The illogic of the Fall

triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
The illogic of the Fall

Hopefully this hasn't been rehashed too many times:

1) To make a decision that reduces one's quality would be a mistake.

2) Perfect beings do not make mistakes.

3) Perfect beings cannot create imperfect things.

4) The Christian God is, by definition, perfect.

Therefore:

A) Adam was perfect when he was created.

B) Adam could not have made a decision that reduced his quality, making him imperfect.

C) Adam could not have fallen unless God is imperfect.

 

Any thoughts from theist or atheist? (Remember, KewK.)

I don't think I've phrased 1 as well as I should have. Sigh. 

-Triften 

 


gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
To me this kind of reasoning

To me this kind of reasoning seems as vacuous as questions like can God create a rock that he can't lift? The kind of questions are the kind that theology likes to answer, because it can be vague and wishy washy.

Maybe I am being too negative, it's just I've always found that it is best to base rational inquiry on questions that can be rationally understood. And I believe deciding what a perfect or omnipotent or omniscient being would/could do is not a question that can be answered satisfactorily. I think questions based around real logic are going to bring us the truth, like "If the universe acts exactly as we would expect if there wasn't a God, and the probability of a God forming is so much less likely than the probability of a singularity (the start product of the big bang) forming, then what reasons are the to believe that there is a God?" Though the problem with this is its a question that often gets asked. Yet almost never seems to convince theists.

Anyway, it appears that I'm rambling and not answering your question, so i should probably shut up and let people who do like this type of question get on with it...Tongue out

Quote:
I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore. - Charles Darwin


GreyhoundMama
GreyhoundMama's picture
Posts: 76
Joined: 2007-03-09
User is offlineOffline
goddess

I always thought the story of the fall was an attempt to discredit godess worship, and that Eve was supposed to represent Lilith or something. Am I mixing up my stories? They made women evil so they could justify her going through painful childbirth and for women to be second-class citizens.

Karen and her hounds
creating art ~ creating a new life


Spewn
Posts: 98
Joined: 2007-01-30
User is offlineOffline
I'm sure that discrediting

I'm sure that discrediting godess worship had something to do with the way it was written.

 

My personal problem with the fall was this;

 

Adam and Eve are given free will by god.  God expects Adam and Eve to use this free will to make the right decision.  Wait a minute;  Isn't god responsible for morality? 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
gobaskof wrote: To me this

gobaskof wrote:
To me this kind of reasoning seems as vacuous as questions like can God create a rock that he can't lift? The kind of questions are the kind that theology likes to answer, because it can be vague and wishy washy.

 I think that a theologist might believe he can answer it when in actuality, he'll just demonstrate his own lack of understanding of the incoherence inherent in "omnipotence."


gobaskof wrote:

Maybe I am being too negative, it's just I've always found that it is best to base rational inquiry on questions that can be rationally understood. And I believe deciding what a perfect or omnipotent or omniscient being would/could do is not a question that can be answered satisfactorily. I think questions based around real logic are going to bring us the truth, like "If the universe acts exactly as we would expect if there wasn't a God, and the probability of a God forming is so much less likely than the probability of a singularity (the start product of the big bang) forming, then what reasons are the to believe that there is a God?" Though the problem with this is its a question that often gets asked. Yet almost never seems to convince theists.

 But isn't the incoherence of omnipotence important in illustrating the improbability of a god with the characteristic?

Also, most theologians are just as likely to brush of the idea of god forming as they are of brushing off my question. Smiling


gobaskof wrote:

Anyway, it appears that I'm rambling and not answering your question, so i should probably shut up and let people who do like this type of question get on with it...Tongue out

It wasn't rambling. I asked for feedback and you gave me some. Thanks.

-Triften 

 


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Spewn wrote: I'm sure that

Spewn wrote:

I'm sure that discrediting godess worship had something to do with the way it was written.

 

My personal problem with the fall was this;

 

Adam and Eve are given free will by god. God expects Adam and Eve to use this free will to make the right decision. Wait a minute; Isn't god responsible for morality?

This seems rather like the question about intent, no? If adam and eve didn't know about good and evil before they ate from the tree, then how could they have sinned, unless they knew what they were doing was bad...

-Triften 


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Why can't perfect beings

Why can't perfect beings create imperfect things?


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
gobaskof wrote: To me this

gobaskof wrote:
To me this kind of reasoning seems as vacuous as questions like can God create a rock that he can't lift? The kind of questions are the kind that theology likes to answer, because it can be vague and wishy washy.

Maybe I am being too negative, it's just I've always found that it is best to base rational inquiry on questions that can be rationally understood. And I believe deciding what a perfect or omnipotent or omniscient being would/could do is not a question that can be answered satisfactorily. I think questions based around real logic are going to bring us the truth, like "If the universe acts exactly as we would expect if there wasn't a God, and the probability of a God forming is so much less likely than the probability of a singularity (the start product of the big bang) forming, then what reasons are the to believe that there is a God?" Though the problem with this is its a question that often gets asked. Yet almost never seems to convince theists.

Sure it's silly, but what I think triften is trying to do is demonstrate the internal illogic of Chrisianity.  These sorts of questions were a part of my deconversion.  It took many arguments, thought and time for me to deconvert.  Many others report the same slow process.

As for these arguments not convincing theists, well... Smiling  So far I've heard deconversion stories, but haven't been an actual witness to someone else's deconversion process.  Right now, it's rather hard to deconvert someone.  I suspect (and hope) that when atheists are more visible and more accepted, the process will become easier.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Why can't

qbg wrote:
Why can't perfect beings create imperfect things?

Saying something is imperfect implies that a mistake was made during the creation of said item. If a perfect being wants to make a fork, it will make a perfect fork. If a perfect being wants to make a fork with a weak spot in the handle so it breaks when you are eating your steak (or shaped tofu), then said being will make a perfect fork with a weak spot in the handle, etc. It can't be anything but exactly what the perfect being wanted to make.

-Triften 


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
It was probably included to

It was probably included to make sure the women knew their place in that culture as well.

It strikes me as VERY similar to the story of Pandora.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: qbg

triften wrote:

qbg wrote:
Why can't perfect beings create imperfect things?

Saying something is imperfect implies that a mistake was made during the creation of said item. If a perfect being wants to make a fork, it will make a perfect fork. If a perfect being wants to make a fork with a weak spot in the handle so it breaks when you are eating your steak (or shaped tofu), then said being will make a perfect fork with a weak spot in the handle, etc. It can't be anything but exactly what the perfect being wanted to make.

-Triften

If human beings were created by a perfect creator, why would he put something as wet and drippy as a nose upside down over the mouth?

I don't remember if that's Carlin or Gallagher, but I think it's a good point. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: triften

Susan wrote:
triften wrote:

qbg wrote:
Why can't perfect beings create imperfect things?

Saying something is imperfect implies that a mistake was made during the creation of said item. If a perfect being wants to make a fork, it will make a perfect fork. If a perfect being wants to make a fork with a weak spot in the handle so it breaks when you are eating your steak (or shaped tofu), then said being will make a perfect fork with a weak spot in the handle, etc. It can't be anything but exactly what the perfect being wanted to make.

-Triften

If human beings were created by a perfect creator, why would he put something as wet and drippy as a nose upside down over the mouth?

I don't remember if that's Carlin or Gallagher, but I think it's a good point. 

Emergency food source for children.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Emergency

Vastet wrote:
Emergency food source for children.

Or perhaps "extreme recycling."


22jesus22
22jesus22's picture
Posts: 208
Joined: 2006-12-18
User is offlineOffline
GreyhoundMama I think you're

GreyhoundMama I think you're right about the whole women part.  And whoever mentioned Pandora.  I was reading Power of Myth and supposedly those are the only two stories where women are responsible for the evil in the world.  Apparently they were trying to move away from Goddess worship, so they gave women(eve) a really bad name.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
qbg wrote: Why can't

qbg wrote:
Why can't perfect beings create imperfect things?

They can, they would simply have to do it intentionally.

Why would any god intentionally make us imperfect?

There essentially the following possibilities;

1) A perfect creator created us perfectly (as it intended)

2) A Perfect creator created us imperfectly (as it intended)

3) An imperfect creator created us imperfectly (perhaps unintentionally, as it wanted to create us perfectly but failed)

4 An imperfect creator created us perfectly (perhaps by a fluke) 

5) There is no intelligent creator, and we are perfect by accident of natural and unintelligent processes.

6) There is no intelligent creator, and we are imperfect as a result of natural and unintelligent processes.

So, are we perfect? I think the question is non-sensical, as the word 'perfect' has no referent--there is nothing perfect.  Perfection is one of those things that we think we can talk about, but it simply creates ghosts of thoughts that we think solves problems.  Examples are Platonic Forms (abstracted 'perfect' objects based on generalizations of actual forms of things we experience) and God (that-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived), which is a kind of arch-Platonic Form--somewhat like how Plato talked about "The Good."

The problem with the Fall is that one would need to have a concept of morality to have any capability to understand the concept od consequence or responsibility.  Before the fall, Eve could not have not eaten the fruit, because she was simply given information she had no reason to distrust.  Why would she have trusted the snake over God? How could she evaluate the difference in their trust-worthiness without any knowledge of good and evil?

This point was referred to, I thought it would be good to flesh it out for theist readers.

Shaun   

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I hoped that I don't sound

I hoped that I don't sound repetitive, or this has been answered in the same way before. But this is a question that has been answered historically.If we assume the first 4 points, that God is perfect, and this is the Christian God is a Spirit, eternal, infinite, and unchangeable in His being, power, knowledge/wisdom, goodness, (and other attributes I won't go into) creates for a purpose. Then God could, would, and should have created Adam (and the creation) very good (stated in Gen 1).

God, then created Adam to be like Him, only temporal (because Adam had a beginning), finite (because he is necessarily temporal), and changeable (because finite and temporal beings can change). Adam then being subject to change, leads to the Fall.

God created Adam with free-will, free-will (in historical Christianity) means to do what one wants/desires. Adam desired to please Eve, and rebel against God, and ate of the fruit he was forbidden to eat. (in short).

This can reconcile how god is perfect and the fall without implying a contradiction.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote: If we assume

Jaden wrote:
If we assume the first 4 points, that God is perfect, and this is the Christian God is a Spirit, eternal, infinite, and unchangeable in His being, power, knowledge/wisdom, goodness, (and other attributes I won't go into) creates for a purpose. Then God could, would, and should have created Adam (and the creation) very good (stated in Gen 1).

That is an awful large number of assumptions, but okay, assume all you want. Here is another issue many of us have with this bit of mythology christian theists hold true.

Your god(omniscient, omnipotent), knew before creation all events that were going to take place. Your magic friend knew the fall was going to occur. Mr. all powerful knew, according to your beliefs, this would lead to a complete eradication of life except for a family and the animals they could fit on a ridiculously small boat. Mr. perfect being knew eventually he himself would have to come to earth in physical form, to be a sacrifice to himself, for rules he himself set up, to "save" the people he himself set up to fail. Sounds rather silly and not very well thought out, maybe he did it on a whim, didn't plan very well. Oh wait, we assumed he was perfect, right? Hmmmm.... Maybe he didn't know where free will was going to lead Adam. Oh wait, he has perfect knowledge. Hmmmm.... Maybe once it was all set in motion he could not stop it. Oh wait, he is all powerful.

I have an entirely better explanation, maybe this story, along with all of scripture, was written as mythology, passed down as legend and believed to be true by the gullible.

Jaden wrote:
This can reconcile how god is perfect and the fall without implying a contradiction.

Perfection - the state of being without a flaw or defect.

This definition most certainly does not reflect the god of scripture, of the bible or of your creation story. Maybe you need to re-read your faith textbook and examine the silliness of the mythology represented.

The stories are asinine.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: I have an

BGH wrote:
I have an entirely better explanation, maybe this story, along with all of scripture, was written as mythology, passed down as legend and believed to be true by the gullible.

I agree that the stories were written as mythology and passed down as legend.  Read out loud, gensis takes on a sing-song quality and it probably was told to many generations of tribes looking for an explanation to the unknown.  Most cultures and religions have stories of creation/the fall/the flood similar to the ones in genesis.  I honestly do not think, though that these people were gullible.  They were looking for answers the same as we do today.  Now, the stories seem entertaining at best.  It is the continued belief in them given what we now know that makes them gullible.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Are you on a witch hunt? Or

Are you on a witch hunt? Or should I say a thiest hunt.  Is this not the "rational responders?" The object of this thread was to see if a perfect being could create man as he is now.  

"That is an awful large number of assumptions, but okay, assume all you want. Here is another issue many of us have with this bit of mythology christian theists hold true." 

 I was not the person making the original assumptions, merely argueing what I was given, and I stated that I ackknowledged the assumptions. Furthermore, I have to assume these to be true to even post anything (otherwise, I cannot play devil's advocate and give a possible justification for a belief). 

I never said this was "my God" nor have I given you my opinion on that presupposition. (I am a rational presuppositionalist by the way).

Not only do I find this insulting, but more over, I find your mythical story on what you feel is Christianity even more. I have at least taken the time to study what it is, and have an amature knowledge of what it stands for, not a mocking respect. As well as I took the time to respond to an honest question, instead of giving an ad hominem response that does nothing to promote dialog (which is what I assumed this website to be doing, forgive me if I am wrong and naive).

My answer, was simply the historic answer to the question that was asked. I find it funny that most of the points raised here have been already asked and answered. My answer does reflect biblical teachings, maybe it is you that should study the opposition a little more.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote:

Jaden wrote:

Are you on a witch hunt? Or should I say a thiest hunt. Is this not the "rational responders?" The object of this thread was to see if a perfect being could create man as he is now.

"That is an awful large number of assumptions, but okay, assume all you want. Here is another issue many of us have with this bit of mythology christian theists hold true."

I was not the person making the original assumptions, merely argueing what I was given, and I stated that I ackknowledged the assumptions. Furthermore, I have to assume these to be true to even post anything (otherwise, I cannot play devil's advocate and give a possible justification for a belief).

I never said this was "my God" nor have I given you my opinion on that presupposition. (I am a rational presuppositionalist by the way).

Not only do I find this insulting, but more over, I find your mythical story on what you feel is Christianity even more. I have at least taken the time to study what it is, and have an amature knowledge of what it stands for, not a mocking respect. As well as I took the time to respond to an honest question, instead of giving an ad hominem response that does nothing to promote dialog (which is what I assumed this website to be doing, forgive me if I am wrong and naive).

My answer, was simply the historic answer to the question that was asked. I find it funny that most of the points raised here have been already asked and answered. My answer does reflect biblical teachings, maybe it is you that should study the opposition a little more.

Show me one ad hominen, I attacked the the stories. The asinine stories so many believe about our origins, about our world and about our afterlife. I never attacked you, just the gullibility to believe such myths. If you read them how they are written they are illogical and not based in reality what so ever.

Basically the perfect being depicted in the scriptures so many hold true, could not have created Adam, Eve, Noah, Jesus, President Bush, or the rest of this creation. There are too many flaws and perfection only can begat perfection. As defined!

If you are a rational presup great, you are still a theist and believe. The point is the perfect deity depicted in the bible is incapable of creating imperfection. The whole of creation was flawed from the BEGINNING and an all perfect deity would be incapable of such an error.


sonofthemorningstar
sonofthemorningstar's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2007-03-10
User is offlineOffline
triften wrote: Hopefully

triften wrote:

Hopefully this hasn't been rehashed too many times:

1) To make a decision that reduces one's quality would be a mistake.

2) Perfect beings do not make mistakes.

3) Perfect beings cannot create imperfect things.

4) The Christian God is, by definition, perfect.

Therefore:

A) Adam was perfect when he was created.

B) Adam could not have made a decision that reduced his quality, making him imperfect.

C) Adam could not have fallen unless God is imperfect.

 

Any thoughts from theist or atheist? (Remember, KewK.)

I don't think I've phrased 1 as well as I should have. Sigh.

-Triften

 

Why must people STILL try and find loopholes in the myths of the bible?

It's like asking why the eagles in LOTR didn't fly the ring into Mt. Doom. 

These stories, it's obvious they're full of shit, and were created by men, so why are you guys all still obsessing about it?

 You are all brain dead.

 Wake up!

Fear denies Faith


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
sonofthemorningstar

sonofthemorningstar wrote:
Why must people STILL try and find loopholes in the myths of the bible?

To prove the bible is mythical, not evidencial. Why else?

sonofthemorningstar wrote:

It's like asking why the eagles in LOTR didn't fly the ring into Mt. Doom. These stories, it's obvious they're full of shit, and were created by men, so why are you guys all still obsessing about it?

None of us are obsessing about it.

sonofthemorningstar wrote:

You are all brain dead. Wake up!

Speak for yourself. You still have yet to post a single valid point. I'd say that qualifies you as the brain dead.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
This is the Kill 'Em With

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.

"You are all brain dead" is not acceptable on this thread.

"I'd say that qualifies you as the brain dead." is not acceptable on this thread.

sonofthemorningstar, this is not your first warning. 

Vastet, please note which thread you are on and comply with the rules.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
The ad hominems were

The ad hominems were here

"Your god(omniscient, omnipotent), knew before creation all events that were going to take place. Your magic friend knew the fall was going to occur. Mr. all powerful knew, according to your beliefs, this would lead to a complete eradication of life except for a family and the animals they could fit on a ridiculously small boat. Mr. perfect being knew eventually he himself would have to come to earth in physical form, to be a sacrifice to himself, for rules he himself set up, to "save" the people he himself set up to fail. Sounds rather silly and not very well thought out, maybe he did it on a whim, didn't plan very well. Oh wait, we assumed he was perfect, right? Hmmmm.... Maybe he didn't know where free will was going to lead Adam. Oh wait, he has perfect knowledge. Hmmmm.... Maybe once it was all set in motion he could not stop it. Oh wait, he is all powerful."

You asserted my arguement was wrong by giving a mocking retelling of a story I didn't give, and not by attacking my arguement (this was also a straw man). There were also other informal fallacies, but I am sure you can find them.

And maybe, if you studied, you would know that the bible is not for retelling origins (like other creation myths). Genisis 1, assumes we already know the "creator." So maybe the bible has another purpose, and with that fundamental thing in place you would then see how the bible does not contain most of these so-called contradictions. What I am saying is not new. Any religion or a philosophy of religion class (in your local public community college) will teach you this.

People in a religion often do not repersent it well. So then, choose your battle, will you fight the religion, or the people who poorly repersent it. As far as I have read, all any one here has really done is fight the people (there are some notable exceptions).


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote:

Jaden wrote:

God created Adam with free-will, free-will (in historical Christianity) means to do what one wants/desires. Adam desired to please Eve, and rebel against God, and ate of the fruit he was forbidden to eat. (in short).

This can reconcile how god is perfect and the fall without implying a contradiction.

Claiming free-will doesn't reconcile anything. It just covers up one contradiction with another: free-will cannot exist in the presence of an all-knowing, all-powerful being. How did Adam make his decisions? Using his brain (made by God) and the information given to him (by God). God set all these parameters up knowing exactly what would happen.

Why did Adam desire to please Eve? Because God made him that way. Why did Adam want to rebel? Because God made him that way. Why did Adam want to eat the fruit?

-Triften

*EDITED* for typos. 


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
A) Adam was perfect when he

A) Adam was perfect when he was created.B) Adam could not have made a decision that reduced his quality, making him imperfect.C) Adam could not have fallen unless God is imperfect.Maybe I didn't explain this well enough, If I assume your first 4 points to be true, then necessarily A,B, and C do not follow.A: God created Adam temporally, finitely, and changeable. If God is all-wise, powerful, and good (as supposed in the premises) then God created Adam perfectly. B: Can you make a decision that reduces your quality? Even if you are not "perfect" can you not decide to take up heroin? So you make your decisions according to your desires. because Adam is the "representative head of all humanity" we can deduce that he could as well. So Adam could do what he desired. C: therefore C doesn't necessarily follow, if free-will is involved.

 


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
It can if free will implies

It can if free will implies doing what you want. You assume that free-will means to do otherwise, which you are right if it is true, but here is the argument against that view. I posted this on another forum:I think that some people on here are using different versions, and each have different consequences. The Libertine View seems to be the most popular one here, and amongst some types of theists. Which states if you are free, you can do otherwise. It's opposite is Hard Determinism, you are not free to do otherwise. (you are not free) Both have the same assumption and break down the same way.  So I have choice A or choice non-A, at one point I must make a decision or an action. And that action is based off values (I choose chocolate over vanilla, therefore I, at this moment, value chocolate more). So if I cannot choose otherwise, something must have caused this event, so freedom equals uncaused events (logically impossible). If these events are uncaused, then is my action? Therefore freedom would be not my action. Which is a contradiction. This is only one view to think about freedom and free-will. Freedom cannot mean 'to do otherwise.'

Ok with that in mind, let's examine what freewill means if I get to do what I want. I am free if I can act out my desires. If I am free to act out my desires, I am free to use my reason (I have the capability to  think rationally). So I have two choice:

1. I don't want to use my reason.

2. I want to use my reason.

Either way, I have used reason to make a decision, and by even thinking of these choices, you have used reason by your own nature. There is a natural tendency not to be divided against oneself, so which ever one you choose, you will continue to choose (in general, for basic beliefs).

So the questions that you ask yourself then, Why have you made me so, God? I didn't want to fail to use my reason. ---well then, start using your reason.

Well I want to use my reason, but God is the one who made me use my reason. --- well, what are you complaining about, you are still getting what you want. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Jaden, "Wikipedia: An ad

Jaden,

"Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man&quotEye-wink consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument."

I did not attack any part of YOUR personal character.

I made a mocking analogy of the god of the bible to over emphasize his imperfectness. This was not a strawman.

"Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

I did not set up a false argument. Again, I mockingly over emphasized the god of the bible to show his impefectness. Every statement I made correctly portrays the god of christian mythology to its absurdium conclusion. If this character sounds silly it is not my fault, I do not subscribe to his existance.

Again there is one statement that is irrefutable, a perfect being would begat a perfect creation. Perfection would be incapable failure, error or even incapable of a "fall".

Jaden wrote:
And maybe, if you studied, you would know that the bible is not for retelling origins (like other creation myths). Genisis 1, assumes we already know the "creator." So maybe the bible has another purpose, and with that fundamental thing in place you would then see how the bible does not contain most of these so-called contradictions. What I am saying is not new. Any religion or a philosophy of religion class (in your local public community college) will teach you this.

This, however is an ad hominen. Very good of you to illustrate how it is done.

For your information, I have studied, and in your previous statement you made it clear.

IF YOU BELIEVE GOD EXISTS IT IS EASY TO OVERLOOK CONTRADICTIONS.

Even to the point they seem non-existant...

I am not a presup, this does not work for me and the argument does not work.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
No one has crossed the

No one has crossed the line, but I thought I'd throw in a gentle reminder as I pass through:

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness thread and the rules are more strict here. 

No personal attacks.  No insults.  No name-calling.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jaden, I'm sorry, I'm not

Jaden, I'm sorry, I'm not following what you are trying to say. I'll try to respond the best I can.

For the record, I am a determinist and believe that, for the time being, we have a very strong illusion of free-will since we don't have sufficient knowledge to perfectly predict the future.

Within the gaze of an all-knowing God who is responisble for setting all the parameters of existence, you are merely following a very elaborate script.

You say you are free to follow your desires? The issue is where those desires came from. Why do you value chocolate over vanilla? Where did Adam's desires come from? God made him the way he was. God is responsible for his behavior. If his behavior caused death and disease and calamity, then God is responsible for all of it. If God is responsible for death and disease and calamity while being omnipotent, then he cannot be all-loving.

As a side-note: If the above claims on the qualities of God I am bringing up are not in line with your beliefs than we are arguing different things and won't really get anywhere. But, if you think that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and created the universe, BUT humans are responsible for the presence of evil in the world, than this is an argument on why that claim is flawed.

-Triften 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10549
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Oops. Didn't notice the

Oops. Didn't notice the forum. > >

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
What do you mean by you

What do you mean by you are a determinist? (just for clarity's sake).

If by that you mean "God (or whatever higher power) puts the desires in my head, and i have NO CHOICE but to act on them."

Well, then absolutely you are correct, you have no responisbilty, no accountablity, God is not all-loving and most likely doesn't exist. (unless you can give me an arguement that can prove both, that I have never heard before).

So then the question remains, is this consistent with Judeo-Christian beliefs, or is there another explaination.  And that goes into first and secondary causes with God's responsibilty. The best analogy I can give would be this:

A married couple marriage is failing, and the wife hears about all the great things that can happen with partner swapping and swinging. She decides to go to her husband, and tell him all about it, and how greatly their sex life can improve by her husband sleeping with another girl (this is becoming more increasingly popular in major cities, btw). the husband thinks about this, then agrees it is good, and decides to have sex with another girl while his wife watches (per agreement).  After the husband finishes, the wife is disgusted by the actions of her husband, and wants a divource.

Is the husband still responisble for the actions, even though the thought was put in his head by his wife?

This is not a very good analogy of first and secondary causes (especially relating to the Judeo-Christian God) and I admit it has flaws, I am NOT an expert on this subject at all (just a poor college student writing a paper).

But the point of the analogy would be to show, IF we have control of our desires (i know that you do not agree to this, but a christian most likely would agree to this), then we did not have to follow through with the action.

Soft-determinism (which is compatable with Theism, although not all theists adhere to it) would state that we are free to choose our desires. God is all-knowing and all-loving, therefore would only create in accordance to those desires. (he would not create us in a way that we would not like).

For possible responses to this see my previous post about getting what you want.

(I aplogogize for all spelling errors, I am a slave to spell check, and this computer does not have it, and I am at work so I cannot download it...)


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote: What do you

Jaden wrote:

What do you mean by you are a determinist? (just for clarity's sake).

If by that you mean "God (or whatever higher power) puts the desires in my head, and i have NO CHOICE but to act on them."

 

 

I think that, given enough information, one can predict how things will change as time goes by. Given enough information, one could predict what someone will do. The more accurately you want to predict, the more information you need.

If god exists and is all-knowing, then he can perfectly predict what everyone will do.

However, since we do not have perfect information, free-will is a very strong illusion and so I operate as if I am responsible for my actions.

Jaden wrote:

Well, then absolutely you are correct, you have no responisbilty, no accountablity, God is not all-loving and most likely doesn't exist. (unless you can give me an arguement that can prove both, that I have never heard before).

 

 

 Yup, that's my point.

Jaden wrote:

 

So then the question remains, is this consistent with Judeo-Christian beliefs, or is there another explaination. And that goes into first and secondary causes with God's responsibilty. The best analogy I can give would be this:

A married couple marriage is failing, and the wife hears about all the great things that can happen with partner swapping and swinging. She decides to go to her husband, and tell him all about it, and how greatly their sex life can improve by her husband sleeping with another girl (this is becoming more increasingly popular in major cities, btw). the husband thinks about this, then agrees it is good, and decides to have sex with another girl while his wife watches (per agreement). After the husband finishes, the wife is disgusted by the actions of her husband, and wants a divource.

Is the husband still responisble for the actions, even though the thought was put in his head by his wife?

Yes, he still went along with it. He is, in my opinion, only responsible for the act of sleeping with the other woman. His wife was dishonest with herself and/or him, though and bears the responsibility of being disgusted. (I also think it was a bit foolish to think that sleeping with others would help a failing marriage, of which they both bear responsibility, they both said "I do".) 

 

Jaden wrote:

This is not a very good analogy of first and secondary causes (especially relating to the Judeo-Christian God) and I admit it has flaws, I am NOT an expert on this subject at all (just a poor college student writing a paper).

Correct, because the wife is not omnipotent or omniscient. 

 

Jaden wrote:

But the point of the analogy would be to show, IF we have control of our desires (i know that you do not agree to this, but a christian most likely would agree to this), then we did not have to follow through with the action.

? Who in the story did not follow through? Sorry, I'm still confused on this. Could you make your explaination a little more abstract? I think the concrete example of the couple is getting in my way.

 

Jaden wrote:

Soft-determinism (which is compatable with Theism, although not all theists adhere to it) would state that we are free to choose our desires. God is all-knowing and all-loving, therefore would only create in accordance to those desires. (he would not create us in a way that we would not like).

 So he created us so we would fall? And he created us wanting to fall?

 

Jaden wrote:

For possible responses to this see my previous post about getting what you want.

(I aplogogize for all spelling errors, I am a slave to spell check, and this computer does not have it, and I am at work so I cannot download it...)

I'm not going to rip anyone on spelling. If one does that, then one must tread even more carefully with one's grammar and spelling.

-Triften 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Here is my problem with the

Here is my problem with the idea of the "fall".

God, according to christians is perfect and infallable.

If god is perfect everything he creates will be perfect.

Even if the creation has free will, the fact that it is perfect will prohibit a "wrong" choice.

Therefore:

Either god is imperfect and Adam was flawed which led him to make a poor decision and cause the "fall".

Or god is perfect and deliberately made Adam flawed so the "fall" would happen.

If it is the latter then god made creation for something to punish like a mean kid with a magnifying glass frying ants.

Or if it is the former then the christian god is imperfect and faulted.

So THAT is the real illogic of the fall.

 So this basically re-states op's thoughts. Which are questions and thoughts I have been having a long time.


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
"If god exists and is

"If god exists and is all-knowing, then he can perfectly predict what everyone will do."

I agree, that would be compatible. 

"However, since we do not have perfect information, free-will is a very strong illusion and so I operate as if I am responsible for my actions. "

I have never heard this view before, I am not sure if the point is 'free-will is not fair because we cannot know the outcome of my particular action, therefore my choice is an illusion to accountability.'

Even so, your version that you have proposed still falls under "hard determinism" which is incompatible with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Because this is heterodox to historic Christianity and Judaism, I believe the burden of proof lies to you to prove that this is the only true version of free-will.

(This would be comparable to say to a Theist does not believe that God rules over creation)

“Who in the story did not follow through? Sorry, I'm still confused on this. Could you make your explanation a little more abstract? I think the concrete example of the couple is getting in my way."

Everyone in the story followed through, I was saying that at any time, the husband could have said to his wife that her idea will not work and is flawed.  The point was, it does not matter who puts the thoughts originally in our heads, because we are responsible for our actions.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote: "However,

Jaden wrote:

"However, since we do not have perfect information, free-will is a very strong illusion and so I operate as if I am responsible for my actions. "

I have never heard this view before, I am not sure if the point is 'free-will is not fair because we cannot know the outcome of my particular action, therefore my choice is an illusion to accountability.'

Um, no, that wasn't my point. I mean that we cannot perfectly predict the future, therefore, with respect to each other, we have free-will. People make their own decisions.

However, people make decisions for reasons. Do we agree on this? They don't just randomly decide things. Heck, even if someone decides to flip a coin, they still made a decision to use the coin.

Jaden wrote:

Even so, your version that you have proposed still falls under "hard determinism" which is incompatible with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Because this is heterodox to historic Christianity and Judaism, I believe the burden of proof lies to you to prove that this is the only true version of free-will.

(This would be comparable to say to a Theist does not believe that God rules over creation)

That sentence in parens seems a little confusing, is it missing a preposition?

The burden of proof lies with me because the Christian Church claims otherwise?! That's a bizzare line of reasoning.

Regardless, it follows from logic that if god created everything and knows what happens (all the consequences of his actions) then he is responsible for everything and we can't have free-will.  

Jaden wrote:
 

“Who in the story did not follow through? Sorry, I'm still confused on this. Could you make your explanation a little more abstract? I think the concrete example of the couple is getting in my way."

Everyone in the story followed through, I was saying that at any time, the husband could have said to his wife that her idea will not work and is flawed. The point was, it does not matter who puts the thoughts originally in our heads, because we are responsible for our actions.

I agree with you, except in the presence of an all-knowing, perfect  creator. If he exists, he chose to create the universe in a particular way, knowing all that would come about from that. Therefore he must be responsible for all of creation.

Could you please address my question from my previous post:

Quote:
So he created us so we would fall? And he created us wanting to fall?


Jaden
Theist
Posts: 27
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Um, no, that wasn't

Quote:

Um, no, that wasn't my point. I mean that we cannot perfectly predict the future, therefore, with respect to each other, we have free-will. People make their own decisions. 

But God can perfectly predict the future, got what you mean... sorry 'bout the confusion.

And yes, I agree that there are no uncaused events, why I chose A is because of the decision that preceded that.

So this is still about First and Secondary causes, why God created man to be capable of falling.  I believe we could say to further His Glory, so that we might know more about Him.  That is to say we could know of His divine justice and mercy, that we could not know if we did not fall.  So yes, God did create us to fall, but it was Adam's dicision to disobey God.

This is a simple answer, i do apologize for that.  Can you blame your mom for making cookies, and you taking one without permission? 

Quote:
The burden of proof lies with me because the Christian Church claims otherwise?! That's a bizzare line of reasoning.

Not really, but I believe we just had a miscommuntication of ideas. If I state that in Christianty, Jesus is really God, and I have x-y-z proof (or whatever).  And you say, no Jesus is really a space alien here to suck the minds out of christians.  The burden of proof would be upon you because you are giving a contrary statement without sufficient evidence (ie, you are just giving your opinion).  But as it was a misunderstanding, there is no need.  I thought that you still were saying the idea of hard determism is the only view of theism.  So I do apologize. 

 

Sorry this took so long, I have school, and was working on stuff.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote: So this is

Jaden wrote:

So this is still about First and Secondary causes, why God created man to be capable of falling.

 

The attempt to bring up 'secondary causes', to distinguish them from first causes,  is moot in the case of an omnipotent, omniscient creator.  Such a creator is the ultimate cause of every event.

   

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Largo
Largo's picture
Posts: 140
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Or god is

BGH wrote:
Or god is perfect and deliberately made Adam flawed so the "fall" would happen.
Herein you find the essence of christian belief: that god "has a plan" that includes everything in history, past present and future. If Adam and Eve had obeyed the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the plan would have been killed right there in the garden. Nothing at all in christian theology could have happened without Eve's getting the munchies and setting her eyes on the one tree she was told not to touch.
But notice that the tree was placed in plain sight. It was very attractive to the first woman. Even that was not enough. In order to ensure that his plan was not aborted right there in the garden, this god sent a tempter, in the guise of a talking snake, no less, to tell her that the punishment god threatened her with wouldn't really happen. She had been told that she would die. The serpent said "you won't die." And when Eve ate the fruit and passed some on to Adam, getting him to take some, too, did they both die as god had threatened? Of course not. They did exactly what they were programmed to do. If they had been obedient, the plan would have died aborning. But dis-obedience was built right into these first two humans according to the very story we are told is the guidebook for humanity..
Whether or not the god of the bible was perfect (assuming for the sake of the argument that he existed at all), his creation had to be imperfect for anything else in the plan to work.


triften
Silver Member
triften's picture
Posts: 591
Joined: 2007-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Jaden wrote: So this is

Jaden wrote:

So this is still about First and Secondary causes, why God created man to be capable of falling. I believe we could say to further His Glory, so that we might know more about Him. That is to say we could know of His divine justice and mercy, that we could not know if we did not fall. So yes, God did create us to fall, but it was Adam's dicision to disobey God.

This is a simple answer, i do apologize for that. Can you blame your mom for making cookies, and you taking one without permission?

Your analogy doesn't work because your mother is not responsible for every aspect of you; your brain structure, your genetics, your entire environment. In the story of the fall, god is responsible for all these things. He created Adam and everything about him, and everything he interacted with.

If he wasn't supposed to be omniscient, I might cut him some slack. 

 

Jaden wrote:

Quote:
The burden of proof lies with me because the Christian Church claims otherwise?! That's a bizzare line of reasoning.

Not really, but I believe we just had a miscommuntication of ideas. If I state that in Christianty, Jesus is really God, and I have x-y-z proof (or whatever). And you say, no Jesus is really a space alien here to suck the minds out of christians. The burden of proof would be upon you because you are giving a contrary statement without sufficient evidence (ie, you are just giving your opinion). But as it was a misunderstanding, there is no need. I thought that you still were saying the idea of hard determism is the only view of theism. So I do apologize.

Not a problem. If I claim space aliens, I'll make sure to have evidence. Smiling

I generally make it a point to disclaim assertions/opinions as such. 

Jaden wrote:

Sorry this took so long, I have school, and was working on stuff.

Take your time. That's the great thing about this asynchronous mode of communication called "teh intarweb".

-Triften 


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: there is nothing

Quote:
there is nothing perfect

I agree. And this is one of the main problems with McTheism. Suppose there is a being that never, literally never, does anything right. Is this being perfectly imperfect?


d_focil
Theist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Lets try and see things

Lets try and see things from a deeper prespective.

 What is the fall of man, and what does the story represent?

For many fundamentalists it represents the literal fall of man and the punishment of original sin we endure to this day. Viewing the story in this light yeilds only simplistic arguments that seem illogical and foolish.

But what about another interpretation?

One could see the fall story as an allegory to human beings becoming self aware, and in the process loosing our innocence.

Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge which produces in them knowledge of themselves as being naked, and of being able to make a choice between two extremes; good and evil. This condems them to no longer living in the 'paradise' of ignorance.

Every animal can so some degree or another sense feelings of pain and pleasure, but as of our current knowledge only we can analyse and assess these feeling in ways that make experience much more vivid. We are able to vivdly anticipate, and dwell over our next experience with either pleasure or pain.

As a result of this we have a hightened fear of pain and suffering which preoccupies our existence. This fear translates into our deep need for security, which causes us to harm others in order to feel safe. We steal because we think we need more, we kill because we feel threatened, we cheat because we want to have the upper hand. This is the meaning of sin, and this is what it means for humanity to be "fallen".

It is not a punishment from God, it is simply a result of what we have become.

Now of course one does not need to believe in God to accept the allegorical nature of the fall story, but it is amazing that people back then could understand the fundamental nature of human beings.