was not by many. There was no one god believed in by Christians until it was settled. Marcion believed that the Old Testament god was an evil and different god from Jesus. Many other churches or forms of Christianity thought the same. They had different scripture.   The surviving manuscripts all show editing and reworking in an attempt to have different New Testament documents conform to the particular form of Christianity that believed it.  The Trinitarian god was not created until the late secon and early third centuries.  The Jews do not see the Trinity as god. Muslims know it to be a heresy.  These gods are all constructs by constructing  collections of scripture. 

The whole of what the Bible consists of today has been consistent as far back as we can see it.  Many churches did make up their own claims about scripture and their own writings too (doctrine) but that did not change what general Christianity believed, or who God was and is.  It would be hard for Biblical scholars to pride the Bible on the fact that the scriptures were carefully preserved and unchanged for thousands of years if what you claimed was true.    The editing and reworking I've learned about does not change the persona of God, only perspective of what may have happened specific to numbers, location and time.  

TGBaker wrote:

Contrary to what you state the scripture has continued to change up until the invention of the printing press. I have years of professional experience in determining the oldest and the best family of manuscripts to reconstruct the original readings of the New Testament documents.  God changes from author to author and from time to time culture to culture. 

The support I have for my claims is common textual criticism that is used to determine the original reading of the New Testament. I refer you to Bart Ehrman's book on the variation of the early manuscripts in his book Misquoting Jesus. Also read some Bruce Metzger.  Your particular view of god WAS CONSTRUCTED on the way largley influenced by pagan Greek philosophy.The reason you have seen nothing more than opinion on this focus is because you are reading apologetics instead the various variations of the Greek text of the gospels or Paul. And you apparently have not read much historical critical work in this area.  Read several of Bart Ehrman's books since they are quite accessible to the laymen and dead with lost christianites, lost scriptures and what have you.   Most of what I put out is common biblical scholarship. Though I have some research that has been my own discoveries. 

 

I don't read apologetics and hardly read Christian writings... It's interesting to me that you would think i did though based on what i've told you.

Most of what we think we know today was constructed.  If you ask the average joe, they wouldn't know the difference between constructed history and actual.  I'll have to look into those authors.    
i think I've looked into some of their writings and so far it's more of specifically how Jesus might have said soemthing here or there and not so much what he did or who he was.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2574
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Bart Ehrman

 Just watched a video from this guy on youtube... uh... are you serious?  If I sent a link to a Christian with the same ability of reference as this guy, I think it would be easy for anyone to claim ignorance on my part.  

This guy made such blatently obvious historical blunders it was hilarious.  Just some examples.

He complains that none of the Gospels were written the next day, but decades later... How long would it take to officially write up a book with this magnitude of information during those times?  I can type 70 words a minute.  I can write only about 20-30 with a ball point pen.  and this is without trying to compile information from notes or details remembered.  This is also without trying to edit and finalize a book to make sure that the general public is going to understand what i'm trying to write.  My guess is the timeframe for getting it written down to store as a reference to future generations was reasonable.  sorry, no typists back then.  He failed to take into consideration that those were the estimated years of the books we have currently, and that it's theorized that some of the gospels were using references of other writings, which would have been written much earlier.  

No eye witness accounts:

Ok, then Luke wasn't really there and neither was Paul even though they both claim in acts that they were for some events claimed.  

Gospel authors unknown:

He uses reasoning that they're not mentioned in the writing... he's right...  He failed to take into consideration that historical analyzation gives us an understanding of who wrote some of them.... let's take Luke for example;  "The authors name does not appear in the book" (Zondervan)  ok looks like he's right on so far.

"but much unmistakeable evidence points to Luke" (Z)  uh... wait, that's contradictory to Bart already... they must be stretching here.

"The gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person"  (Z)  k, great, that doesnt' prove it's Luke

"They are addressed to the same individual" (Z)  so...

"Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun "we" indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place.  By process of elimination, the most likely candidate is Luke"  (Z)  His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Chiristan writings (e.g.  the Muratorian Canon, and the work of Irenaeus) (Z)  Most likely candidtate huh... well that doesn't mean it's definitely Luke... does it?  well, what about the outside sources that Bart claims the Bible doesn't have for support?  

fine, too wishwashy right?  Let's look at John.... "The author is the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Z)  woah, that was very specific.  

"He was prominent in teh early churches but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel -- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise." (Z)  hmm, taking the logic approach...  not good enough for historians according to Bart.

Regardless of the authorship here... Bart also says there were no eye-witnesses to the accounts.... let's read on..

"The Gospel of John has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness"  (Z)  these would include knowing an experience of scent when perfume was spilled in the house and specific information about Jesus that was said to have been only shared with his disciples.  Regardless of authorship here, it seems that an eye-witness did write the book.  

Due to the fact that authorship is not self-proclaimed, Bart among other historians can claim that the authorship is unknown regardless of evidences that might point to a specific author.  Logic would not play a role in historical discovery because in order for history to be claimed as fact, it has to be tangible and/or written as clear as day.  This is true for all of history, yet most of the "not so sure" history is still accepted as true by most... unless it has religious connotations.   

Are you sure this Bart character is worth my time?  Hes' obviously not very well versed in what he thinks he knows.  

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote: Just

caposkia wrote:

 Just watched a video from this guy on youtube... uh... are you serious?  If I sent a link to a Christian with the same ability of reference as this guy, I think it would be easy for anyone to claim ignorance on my part.  

This guy made such blatently obvious historical blunders it was hilarious.  Just some examples.

He complains that none of the Gospels were written the next day, but decades later... How long would it take to officially write up a book with this magnitude of information during those times?  I can type 70 words a minute.  I can write only about 20-30 with a ball point pen.  and this is without trying to compile information from notes or details remembered.  This is also without trying to edit and finalize a book to make sure that the general public is going to understand what i'm trying to write.  My guess is the timeframe for getting it written down to store as a reference to future generations was reasonable.  sorry, no typists back then.  He failed to take into consideration that those were the estimated years of the books we have currently, and that it's theorized that some of the gospels were using references of other writings, which would have been written much earlier.  

No eye witness accounts:

Ok, then Luke wasn't really there and neither was Paul even though they both claim in acts that they were for some events claimed.  

Gospel authors unknown:

He uses reasoning that they're not mentioned in the writing... he's right...  He failed to take into consideration that historical analyzation gives us an understanding of who wrote some of them.... let's take Luke for example;  "The authors name does not appear in the book" (Zondervan)  ok looks like he's right on so far.

"but much unmistakeable evidence points to Luke" (Z)  uh... wait, that's contradictory to Bart already... they must be stretching here.

"The gospel is a companion volume to the book of Acts, and the language and structure of these two books indicate that both were written by the same person"  (Z)  k, great, that doesnt' prove it's Luke

"They are addressed to the same individual" (Z)  so...

"Certain sections in Acts use the pronoun "we" indicating that the author was with Paul when the events described in these passages took place.  By process of elimination, the most likely candidate is Luke"  (Z)  His authorship is supported by the uniform testimony of early Chiristan writings (e.g.  the Muratorian Canon, and the work of Irenaeus) (Z)  Most likely candidtate huh... well that doesn't mean it's definitely Luke... does it?  well, what about the outside sources that Bart claims the Bible doesn't have for support?  

fine, too wishwashy right?  Let's look at John.... "The author is the apostle John, the disciple whom Jesus loved" (Z)  woah, that was very specific.  

"He was prominent in teh early churches but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel -- which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise." (Z)  hmm, taking the logic approach...  not good enough for historians according to Bart.

Regardless of the authorship here... Bart also says there were no eye-witnesses to the accounts.... let's read on..

"The Gospel of John has many touches that were obviously based on the recollections of an eyewitness"  (Z)  these would include knowing an experience of scent when perfume was spilled in the house and specific information about Jesus that was said to have been only shared with his disciples.  Regardless of authorship here, it seems that an eye-witness did write the book.  

Due to the fact that authorship is not self-proclaimed, Bart among other historians can claim that the authorship is unknown regardless of evidences that might point to a specific author.  Logic would not play a role in historical discovery because in order for history to be claimed as fact, it has to be tangible and/or written as clear as day.  This is true for all of history, yet most of the "not so sure" history is still accepted as true by most... unless it has religious connotations.   

Are you sure this Bart character is worth my time?  Hes' obviously not very well versed in what he thinks he knows.  

 

Ehrman is a pretty good scholar. The gospels were written even later than he contends I think based on my studies but I can see we  are going no where this.  You have no concept of the 2 centuries of biblical research that has been done and the conclusions.  The fact that you do not understand the  common claims of Erhman is telling. Your responses to him do not even obtain  any historical basis.  None of the writings of the NT are by apostles except the self styled apostle Paul. And only part of those attributed to him really come from him. 


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

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.

First of all, I can see you're starting to do what you didn't want to do in this thread... which is split up the post.  I'm sorry if I'm making it look like that needs to happen.  If it doesn' t bother you I"m fine with the way you're doing it... but I'm willing to try and get back to the paragraph replies if that works.

Back to focus.  I'm glad you don't feel the attributes are petty or broad... though unfortunately to categorize the attributes of any relational being would be broad, so I have a hard time understanding how God's would not be.

The conflicts are attributed to your belief that the Bible promotes the idea of predestination.  This being the case, then God would have had to not only allow the evil, but make it happen himself.  This goes against my belief so it would be a hard thing for me to dispute with you.  I do believe that God allows choice, which in turn is God allowing evil indirectly, but by our own choice and not His.  

Foreknowledge that i"m mentioning is as much foreknowledge... maybe a slight bit more due to his abilities... as you would have for your own children... just because you know something is going to happen, or might happen doesnt' mean you stop it.  If you stopped every "evil" from happening to your child, no matter how minor in your eyes, you child would grow up being completely unprepared for life and completely dependent on you.  

If you don't believe God falls into this category then how do you explain Gods regret for making man?

TGBaker wrote:

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. 

...and this is where you and I differ in belief.  I don't believe in what you're claiming.  I have no reason scripturally or otherwise to believe that.  

TGBaker wrote:

TGB:  If you were god you should get the death penalty. If god tries to talk someone out of something and fails then he is not omnipotent. He did not have the power to do so. So again the attributes of god are inconsistent and fail to describe anything that could be real for they fail to be non-contradictory when jointly applied to one entity. Secondly they are self contradictory. The classical one is can god make a rock to heavy for him to pick up. 

t's hard for you to.  Let's put it this way... if I tell you that on one of the many drawings for the powerball game that happen, a 6 will eventually be drawn, will you deem me a prophet or will you say that it was bound to happen through the simple und

God of course would not try to talk someone out of something.. Instead, he will set the rules down and let us do what we will.  There are natural and spiritual consequences for breaking the rules, but we're still free to make a choice.  

Again, you can demote the power of God all you want, but due to the fact that I don't believe in what you're claiming, I can't argue it.  

Just so no one sees this as a copout or an inability to defend my belief, I'll tear it apart bit by bit:

TGB:  If God tries to talk someone out of something....

Cap:  God doesn't

TGB:  He did not have the power to do so... attributes of God are inconsistent...

CAP:  The dispute seems to be that if evil is here and God didn't know it was going to happen before it did the way it did, then he can't be God.  (omnipotent suggests "like God" by definition.)  Though if God knew it beforehand, then allowed it to happen, or made it happen... then he can't be God...   

Summary:  If Evil exists, then God doesn't....

Conclusion:  It's a catch 22.  if Evil exists, God must exist because Evil is not of God and needs reference to God in order to be deemed evil... otherwise, there is no evil... but if evil doesn't exist, then God (according to atheists) exists because an omnipotent God could prevent evil from happening.

sounds to me like Evil being the control is the problem here.  This control can be or not and God still exists logically.... or not depending on how you want to look at it... What control could we use besides evil maybe that could better determine the existence of God?  

TGBaker wrote:
 

 It does not matter whether you believe in predestination or not. If you believe in god as omniscient then he has already determined what will happen before hand ( That is what foreknowledge means).  God then actualizing a world he completely knows predestines everything in that world.  Genesis is anthropomorphic and prior to Greek philosophy being incorporated into Christianity. The view that you have of god as omniscient and omnipotent is from a later time than the god who regrets as you quote him. He may not know the future as for as the writer of that scripture picture him.   I dot's hard for you to.  Let's put it this way... if I tell you that on one of the many drawings for the powerball game that happen, a 6 will eventually be drawn, will you deem me a prophet or will you say that it was bound to happen through the simple undubt that they are really even the same god.  For they are symbols made of words to represent something. And they differ as much as one idol from another. They aret's hard for you to.  Let's put it this way... if I tell you that on one of the many drawings for the powerball game that happen, a 6 will eventually be drawn, will you deem me a prophet or will you say that it was bound to happen through the simple und examples when taken literally become idols and the act idolatry.

 

 

I wouldn't even say that I believe in a god that is omniscient in the magnitude that atheists try to make him... He may know all, but that's what you're not understanding... He may know that there's a meteor that's going to hit Earth in the year 4872, or that generations through circumstance will eventually make a rule about how long hotdogs can get, but as far as what we might collectively make as a choice or every choice made, he may know something about it, but has no control (because he chooses not to) over what that choice is.  

It seems that it's hard for you to.  Let's put it this way... if I tell you that on one of the many drawings for the powerball game that happen, a 6 will eventually be drawn, will you deem me a prophet or will you say that it was bound to happen through the simple understanding that a 6 is one of many possibilities?  My guess is, a 6 will be drawn at some point and I'm not going to be shocked when it is.  As far as guessing exactly when and what other numbers might accompany it, now that's getting beyond my abilities.  

God on the other hand, has a lot more resources and likely could scientifically figure ou believe that God can know something without it being predeterminedt the number pattern before it is drawn.  Be it that he is the creator of the world and everything in it, he might know that Tuesday's drawing is going to reveil specific numbers because of the location of the Earth to the sun and position of the moon at the time of drawing as well as atmospheric pressure and any imbalance in the balls that might be present.  The positioning of the balls before it starts and how the wind current will manipulate them and exactly when the button will be pushed to release the chosen number.  among other things.  

Honestly, if I had all that information at my disposal and knew how to analyze it correctly, I'm willing to bet that I'd get the numbers right too.  What you see as predestination might simply just be better resources and a better understanding of those resources than you and I ever thought.  

My point is you're trying to blame God for something he happened to know through reasoning and likely didn't have  direct involvement in.  It seems to be implied in scripture that things were kind of set in motion and let to run on their own.  Nowhere do I see reasoning to believe that God chose for it all to happen, which is what predestination would suggest.

t's hard for you to.  Let's put it this way... if I tell you that on one of the many drawings for the powerball game that happen, a 6 will eventually be drawn, will you deem me a prophet or will you say that it was bound to happen through the simple und

 IT IS NOT HARD FOR ME TO look at for me. You are completely oblivious to what I am saying.  ONCE MORE if a t's hard for you  understand think of it as different than your powerball.  You are not the creator. You do  not see what will happen if you create. If you know the whole history of a world and its causation and create it then there is no choice but that it will happen if you create it. There is no freedom in such a world.  If the complete contents of  a world is known before it is made then made by the knower there is no choice but that everything must happen as it is known. It's simple.  It's predetermined with act of of creating it. It can not happen otherwise. There IS no choice. It IS not a matter OF BELIEF.  It's simply a MATTER of LOGIC.IT is simply a matter of the unfolding of that which is ENFOLDED in the knowledge of god. There can be no variation or choice about it. I am not trying to BLAME a god I don't believe in. I am trying to show you the problem of such a god thus defined.  He ain't a powerball knower. He knows what will happen in every moment of the world if he creates it and does do anyway. He is thus to blame if he were real. Look at it this way god sees 50 worlds he can create. he knows what will happen if he choices any of the worlds. He must if he is omnipotent. World 1 has ABCD....., world 2 has EFGH,....., world 3 has GHIJ.....   He can see world 2 has EFGH if he creates it and makes it real.  He does so there can not be anythin gother than EFGH ... It can't have anything lik AB I OR J.  or god is wrong. Likewise he has known it beforehand So he has determined what is in that world beforehand ( predetermined that world).  There can be no variation in any world that god thoroughly knows and actualizes ( creates).  It's quite simple.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

The scriptures were not settled upon until late fourth century with a lot of squabbles for another few centuries. The Gospel of Peter is better represented than Mark in the earliest remains of manuscripts from the 2nd century.  It was considered a scripture and Mark was not by many. There was no one god believed in by Christians until it was settled. Marcion believed that the Old Testament god was an evil and different god from Jesus. Many other churches or forms of Christianity thought the same. They had different scripture.   The surviving manuscripts all show editing and reworking in an attempt to have different New Testament documents conform to the particular form of Christianity that believed it.  The Trinitarian god was not created until the late secon and early third centuries.  The Jews do not see the Trinity as god. Muslims know it to be a heresy.  These gods are all constructs by constructing  collections of scripture. 

The whole of what the Bible consists of today has been consistent as far back as we can see it.  Many churches did make up their own claims about scripture and their own writings too (doctrine) but that did not change what general Christianity believed, or who God was and is.  It would be hard for Biblical scholars to pride the Bible on the fact that the scriptures were carefully preserved and unchanged for thousands of years if what you claimed was true.    The editing and reworking I've learned about does not change the persona of God, only perspective of what may have happened specific to numbers, location and time.  

TGBaker wrote:

Contrary to what you state the scripture has continued to change up until the invention of the printing press. I have years of professional experience in determining the oldest and the best family of manuscripts to reconstruct the original readings of the New Testament documents.  God changes from author to author and from time to time culture to culture. 

The support I have for my claims is common textual criticism that is used to determine the original reading of the New Testament. I refer you to Bart Ehrman's book on the variation of the early manuscripts in his book Misquoting Jesus. Also read some Bruce Metzger.  Your particular view of god WAS CONSTRUCTED on the way largley influenced by pagan Greek philosophy.The reason you have seen nothing more than opinion on this focus is because you are reading apologetics instead the various variations of the Greek text of the gospels or Paul. And you apparently have not read much historical critical work in this area.  Read several of Bart Ehrman's books since they are quite accessible to the laymen and dead with lost christianites, lost scriptures and what have you.   Most of what I put out is common biblical scholarship. Though I have some research that has been my own discoveries. 

 

I don't read apologetics and hardly read Christian writings... It's interesting to me that you would think i did though based on what i've told you.

Most of what we think we know today was constructed.  If you ask the average joe, they wouldn't know the difference between constructed history and actual.  I'll have to look into those authors.    
i think I've looked into some of their writings and so far it's more of specifically how Jesus might have said soemthing here or there and not so much what he did or who he was.

You obviously have not done any major biblical research and are parroting apologists.   The scriptures weer poorly preserved. So I do not know where you get that apart from some minister or apologist. Read some real textual history and look at the vaoious remaining texts. READ METZGER who is conservative. Read Erhman instead of bashing him before you critique him. His Misquoting Jesus is plethora of textual vatiations and their history.You could not have read those scholars because you do not know what they say. You are assuming,.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism