Sin before sin?

Two_Sandals
Posts: 8
Joined: 2008-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Sin before sin?

Now the entire concept of christianity is based on the how god needed a blood sacrifice of his son in order to subside his wrath against us for eating the forbidden fruit. By sinning and disobeying him, god caused sin to enter the world, as to say the world was without sin prior to that event. How could adam and eve sin, if sin was not yet in the world? This can't be said to be a metaphor, because as i stated christianity is based on this concept.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed with no evidence." Christopher Hitchens


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:"'Punishment' is

j_day wrote:

"'Punishment' is also meaningless without knowledge of right and wrong."

That's not entirely true. Let's say you go to a country that you've never been to before. Right and Wrong is different in different countries (ie eating cows in India). So you're in a different country and you're walking down the street and you see this amazing statue. So you walk up to it and standing 10 feet away is a guy holding a gun and he says "Don't touch that or I'll shoot you". Would you touch it because you have no clue if it's "wrong" to touch the statue? You have no idea what his motive is for telling you not to touch it. But according to you, the punishment of him shooting you wouldn't deter you. What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.

Even if I don't understand what he's saying, I know what a gun is and what it can do. I can also read his body language.

That leaves me two up on Adam and Eve. They had no understanding of what Yahweh was saying and didn't have a body to look at to read his body language (unless you assume facts not in evidence and put Jesus there)

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


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:shikko

j_day wrote:

shikko wrote:

Having a village full of children who lost their lower legs to land mines have them spontaneously regrow, now THAT might be a miracle.

 Just out of curiosity, let's say that did happen. A village of children lose their legs and then they spontaneously regrow, and you witnessed it. What would your response to that be? Would you believe there's a God or would you still need proof? If you saw something that you knew was God, would you follow Him?

My first reaction would probably be "wow, that was feckin' WEIRD!  COOL, but WEIRD."

I would still need proof.  Many animals have the ability to regenerate lost limbs (heck, cut a starfish in half and BOTH halves will regenerate...you "cloned" a starfish!), so limb regeneration by itself would not be sufficient to deem this a miracle.  I would definitely feel that something out of the ordinary happened, but there are so many possible explanations that hopping right to "a god did this. No, wait! Not a god, but the triune God of the Bible did this!" would be silly.

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote:j_day wrote:

aiia wrote:

j_day wrote:

"'Punishment' is also meaningless without knowledge of right and wrong."
That's not entirely true. Let's say you go to a country that you've never been to before.

 

Adam: Hey Eve, what’s a country?

 

Eve: I don’t know, where’d you hear about this thing called country?

 

Quote:
Right and Wrong is different in different countries (ie eating cows in India). So you're in a different country and you're walking down the street and you see this amazing statue. So you walk up to it and standing 10 feet away is a guy holding a gun and he says "Don't touch that or I'll shoot you". Would you touch it because you have no clue if it's "wrong" to touch the statue? You have no idea what his motive is for telling you not to touch it.

 

Adam: Hey Eve, what’s a gun?

 

Eve: Who the hell knows, and what’s shooting? What’s a statue? This is weird.

 

Quote:
But according to you, the punishment of him shooting you wouldn't deter you.
What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.


Huh?


“What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.”????????

 

That last sentence of yours indicates I am correct in that you do have a language problem.

 

Punishment is a penalty for some offense. Here are 3 words adam and eve would not understand [as you don’t seem to understand either] – punishment, penalty, & offense.
In order to comprehend the concept of these words a person must have a comprehension of right and wrong.

 

So again, if adam and eve knew about right and wrong what is the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

But then again, if adam and eve did not understand the concept of right and wrong why are they being punished by this magic ‘god thing’ that is supposed to know all and see all?
Unless, of course this ‘god thing’ is not omniscient and if this ‘god thing’ is not omniscient, how can it be a ‘god thing’?

 

 

You’ll probably have to read this several times because it seems you have a very difficult time in understanding the problem, so take your time and get it right.


 
 

Your whole argument is based on "they didn't know any better, therefore they can't be held accountable." Let me ask you this, if they were "tricked" as this whole discussion implies, how come neither of them said "I didn't know I couldn't do that." If you didn't know you violated a law, you would say "I didn't know I couldn't do that." Why didn't Adam or Eve say that if they didn't know they were guilty?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:aiia wrote:j_day

j_day wrote:

aiia wrote:

j_day wrote:

"'Punishment' is also meaningless without knowledge of right and wrong."
That's not entirely true. Let's say you go to a country that you've never been to before.

 

Adam: Hey Eve, what’s a country?

 

Eve: I don’t know, where’d you hear about this thing called country?

 

Quote:
Right and Wrong is different in different countries (ie eating cows in India). So you're in a different country and you're walking down the street and you see this amazing statue. So you walk up to it and standing 10 feet away is a guy holding a gun and he says "Don't touch that or I'll shoot you". Would you touch it because you have no clue if it's "wrong" to touch the statue? You have no idea what his motive is for telling you not to touch it.

 

Adam: Hey Eve, what’s a gun?

 

Eve: Who the hell knows, and what’s shooting? What’s a statue? This is weird.

 

Quote:
But according to you, the punishment of him shooting you wouldn't deter you.
What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.


Huh?


“What would is knowing if that's "wrong" to do it.”????????

 

That last sentence of yours indicates I am correct in that you do have a language problem.

 

Punishment is a penalty for some offense. Here are 3 words adam and eve would not understand [as you don’t seem to understand either] – punishment, penalty, & offense.
In order to comprehend the concept of these words a person must have a comprehension of right and wrong.

 

So again, if adam and eve knew about right and wrong what is the purpose of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

But then again, if adam and eve did not understand the concept of right and wrong why are they being punished by this magic ‘god thing’ that is supposed to know all and see all?
Unless, of course this ‘god thing’ is not omniscient and if this ‘god thing’ is not omniscient, how can it be a ‘god thing’?

 

 

You’ll probably have to read this several times because it seems you have a very difficult time in understanding the problem, so take your time and get it right.


 
 

Your whole argument is based on "they didn't know any better, therefore they can't be held accountable." Let me ask you this, if they were "tricked" as this whole discussion implies, how come neither of them said "I didn't know I couldn't do that." If you didn't know you violated a law, you would say "I didn't know I couldn't do that." Why didn't Adam or Eve say that if they didn't know they were guilty?

The whole argument is not based on "they didn't know any better, therefore they can't be held accountable." It's based on "They didn't know what Yahweh was talking about when he said 'you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.' because they had never been told not to do anything before and had no concept of what death was."

If Yahweh didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, why plant the serpent there? If you accept the serpent as Satan, you have to also accept that Satan can only do God's bidding - Job shows that much.

Of course, all that aside - the main reason that Adam and Eve didn't say, "I didn't know I couldn't do that." is because the writer of the story didn't want them to. Characters can only say what the author writes for them.

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


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The whole

jcgadfly wrote:
The whole argument is not based on "they didn't know any better, therefore they can't be held accountable." It's based on "They didn't know what Yahweh was talking about when he said 'you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.' because they had never been told not to do anything before and had no concept of what death was."

If Yahweh didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, why plant the serpent there? If you accept the serpent as Satan, you have to also accept that Satan can only do God's bidding - Job shows that much.

Of course, all that aside - the main reason that Adam and Eve didn't say, "I didn't know I couldn't do that." is because the writer of the story didn't want them to. Characters can only say what the author writes for them.

If they didn't know what God was talking about, why didn't they eat the fruit earlier? She had to be convinced to eat it because she had no reservations about doing it? That doesn't make sense. Eve repeats what God told her to the devil. She said "we're allowed to eat from any tree, just not the one in the middle." Who said they had no concept of what death was? Death had not been experienced, doesn't mean they weren't told what death meant.

Why was the tree there? Simple. Free will. You can't choose to follow God if you can't choose to not follow God.

"Of course, all that aside - the main reason that Adam and Eve didn't say, "I didn't know I couldn't do that." is because the writer of the story didn't want them to. Characters can only say what the author writes for them." You can't jump back in forth between debating as if it's real to "well it's just fiction anyway". That's a cop-out answer. If you're going to try and explain why it can't be real, you have to make points with the assumption that it's real.


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Does it really make any

Does it really make any difference whether Adam and Eve knew that what they were doing was right or wrong?

 

the points remain that God is responsible for all that mess to begin with because:

He created the tree (or let it exist)

He created the devil (or allowed him to come to existence)

He put the tree within reach of Adam and Eve

He KNEW they were going to eat out of the tree if he did all the above things and yet he still did it.

 

"Hey! God wasn't going to mess with free will and he was just trying to teach them a lesson and let them make their own mistakes."

 

Oh yea? Let's put this into perspective:

1) You have a pot of boiling water on the stove.

2) You tell your kid not to touch it.

3) You attach a colorful string to the pot.

4) You have someone go tell your little son or daughter that it'll be really cool to pull on the cord.

5) Your kid pulls the cord and the boiling water comes down on him and burns him terribly.

 

Hey! it's free will! Why interfere with it? It's the kid's fault. He should've made the right decision, right?

 

 "But a child doesn't know any better and he'll believe almost anything anyone says."

 

Well, in the relationship between God and humans, we're his children. We even call him out Heavenly Father. Why did this father not protect his children better, like he KNEW he should've? What kind of parent lets his children make terrible ever-lasting mistakes? A sadistic, evil one or better yet, an imaginary one.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:Does it

sandwiches wrote:

Does it really make any difference whether Adam and Eve knew that what they were doing was right or wrong?

 

the points remain that God is responsible for all that mess to begin with because:

He created the tree (or let it exist)

He created the devil (or allowed him to come to existence)

He put the tree within reach of Adam and Eve

He KNEW they were going to eat out of the tree if he did all the above things and yet he still did it.

 

"Hey! God wasn't going to mess with free will and he was just trying to teach them a lesson and let them make their own mistakes."

 

Oh yea? Let's put this into perspective:

1) You have a pot of boiling water on the stove.

2) You tell your kid not to touch it.

3) You attach a colorful string to the pot.

4) You have someone go tell your little son or daughter that it'll be really cool to pull on the cord.

5) Your kid pulls the cord and the boiling water comes down on him and burns him terribly.

 

Hey! it's free will! Why interfere with it? It's the kid's fault. He should've made the right decision, right?

 

 "But a child doesn't know any better and he'll believe almost anything anyone says."

 

Well, in the relationship between God and humans, we're his children. We even call him out Heavenly Father. Why did this father not protect his children better, like he KNEW he should've? What kind of parent lets his children make terrible ever-lasting mistakes? A sadistic, evil one or better yet, an imaginary one.

So I'm guessing you still live with your parents? And I bet they make all your decisions for you too? If you don't, then your parents are not doing a good job of protecting you.

You reach a certain point of being responsible for your actions. When you're 18 are you still a child? Yes. No matter how old you get, you will always be the child of your parents.

Here's a scenario:

You are a parent. Your child is 18 years old and they choose not to go to college or get a job. Assuming you are a loving parent, you would want your child to make the right choices. But when they're adults, they have the free will to make whatever choices they want to. And if the child never seeks advice from you, then there's nothing you could do.

It's the same way with God. Even if you are His child, you are grown up. You have to take responsibility for your actions and accept any consequences that come with that. Then you're going to say that He's not doing His job correctly. If you don't seek His advice, then He can't help you. When you screw up, instead of blaming Him for allowing it to happen, ask Him to help you fix it.

 

Why are feelings of neglect, bitterness, anger etc. felt towards God for the Fall of Man when Adam and Eve didn't have those feelings towards God? They accepted responsibility for what they did and now people are claiming that the situation was unfair? If the people involved aren't outraged, why are you?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic....

You said that you used to be a Christian. What specifically made you think or realize that the Bible was full of fairy-tales or lies?

My questioning began in the 7th grade when I asked of my teacher in regards to the Exodus, "Where's the trash form the 600,000 plus men and their families from 40 years of wandering the desert?" I was called a smart aleck and made to stand for 2 hours in front of the class. I never got an answer in school. The decline of Christianity in my brain began in college with Western Civilization 101. This was in a public university not my 1st exposure to public education as I went 2 1/2 years in public high school. I was very surprised to learn of the wonderful deeds of Julius II, Boniface VIII, Alexander VI, Urban II, Innocent III, and Benedict IX to name a few. This started me to question the dogma of the Catholic Church. As I already knew the Bible inside out thanks to 10 years of parochial school I started studying religion with more of an open mind. Even after this I went to a Jesuit University for my graduate degree. By the time I was 32 I was convinced it wasn't true any more. My position for years has been what I was taught of religion and God is not true. What is the truth? Not which I was taught. After several years of extensive research I came to the conclusion that all 3 God of Abe religions are based on erroneous misinterpretation and mythology. Thanks to Constantine Christianity survived.

Also I do not make the claim the Bible is full of lies, I see it as legends, myths, and misinterpretations. There may actually have been ancient people who believed Elijah left the Earth in a flying chariot. There were those who thought Apollo was warming them ever day of their life as well. The Bible Rook claims is a book of fiction and the Jews of ancient times knew it was. I haven't decided if I agree with his position as I lean more towards mythical origins that were documented over the years. The myths may have had an original basis but were so distorted over the years it lost its original story line. There may actually have been a flood in Mesopotamia from a large hurricane or typhoon at one time that wiped out everyone near the Persian Gulf for example. 

As to this thread and the Adam & Eve story, it is but one of many legends that have survived of man losing eternal life. Most of the atheist posters have made very clear the problems with it. It assumes too many things that just can't be. My view is the story is a myth.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Not puting the tree there

Not puting the tree there wouldn't affect free will. The fact we can't fly has nothing to do with free will. Youa gree the US is a free country right? But we don't leave nuclear bombs sit around all over the place and just tell everyone "now don't touch those!" and purposely bring terrorist recruiters into the country to try to convince people to set them off in cities do we? Because that would be stupid. If you don't want anyone to touch your brand new car you lock it in a garage or in a relatively secure parking lot - you certainly don't leave it in the middle of the hood with a "don't touch" sign on while hiring people to try to convince anyone who walks by to steal it? As to the 18 year old kid you actually give reasons by then as to why college is a good idea, not simply command they go and then bring in all sorts of bosses from bad jobs to convince him to not go.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Not puting

MattShizzle wrote:

Not puting the tree there wouldn't affect free will. The fact we can't fly has nothing to do with free will. Youa gree the US is a free country right? But we don't leave nuclear bombs sit around all over the place and just tell everyone "now don't touch those!" and purposely bring terrorist recruiters into the country to try to convince people to set them off in cities do we? Because that would be stupid. If you don't want anyone to touch your brand new car you lock it in a garage or in a relatively secure parking lot - you certainly don't leave it in the middle of the hood with a "don't touch" sign on while hiring people to try to convince anyone who walks by to steal it? As to the 18 year old kid you actually give reasons by then as to why college is a good idea, not simply command they go and then bring in all sorts of bosses from bad jobs to convince him to not go.

If God didn't give them an option to not follow Him, then their only option would have been to follow Him. One option, no free will.

He gave them a reason not to eat the fruit. They would die. He didn't just say "I wouldn't do that if I were you." He specifically said "If you eat that, you will die."


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic....

You said that you used to be a Christian. What specifically made you think or realize that the Bible was full of fairy-tales or lies?

My questioning began in the 7th grade when I asked of my teacher in regards to the Exodus, "Where's the trash form the 600,000 plus men and their families from 40 years of wandering the desert?" I was called a smart aleck and made to stand for 2 hours in front of the class. I never got an answer in school. The decline of Christianity in my brain began in college with Western Civilization 101. This was in a public university not my 1st exposure to public education as I went 2 1/2 years in public high school. I was very surprised to learn of the wonderful deeds of Julius II, Boniface VIII, Alexander VI, Urban II, Innocent III, and Benedict IX to name a few. This started me to question the dogma of the Catholic Church. As I already knew the Bible inside out thanks to 10 years of parochial school I started studying religion with more of an open mind. Even after this I went to a Jesuit University for my graduate degree. By the time I was 32 I was convinced it wasn't true any more. My position for years has been what I was taught of religion and God is not true. What is the truth? Not which I was taught. After several years of extensive research I came to the conclusion that all 3 God of Abe religions are based on erroneous misinterpretation and mythology. Thanks to Constantine Christianity survived.

Also I do not make the claim the Bible is full of lies, I see it as legends, myths, and misinterpretations. There may actually have been ancient people who believed Elijah left the Earth in a flying chariot. There were those who thought Apollo was warming them ever day of their life as well. The Bible Rook claims is a book of fiction and the Jews of ancient times knew it was. I haven't decided if I agree with his position as I lean more towards mythical origins that were documented over the years. The myths may have had an original basis but were so distorted over the years it lost its original story line. There may actually have been a flood in Mesopotamia from a large hurricane or typhoon at one time that wiped out everyone near the Persian Gulf for example. 

As to this thread and the Adam & Eve story, it is but one of many legends that have survived of man losing eternal life. Most of the atheist posters have made very clear the problems with it. It assumes too many things that just can't be. My view is the story is a myth.

Was there ever a point where you actually believed the Bible or was it just something you were taught? Also, when you started to realize there was a problem, what came first? The problem with the church, questions that couldn't be answered or hearing similar stories from other cultures that were similar to Biblical stories that made you think the Bible could have just been fictional stories as well (I think that's part of what you meant. Not sure, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:MattShizzle

j_day wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Not puting the tree there wouldn't affect free will. The fact we can't fly has nothing to do with free will. Youa gree the US is a free country right? But we don't leave nuclear bombs sit around all over the place and just tell everyone "now don't touch those!" and purposely bring terrorist recruiters into the country to try to convince people to set them off in cities do we? Because that would be stupid. If you don't want anyone to touch your brand new car you lock it in a garage or in a relatively secure parking lot - you certainly don't leave it in the middle of the hood with a "don't touch" sign on while hiring people to try to convince anyone who walks by to steal it? As to the 18 year old kid you actually give reasons by then as to why college is a good idea, not simply command they go and then bring in all sorts of bosses from bad jobs to convince him to not go.

If God didn't give them an option to not follow Him, then their only option would have been to follow Him. One option, no free will.

He gave them a reason not to eat the fruit. They would die. He didn't just say "I wouldn't do that if I were you." He specifically said "If you eat that, you will die."

 

I call bullshit. We can't fly so we don't have free will - we only have the option not to fly - free will we could choose. Obedience in and of itself is not a good thing - blind obedience is something only a despot would expect. He was lying by the way - they didn't die (at least not for several centuries.) If they weren't going to die anyway why was the reason for chasing them that they might eat from the other magical tree and live forever? Puting it there just to test them is the sort of thing an abusive parent would do. I'm not at all impressed with the God characters morality there. As Richard Dawkins said:

 

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:So I'm guessing

j_day wrote:

So I'm guessing you still live with your parents? And I bet they make all your decisions for you too? If you don't, then your parents are not doing a good job of protecting you.

You reach a certain point of being responsible for your actions. When you're 18 are you still a child? Yes. No matter how old you get, you will always be the child of your parents.

Here's a scenario:

You are a parent. Your child is 18 years old and they choose not to go to college or get a job. Assuming you are a loving parent, you would want your child to make the right choices. But when they're adults, they have the free will to make whatever choices they want to. And if the child never seeks advice from you, then there's nothing you could do.

It's the same way with God. Even if you are His child, you are grown up. You have to take responsibility for your actions and accept any consequences that come with that. Then you're going to say that He's not doing His job correctly. If you don't seek His advice, then He can't help you. When you screw up, instead of blaming Him for allowing it to happen, ask Him to help you fix it.

 Why are feelings of neglect, bitterness, anger etc. felt towards God for the Fall of Man when Adam and Eve didn't have those feelings towards God? They accepted responsibility for what they did and now people are claiming that the situation was unfair? If the people involved aren't outraged, why are you?

Well, when a person turns 18, they have the same powers, rights, and responsibilities of their parents. Are you saying that Adam and Eve are adults and they had the same powers, rights, and responsibilities of God and by following that same train of thought, we are all adults or equals to God? Does God not have wisdom, knowledge, and understanding infinitely greater than that of humans? Then why doesn't he use that knowledge to steer us from danger?

 

None of what you've said changes the fact that God set it all up despite the fact that he knew it would happen. It wasn't like he said "Hmmm... let's see what they do in this situation." It was more like "I know that they'll eat the fruit but I'm going to put it there and punish them, anyway."  That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? What a great father.

 

Now, if my son turns is 18 or 30 or 60 or 100, I still won't put him in a situation that I know will end up badly. Again, what kind of parent would put their son or daughter through a situation that would be detrimental to them and then punish them for it anyway? A sadistic and evil one or, better yet, an imaginary one.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:jcgadfly

j_day wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
The whole argument is not based on "they didn't know any better, therefore they can't be held accountable." It's based on "They didn't know what Yahweh was talking about when he said 'you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.' because they had never been told not to do anything before and had no concept of what death was."

If Yahweh didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the tree, why plant the serpent there? If you accept the serpent as Satan, you have to also accept that Satan can only do God's bidding - Job shows that much.

Of course, all that aside - the main reason that Adam and Eve didn't say, "I didn't know I couldn't do that." is because the writer of the story didn't want them to. Characters can only say what the author writes for them.

If they didn't know what God was talking about, why didn't they eat the fruit earlier? She had to be convinced to eat it because she had no reservations about doing it? That doesn't make sense. Eve repeats what God told her to the devil. She said "we're allowed to eat from any tree, just not the one in the middle." Who said they had no concept of what death was? Death had not been experienced, doesn't mean they weren't told what death meant.

Why was the tree there? Simple. Free will. You can't choose to follow God if you can't choose to not follow God.

"Of course, all that aside - the main reason that Adam and Eve didn't say, "I didn't know I couldn't do that." is because the writer of the story didn't want them to. Characters can only say what the author writes for them." You can't jump back in forth between debating as if it's real to "well it's just fiction anyway". That's a cop-out answer. If you're going to try and explain why it can't be real, you have to make points with the assumption that it's real.

If this were a court of law, I'd be standing up yelling "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence" and I'd be sustained. You're making some wild leaps here.

1. Why would god tell them about death if he wasn't planning on them experiencing it? Death came after the fall, right? Why discuss something they'd never have to go through (unless their going through it was part of the plan)?

2. Why would god tell them about the tree at all (unless of course he wanted them to go talk to the serpent he told to be there)?

3. You're still dodging the question of how an all-knowing god can allow for free will (actions he doesn't know about).

4. Eve actually doesn't repeat the command - she embellishes it by adding a "no touch" rule. It was such an important command she couldn't remember it properly?

Actually, I and others have been beating you senseless on your assumption that the story is real. Not my fault if you can't get it.

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


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Kissing sandwiches , 

  Kissing sandwiches ,    the atheist christ jesus within resurrected saving ME .....     father son spirit, Three of ONE !   Primitive science, but ya gotta love our science [email protected]#$%^&*()_+ > ___ ............    Words and numbers are freaky ! 

     Science of Mind

     Religious Science      ?????????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Science

 ....  whatever, get over it said a smiling Buddha , well I sure the hell AM .....  Knock the shit off already ..... what to do with you all       

   good luck .......  you are GAWED ! sheezzzz, get over it ...... I love that Buddha ! ..... thanks so much old buddy  

   


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:j_day

MattShizzle wrote:

j_day wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Not puting the tree there wouldn't affect free will. The fact we can't fly has nothing to do with free will. Youa gree the US is a free country right? But we don't leave nuclear bombs sit around all over the place and just tell everyone "now don't touch those!" and purposely bring terrorist recruiters into the country to try to convince people to set them off in cities do we? Because that would be stupid. If you don't want anyone to touch your brand new car you lock it in a garage or in a relatively secure parking lot - you certainly don't leave it in the middle of the hood with a "don't touch" sign on while hiring people to try to convince anyone who walks by to steal it? As to the 18 year old kid you actually give reasons by then as to why college is a good idea, not simply command they go and then bring in all sorts of bosses from bad jobs to convince him to not go.

If God didn't give them an option to not follow Him, then their only option would have been to follow Him. One option, no free will.

He gave them a reason not to eat the fruit. They would die. He didn't just say "I wouldn't do that if I were you." He specifically said "If you eat that, you will die."

 

I call bullshit. We can't fly so we don't have free will - we only have the option not to fly - free will we could choose. Obedience in and of itself is not a good thing - blind obedience is something only a despot would expect. He was lying by the way - they didn't die (at least not for several centuries.) If they weren't going to die anyway why was the reason for chasing them that they might eat from the other magical tree and live forever? Puting it there just to test them is the sort of thing an abusive parent would do. I'm not at all impressed with the God characters morality there. As Richard Dawkins said:

 

 

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I guess I need to define free will. Free will is a free choice. It's a voluntary decision. Let's say you have three options of dessert: pie, cake, brownies. Someone says pick anyone. Free will is having the freedom to choose. Free will is NOT adding another choice and picking that.

 

"He was lying by the way - they didn't die (at least not for several centuries.)"

Sin doesn't bring about physical death. It brings about spiritual death. That's why Jesus speaks of "rebirth". He was referencing a spiritual one, not a physical one.

 

"Puting it there just to test them is the sort of thing an abusive parent would do."

He didn't put it there so they would choose it. He put it there because they had to have a choice. God wants you to follow Him. If they had no choice, they couldn't choose Him. Which would you rather have: an arranged marriage where you're forced together, or a traditional one where the woman CHOOSES you? How would you know if your wife loved you if you were her only option to marry?

 

As far as Richard Dawkins' opinion goes, I'm not even going to address what he says because his opinions are based on a lack of Biblical understanding. Now before anyone says "he's read the Bible". That doesn't mean anything. You can read something and not understand it. The one thing I would like to address is the "wrathful, angry" God that everyone associates with the Old Testament, but make it modern because I think people have detached any meaning from the word evil.

If you were alive during the Holocaust, would you have thought it was wrong to go in and destroy the Nazis? Or should we just allow a massacre of people to happen?

If Mexico was throwing infants in fires, and I'm not talking about a few isolated cases, on a countrywide basis, would you think that stopping it is "wrathful"?


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:j_day

sandwiches wrote:

j_day wrote:

So I'm guessing you still live with your parents? And I bet they make all your decisions for you too? If you don't, then your parents are not doing a good job of protecting you.

You reach a certain point of being responsible for your actions. When you're 18 are you still a child? Yes. No matter how old you get, you will always be the child of your parents.

Here's a scenario:

You are a parent. Your child is 18 years old and they choose not to go to college or get a job. Assuming you are a loving parent, you would want your child to make the right choices. But when they're adults, they have the free will to make whatever choices they want to. And if the child never seeks advice from you, then there's nothing you could do.

It's the same way with God. Even if you are His child, you are grown up. You have to take responsibility for your actions and accept any consequences that come with that. Then you're going to say that He's not doing His job correctly. If you don't seek His advice, then He can't help you. When you screw up, instead of blaming Him for allowing it to happen, ask Him to help you fix it.

 Why are feelings of neglect, bitterness, anger etc. felt towards God for the Fall of Man when Adam and Eve didn't have those feelings towards God? They accepted responsibility for what they did and now people are claiming that the situation was unfair? If the people involved aren't outraged, why are you?

Well, when a person turns 18, they have the same powers, rights, and responsibilities of their parents. Are you saying that Adam and Eve are adults and they had the same powers, rights, and responsibilities of God and by following that same train of thought, we are all adults or equals to God? Does God not have wisdom, knowledge, and understanding infinitely greater than that of humans? Then why doesn't he use that knowledge to steer us from danger?

 

None of what you've said changes the fact that God set it all up despite the fact that he knew it would happen. It wasn't like he said "Hmmm... let's see what they do in this situation." It was more like "I know that they'll eat the fruit but I'm going to put it there and punish them, anyway."  That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? What a great father.

 

Now, if my son turns is 18 or 30 or 60 or 100, I still won't put him in a situation that I know will end up badly. Again, what kind of parent would put their son or daughter through a situation that would be detrimental to them and then punish them for it anyway? A sadistic and evil one or, better yet, an imaginary one.

Legal rights and knowledge are not the same thing. Your comparing apples and oranges. Gaining legal rights doesn't mean when you turn 18, suddenly you know everything your parents know. And do you think you're equal to your parents, not legally? You think of them as any other person. You're on the same playing field as them. He does have the knowledge to steer you away from danger? If you don't ask Him, that's your fault, not His.

 

As far as your second paragraph, read any of my other posts where I address that issue over and over. Free will, had to have a choice. Didn't force them to choose. Didn't want them to choose. He wanted them to obey. But they can't obey without the option to disobey.

 


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:If this were

jcgadfly wrote:
If this were a court of law, I'd be standing up yelling "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence" and I'd be sustained. You're making some wild leaps here. 1. Why would god tell them about death if he wasn't planning on them experiencing it? Death came after the fall, right? Why discuss something they'd never have to go through (unless their going through it was part of the plan)?

They didn't experience a physical death. They experienced a spiritual death.

jcgadfly wrote:
2. Why would god tell them about the tree at all (unless of course he wanted them to go talk to the serpent he told to be there)?

Free will.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. You're still dodging the question of how an all-knowing god can allow for free will (actions he doesn't know about).

Free will and foresight are not opposites. Knowing someone's going to make a choice, doesn't mean they didn't make a choice.

jcgadfly wrote:
4. Eve actually doesn't repeat the command - she embellishes it by adding a "no touch" rule. It was such an important command she couldn't remember it properly? Actually, I and others have been beating you senseless on your assumption that the story is real. Not my fault if you can't get it.

Adding something is highly less significant than missing something. Memorization skills don't affect understanding.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
The bigger question to me is

The bigger question to me is still, if God is so perfect, and he created man in his image, why were Adam and Eve so screwed up as to even be capable of sin in the first place?

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Theia  makes me horny 

Theia 

makes me horny 

        

 


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Theia wrote:The bigger

Theia wrote:

The bigger question to me is still, if God is so perfect, and he created man in his image, why were Adam and Eve so screwed up as to even be capable of sin in the first place?

 

Yea... this so-called 'god' is more flawed than most humans.

 

He creates and allows evil to exist. (He's evil)

He creates flawed humans. (He's flawed)

He creates a temptation. (He's a sadist)

He allows the humans to fall for the temptation thanks to the evil he himself created and to top it all off: (He's a deceiver)

He punishes them for it (He's unfair)


Honestly, what kind of god is this?

 

I dare say that if this really is god, he has a lot to learn from humans.

 

If I were theist, this would definitely not be my god. I don't need a petty, megalomaniac, sad-excuse for a human trying to pass himself as a higher being.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:j_day

MattShizzle wrote:

j_day wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

Not puting the tree there wouldn't affect free will. The fact we can't fly has nothing to do with free will. Youa gree the US is a free country right? But we don't leave nuclear bombs sit around all over the place and just tell everyone "now don't touch those!" and purposely bring terrorist recruiters into the country to try to convince people to set them off in cities do we? Because that would be stupid. If you don't want anyone to touch your brand new car you lock it in a garage or in a relatively secure parking lot - you certainly don't leave it in the middle of the hood with a "don't touch" sign on while hiring people to try to convince anyone who walks by to steal it? As to the 18 year old kid you actually give reasons by then as to why college is a good idea, not simply command they go and then bring in all sorts of bosses from bad jobs to convince him to not go.

If God didn't give them an option to not follow Him, then their only option would have been to follow Him. One option, no free will.

He gave them a reason not to eat the fruit. They would die. He didn't just say "I wouldn't do that if I were you." He specifically said "If you eat that, you will die."

 

I call bullshit. We can't fly so we don't have free will - we only have the option not to fly - free will we could choose. Obedience in and of itself is not a good thing - blind obedience is something only a despot would expect. He was lying by the way - they didn't die (at least not for several centuries.) If they weren't going to die anyway why was the reason for chasing them that they might eat from the other magical tree and live forever? Puting it there just to test them is the sort of thing an abusive parent would do. I'm not at all impressed with the God characters morality there. As Richard Dawkins said:

 

 

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

I guess I need to define free will. Free will is the ability to choose; a voluntary decision. Free will is NOT adding a choice and choosing that.

Ex: Choosing between cake, pie, brownies is exercising free will. Adding ice cream is NOT free will.

 

The punishment wasn't physical death, it was spiritual death. Hence the reason Jesus says "rebirth". Rebirth of the spirit, not the flesh.

 

Had to give them free will. You can't choose anything if you only have one option. In order for God to allow them to choose Him, He had to give them the option not to choose Him.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: If this

jcgadfly wrote:
If this were a court of law, I'd be standing up yelling "Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence" and I'd be sustained. You're making some wild leaps here. 1. Why would god tell them about death if he wasn't planning on them experiencing it? Death came after the fall, right? Why discuss something they'd never have to go through (unless their going through it was part of the plan)? 2. Why would god tell them about the tree at all (unless of course he wanted them to go talk to the serpent he told to be there)? 3. You're still dodging the question of how an all-knowing god can allow for free will (actions he doesn't know about). 4. Eve actually doesn't repeat the command - she embellishes it by adding a "no touch" rule. It was such an important command she couldn't remember it properly? Actually, I and others have been beating you senseless on your assumption that the story is real. Not my fault if you can't get it.

1. The punishment was not physical death, it was spiritual death.

2. Had to give them free will.

3. Free will and foreknowledge are not opposites. Knowing someone's going to choose something isn't eliminating them making the choosing.

4. Adding something is highly less significant than missing something. She still understood the command. The point was understanding the command, not memorizing the command.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:Theia

sandwiches wrote:

Theia wrote:

The bigger question to me is still, if God is so perfect, and he created man in his image, why were Adam and Eve so screwed up as to even be capable of sin in the first place?

 

Yea... this so-called 'god' is more flawed than most humans.

 

He creates and allows evil to exist. (He's evil)

He creates flawed humans. (He's flawed)

He creates a temptation. (He's a sadist)

He allows the humans to fall for the temptation thanks to the evil he himself created and to top it all off: (He's a deceiver)

He punishes them for it (He's unfair)

 

Honestly, what kind of god is this?

 

I dare say that if this really is god, he has a lot to learn from humans.

 

If I were theist, this would definitely not be my god. I don't need a petty, megalomaniac, sad-excuse for a human trying to pass himself as a higher being.

Or maybe it's the flawed humans who can't understand God. Instead of Him not making sense, maybe your understanding of Him is wrong.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Or maybe it's

j_day wrote:

Or maybe it's the flawed humans who can't understand God. Instead of Him not making sense, maybe your understanding of Him is wrong.

That argument still doesn't work because a perfect god cannot create a flawed person.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:I guess I need

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to define free will. Free will is the ability to choose; a voluntary decision. Free will is NOT adding a choice and choosing that.

Ex: Choosing between cake, pie, brownies is exercising free will. Adding ice cream is NOT free will.

God still didn't need to have evil or sin available as a choice in order to give free will. On Saturday I can choose to stay home and watch TV all day or go help build a house for Habitat for Humanity. You can argue that one choice is better than the other but nowhere here is there the need for an evil option, say, the option of killing my neighbor. That last choice doesn't even occur to me when deciding what to do on Saturday (fortunately for my neighbor). Most of us make decisions all day every day with out even considering evil or sinful options. If they're not even considered than they don't even need to be options at all and it would make no difference. So there is no reason to require evil options in order ot give us free will.

 

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:sandwiches

j_day wrote:

sandwiches wrote:

Theia wrote:

The bigger question to me is still, if God is so perfect, and he created man in his image, why were Adam and Eve so screwed up as to even be capable of sin in the first place?

 

Yea... this so-called 'god' is more flawed than most humans.

 

He creates and allows evil to exist. (He's evil)

He creates flawed humans. (He's flawed)

He creates a temptation. (He's a sadist)

He allows the humans to fall for the temptation thanks to the evil he himself created and to top it all off: (He's a deceiver)

He punishes them for it (He's unfair)

 

Honestly, what kind of god is this?

 

I dare say that if this really is god, he has a lot to learn from humans.

 

If I were theist, this would definitely not be my god. I don't need a petty, megalomaniac, sad-excuse for a human trying to pass himself as a higher being.

Or maybe it's the flawed humans who can't understand God. Instead of Him not making sense, maybe your understanding of Him is wrong.

Did he not create the devil or, at least, allow the devil to exist?

Did he not allow the devil to deceive Eve?

Did he not create the tree?

Did he not create us flawed?

Did he not know that Adam and Eve would fall for the temptation?


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Theia wrote:j_day wrote:I

Theia wrote:

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to define free will. Free will is the ability to choose; a voluntary decision. Free will is NOT adding a choice and choosing that.

Ex: Choosing between cake, pie, brownies is exercising free will. Adding ice cream is NOT free will.

God still didn't need to have evil or sin available as a choice in order to give free will. On Saturday I can choose to stay home and watch TV all day or go help build a house for Habitat for Humanity. You can argue that one choice is better than the other but nowhere here is there the need for an evil option, say, the option of killing my neighbor. That last choice doesn't even occur to me when deciding what to do on Saturday (fortunately for my neighbor). Most of us make decisions all day every day with out even considering evil or sinful options. If they're not even considered than they don't even need to be options at all and it would make no difference. So there is no reason to require evil options in order ot give us free will.

 

Precisely.

There can be free will without evil; without the devil. So, God creator of all things, decided that in order to have free will, you have to have evil and suffering in there. Sounds more like a human excuse for evil than true divine providence.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
To the unverified

To the unverified theist,

Your argument has been shown to fail with an omnimax god who can't allow free will and a non-omnimax god who does.

Do you plan to keep flaling or will you consider that your argument is flawed?

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Was there ever a

j_day wrote:

Was there ever a point where you actually believed the Bible or was it just something you were taught?

Yes. I once believed it all.

j_day wrote:

Also, when you started to realize there was a problem, what came first? The problem with the church, questions that couldn't be answered or hearing similar stories from other cultures that were similar to Biblical stories that made you think the Bible could have just been fictional stories as well (I think that's part of what you meant. Not sure, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

Combination of unrealistic stories not matching reality and discovery of church dogma being self-serving.

If you'd like this belongs in another thread not this one start one on the subject or simply PM to discuss offline.

As to the issues of original sin I see the Genesis story as unrealistic and mythical. I won't even give you the satisfaction of the tree of knowledge as part of reality. It is a pointless argument over a mythical explanation of loss of "physical" not spiritual life. I see in your other posts how you jump to Jesus to include the spiritual aspects. Jesus did not exist in Genesis chapters 1-3. Start only with the knowledge you have in Genesis and do not jump forward to future unwritten at the time books in the Bible. Analyze using your knowledge of science, the universe, and physical reality starting from the beginning.

Make 2 columns on a piece of paper. On the left side label it unrealistic in observed reality. On the right side label it as possible in observed reality. If you do this, talking snakes go in the category of unrealistic origin. Unless you have actually witnessed a snake talking.  As the Garden has not been found with an angel standing guard it joins the snake. After you do this go back through the chapters and consider why some information is in the story. For example what possible use is all of the gold, bdellium and onyx to naked people who have all of their needs met by a super being? What inspired the man to come up with the name anteater if animals didn't consume one another? (I know anteater isn't in the verses, but it claims the man named all of them so all is fair game here.) Questions about why animals needed to multiply are also relevant. If death did not occur what was that about? As to what image was used to create man, was it in his image or in their image. It is also said of man they were to multiply and replenish the Earth. So does that mean the Earth had been depleted earlier? By who or what and when? As to how man and woman were to do so without the pain of reproduction is another question. Plants created or the 3rd day and the Sun on the 4th day is problematic. This calls for some smoke and mirrors to support, but a skeptic doesn't use them, so these verses are to be considered mythical as a result. Apparently God killed some animals to clothe Adam & Eve or he zapped them into reality. Ask why rivers were running when there was apparently no rain falling on the Earth as well. If all was watered by the mist, what of the river used to water it in Genesis 2:10.

Upon due consideration unless you go to the standard line, God can do anything and only God knows,  the story suggests it is a myth used to explain reality to ancient people having little science and knowledge. I don't do magic or mysticism in my reality, you can if you'd like.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Theia wrote:j_day wrote:Or

Theia wrote:

j_day wrote:

Or maybe it's the flawed humans who can't understand God. Instead of Him not making sense, maybe your understanding of Him is wrong.

That argument still doesn't work because a perfect god cannot create a flawed person.

<devil's advocate>

Sure it could; omnipotence applies to capacity, not intent.

</devil's advocate>

Then again, that argument implies that this god meant the person to be flawed from the beginning...

--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote: I guess I need

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to define free will.
 

Holy shit “free will” the most retarded concept ever write after god is made up of crack and candy known under the concept of  “LOVE”.
j_day wrote:

Ex: Choosing between cake, pie, brownies is exercising free will. Adding ice cream is NOT free will.
Had to give them free will. You can't choose anything if you only have one option. In order for God to allow them to choose Him, He had to give them the option not to choose Him.

On the non existence of free will :
You have a peanut allergy and you will die if you eat penults ,  now I give you a choice you can have a peanut cake or cold potatoes what are you going to chose ? Potatoes holy shit and you call this free will awesome just like a psychopath putting a gun to my head and giving me the choice to give him a blow job or he blows my head away of curse its pure free will keep the bull shit flowing.
j_day wrote:

 Free will is the ability to choose; a voluntary decision. Free will is NOT adding a choice and choosing that.

j_day wrote:

Free will and foresight are not opposites. Knowing someone's going to make a choice, doesn't mean they didn't make a choice.

Foresight doesn’t eliminate free will ???? DUUDE you my man  you just defined “free will “ for nothing more then a synonymy of reaction or calculation lets rescale this concept. Glasses have FREE WILL they can chose to obey gravity and fall down or stay suspended violating gravity the fact that I can model in my human brain a  simulation of this physical phenomena and know in advanced what will happen , this  descent eliminate FREE WIL despite me knowing 100% what will happen my foresight doesn’t eliminate free will in your book.
I love you man you’re the best you defined free will in the meaner meaning absolutely nothing then a deterministic reaction applying this process we can surly see that every thing hose this “ free will “ starting from rocks and ending on mathematical formulas 2 + 2 hose free will to decide its out come however surprisingly I know all wais in advance the answer however this doesn’t stop it from hypothetically equaling 5 however this will never happen.

This Is starting to be funny o and define free will I for a fact am a hard core determinist and please give me a definition of free will being something else then a buzz word for :

A) pure determinism
B) pure randomness

Free will is a magical concept like a square with no corners you can say it however it doesn’t  exist or hold shit and remember to rescale your ideas before posting them.
 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
j_dayWhy did god threaten

j_day

Why did god threaten them with death if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil when they haven't eaten from the tree of life? The tree of life would have made them immortal.*

In other words they were going to die anyway, so death wasn't much of a threat even if they knew what it meant. What did the god character in the story mean when he said "Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."? Adam lived 930 years according to the story.

 

 


*Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

 

This might be difficult for you to accept after years of being told about 'original sin'.
You either must acknowledge the genesis story is nonsensical bullshit or you must pretend to be stupid. Or maybe you are.


 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:<devil's

shikko wrote:

<devil's advocate>

Sure it could; omnipotence applies to capacity, not intent.

</devil's advocate>

Then again, that argument implies that this god meant the person to be flawed from the beginning...

Then that goes back to the argument that God created evil then by intending to create a being capable of doing evil and knowing they would. Or, if God is perfect and can only create perfect beings then our commiting of evil is part of the perfect plan and we, therefore, are doing nothing wrong. We're only doing exactly what God intended and it could be no other way. Either way, God ends up ultimately being responsible for the existence of evil, not us.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I guess I need to explain

I guess I need to explain this all at once since the exact same questions come up over and over. Someone asks "why did God put the tree there?". I answer "there had to be free will." And the next post is "why did God put the tree there?" So I'll start at the beginning...

1. God created the earth.

2. God created man.

3. God's intention was to be in fellowship with man. Not only is this stated repeatedly throughout the rest of the Bible, but it's also acted out in Genesis. God walked with them in the garden. He fellowshipped with them.

4. In order for true fellowship to exist, God gave man free will. Free will is a voluntary decision. (Note: Free will is not a wish. It's not making something come true. Anytime you have more than one option, you have free will. Even if someone says "Do you want to get shot or stabbed?", you are still making a choice. Choosing between two crappy choices doesn't mean it's a non-choice.) If man couldn't choose to not follow God, he couldn't choose to follow Him.

5. The free will was exhibited in the form of a tree that they were forbidden to eat from. While God told them not to do it and what the punishment would be, they still had a choice.

6. Punishment came in the form of death. Not physical death, spiritual death. They were no longer in fellowship with God. Man was never going to be physically immortal.

 

As far as "evil" goes, evil is simply going against God. Choosing not to follow Him. Every action you define as evil goes against what God says to do. He didn't create evil. He allowed people to not follow what He says. You're a parent and your child kills someone, did the parent "create evil"? No. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. That would be like a kid saying "It's your fault I beat him up. You're the one that left us home alone." You can't do something wrong and blame it on the person who let you have the choice because you also had the choice to do the right thing. The only flaw of people is choosing not to follow God.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:I

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see in your other posts how you jump to Jesus to include the spiritual aspects. Jesus did not exist in Genesis chapters 1-3. Start only with the knowledge you have in Genesis and do not jump forward to future unwritten at the time books in the Bible.

Jesus did exist in Genesis 1-3. "Let us make man in our image." Have you read the book of John where it states that Jesus has always existed? That would mean including before Genesis.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Make 2 columns on a piece of paper. On the left side label it unrealistic in observed reality. On the right side label it as possible in observed reality. If you do this, talking snakes go in the category of unrealistic origin. Unless you have actually witnessed a snake talking.

That would if you were under the assumption that God doesn't exist from the beginning. Lack of experience does not count as disproof.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
As the Garden has not been found with an angel standing guard it joins the snake.

Who said the Garden existed in the physical realm? Angels and demons exist, but we don't see them.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
After you do this go back through the chapters and consider why some information is in the story. For example what possible use is all of the gold, bdellium and onyx to naked people who have all of their needs met by a super being?

I'm not quite sure the point of this question. Does gold serve a purpose that you think God should or what? Also, you could be reflecting the value/purpose of those things today and placing it on a completely different time period.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What inspired the man to come up with the name anteater if animals didn't consume one another? (I know anteater isn't in the verses, but it claims the man named all of them so all is fair game here.) Questions about why animals needed to multiply are also relevant. If death did not occur what was that about?

Where does it say that all animals were herbivores? The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were physically immortal and would live on this earth forever nor does it say that animals didn't eat each other.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
As to what image was used to create man, was it in his image or in their image.

I thought you were supposed to be disproving stuff. The Bible gives the answer and you don't provide evidence that makes it seem as if this question makes God non-existent.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It is also said of man they were to multiply and replenish the Earth. So does that mean the Earth had been depleted earlier? By who or what and when? As to how man and woman were to do so without the pain of reproduction is another question.

If you quote the King James version it says "replenish". That's a mistranslation as my Bible says "fill."

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Plants created or the 3rd day and the Sun on the 4th day is problematic. This calls for some smoke and mirrors to support, but a skeptic doesn't use them, so these verses are to be considered mythical as a result. Apparently God killed some animals to clothe Adam & Eve or he zapped them into reality.

The sun is a product of God. It's not more powerful than Him. God is what gives life. If He can breathe life into man, He can make plants live. Think of the sun as an artificial life giver. Example: A mother breast feeds her baby for three days and then switches to formula. Would you say "How did the baby live? The formula came after the baby." Or say that you are pushing a button over and over and then you have a mechanical device push it for you. How could the button be pushed when the mechanical device came afterwards? Easy, until you had something to do it for you, you did it yourself.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Ask why rivers were running when there was apparently no rain falling on the Earth as well. If all was watered by the mist, what of the river used to water it in Genesis 2:10.

Upon due consideration unless you go to the standard line, God can do anything and only God knows,  the story suggests it is a myth used to explain reality to ancient people having little science and knowledge. I don't do magic or mysticism in my reality, you can if you'd like.

Not really sure what you meant by your last question. If you clarify it I will be happy to answer it.

 


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
j_day

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see in your other posts how you jump to Jesus to include the spiritual aspects. Jesus did not exist in Genesis chapters 1-3. Start only with the knowledge you have in Genesis and do not jump forward to future unwritten at the time books in the Bible.

Jesus did exist in Genesis 1-3. "Let us make man in our image." Have you read the book of John where it states that Jesus has always existed? That would mean including before Genesis.

So Mary existed before Genesis too? But I thought she was a human born long after Genesis? Or did Jesus just crawl up her vagina, camp out in her stomach for 9 months before finally deciding to come out? If he already existed, why bother with all that instead of just coming down to earth plain and simple? Sounds like very strange behaviour to me.

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Proper Gander wrote:j_day

Proper Gander wrote:

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see in your other posts how you jump to Jesus to include the spiritual aspects. Jesus did not exist in Genesis chapters 1-3. Start only with the knowledge you have in Genesis and do not jump forward to future unwritten at the time books in the Bible.

Jesus did exist in Genesis 1-3. "Let us make man in our image." Have you read the book of John where it states that Jesus has always existed? That would mean including before Genesis.

So Mary existed before Genesis too? But I thought she was a human born long after Genesis? Or did Jesus just crawl up her vagina, camp out in her stomach for 9 months before finally deciding to come out? If he already existed, why bother with all that instead of just coming down to earth plain and simple? Sounds like very strange behaviour to me.

Sure, let's open up that can of worms...

"Jesus is God too"

"Really, Was Jesus crucified?"

"Yes. He died for our sins"

"So God died"

"No, Jesus died and God raised him"

"So Jesus isn't God?"

"Yes he is"

<continue ad nauseum>

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see in your other posts how you jump to Jesus to include the spiritual aspects. Jesus did not exist in Genesis chapters 1-3. Start only with the knowledge you have in Genesis and do not jump forward to future unwritten at the time books in the Bible.

Jesus did exist in Genesis 1-3. "Let us make man in our image." Have you read the book of John where it states that Jesus has always existed? That would mean including before Genesis.

The Jews don't seem to have written Jesus into any of the Hebrew Bible, I guess they didn't know. They do know of a messiah that was to become God's leader on Earth. He was to establish a kingdom and all of the pagans were to become his vassals. Jesus' dying and not establishing the Jewish Kingdom of God seems to discredit him as the messiah they expected. 

Yes I have read John. By the way do you have a signed copy of the original manuscript of John. I have never seen the original 1st century copy, could you post a copy of the image showing John's signature. Please also include the signed notarized witnesses that can be verified. If you don't have this then you are relying on an anonymously written book that may hay been a fictional story or just the writing of fanatical early religious zealot with no basis in reality. They had fanatics in the 1st century who construed all sorts of unsupported ideas just as we do today.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
 O while Hello there

 

O while Hello there j_day  it seams you are in the LALALA I cant here or see you camp , so let me please re post my argument disproving free will . Do you have enough manliness to answer me ?
 

 

carx wrote:

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to define free will.
 

 
j_day wrote:

Ex: Choosing between cake, pie, brownies is exercising free will. Adding ice cream is NOT free will.
Had to give them free will. You can't choose anything if you only have one option. In order for God to allow them to choose Him, He had to give them the option not to choose Him.

On the non existence of free will :
You have a peanut allergy and you will die if you eat penults ,  now I give you a choice you can have a peanut cake or cold potatoes what are you going to chose ? Potatoes holy shit and you call this free will awesome just like a psychopath putting a gun to my head and giving me the choice to give him a blow job or he blows my head away of curse its pure free will keep the bull shit flowing.
j_day wrote:

 Free will is the ability to choose; a voluntary decision. Free will is NOT adding a choice and choosing that.

j_day wrote:

Free will and foresight are not opposites. Knowing someone's going to make a choice, doesn't mean they didn't make a choice.

Foresight doesn’t eliminate free will ???? DUUDE you my man  you just defined “free will “ for nothing more then a synonymy of reaction or calculation lets rescale this concept. Glasses have FREE WILL they can chose to obey gravity and fall down or stay suspended violating gravity the fact that I can model in my human brain a  simulation of this physical phenomena and know in advanced what will happen , this  descent eliminate FREE WIL despite me knowing 100% what will happen my foresight doesn’t eliminate free will in your book.
I love you man you’re the best you defined free will in the meaner meaning absolutely nothing then a deterministic reaction applying this process we can surly see that every thing hose this “ free will “ starting from rocks and ending on mathematical formulas 2 + 2 hose free will to decide its out come however surprisingly I know all wais in advance the answer however this doesn’t stop it from hypothetically equaling 5 however this will never happen.

This Is starting to be funny o and define free will I for a fact am a hard core determinist and please give me a definition of free will being something else then a buzz word for :

A) pure determinism
B) pure randomness

Free will is a magical concept like a square with no corners you can say it however it doesn’t  exist or hold shit and remember to rescale your ideas before posting them.
 

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
j_day

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Make 2 columns on a piece of paper. On the left side label it unrealistic in observed reality. On the right side label it as possible in observed reality. If you do this, talking snakes go in the category of unrealistic origin. Unless you have actually witnessed a snake talking.

That would if you were under the assumption that God doesn't exist from the beginning. Lack of experience does not count as disproof.

If you isolate yourself from the belief the starting point is neutral. God either exists or he doesn't. The same is true for Ra, Zeus, Thor, and Ba'al. You don't seem to believe Ra is the source of all life on Earth before you open the books of the ancient Egyptians, why not? You have assumed it is a myth before you have even read one word of the ancient Egyptians. The writing should then be analyzed as to reality that is observed and scientific knowledge. Since you do the opposite and assume all is true in the Bible you can not be objective and will only see that which you desire.

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
As the Garden has not been found with an angel standing guard it joins the snake.

Who said the Garden existed in the physical realm? Angels and demons exist, but we don't see them.

Oh it's in another dimension of reality not ours. Would that be in the fantasy dimension?

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
After you do this go back through the chapters and consider why some information is in the story. For example what possible use is all of the gold, bdellium and onyx to naked people who have all of their needs met by a super being?

I'm not quite sure the point of this question. Does gold serve a purpose that you think God should or what? Also, you could be reflecting the value/purpose of those things today and placing it on a completely different time period.

In Genesis 2:11-12 the writer points out the gold and precious stones to impress his readers. However gold was not useful to Adam as there was no one to trade with at the time. It is useless trivia included only to show Adam also lost much riches in precious metal.

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
What inspired the man to come up with the name anteater if animals didn't consume one another? (I know anteater isn't in the verses, but it claims the man named all of them so all is fair game here.) Questions about why animals needed to multiply are also relevant. If death did not occur what was that about?

Where does it say that all animals were herbivores? The Bible doesn't say that Adam and Eve were physically immortal and would live on this earth forever nor does it say that animals didn't eat each other.

It actually says they all eat plants in Genesis 1:28-29. (JPS Hebrew Bible)

Quote:
29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so.

or if you prefer Douray-Rheims version:

Quote:
29And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:

    30And to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

As to the immortality of Adam and Eve, God says in Genesis 2:17 if they ate of the tree of knowledge they would surely die. As you say, it does not say they were immortal only that if they ate they would die. It seems implied but it matters little from my perspective. 

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
As to what image was used to create man, was it in his image or in their image.

I thought you were supposed to be disproving stuff. The Bible gives the answer and you don't provide evidence that makes it seem as if this question makes God non-existent.

Exactly who were the gods whose likeness was used for the image of man? Yahweh, El, Ba'al, his female part Asherah. It says us not mine or I.

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It is also said of man they were to multiply and replenish the Earth. So does that mean the Earth had been depleted earlier? By who or what and when? As to how man and woman were to do so without the pain of reproduction is another question.

If you quote the King James version it says "replenish". That's a mistranslation as my Bible says "fill."

Actually I think the KJV version is pretty worthless though millions of religious zealots seem to derive delusional inspiration from it. I use the Hebrew Bible in English for Old Testament or Hebrew Bible quotes and Douray-Rheims for New Testament quotes. The Hebrew bible Masoretic text is held to be the most accurate of the texts. It uses the word replenish while Douray-Rheims and NIV use fill. 

So I still question as to why it says replenish.

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Plants created or the 3rd day and the Sun on the 4th day is problematic. This calls for some smoke and mirrors to support, but a skeptic doesn't use them, so these verses are to be considered mythical as a result. Apparently God killed some animals to clothe Adam & Eve or he zapped them into reality.

The sun is a product of God. It's not more powerful than Him. God is what gives life. If He can breathe life into man, He can make plants live. Think of the sun as an artificial life giver. Example: A mother breast feeds her baby for three days and then switches to formula. Would you say "How did the baby live? The formula came after the baby." Or say that you are pushing a button over and over and then you have a mechanical device push it for you. How could the button be pushed when the mechanical device came afterwards? Easy, until you had something to do it for you, you did it yourself.

As I said - Smoke and Mirrors.

 

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Ask why rivers were running when there was apparently no rain falling on the Earth as well. If all was watered by the mist, what of the river used to water it in Genesis 2:10.

Upon due consideration unless you go to the standard line, God can do anything and only God knows,  the story suggests it is a myth used to explain reality to ancient people having little science and knowledge. I don't do magic or mysticism in my reality, you can if you'd like.

Not really sure what you meant by your last question. If you clarify it I will be happy to answer it.

Basic overlooked detail here is in Genesis 2:6 the whole Earth was watered by a mist and in Genesis 2:10 it says a river watered the garden. Rain does not occur so where did the water for the river come from and why have 2 methods to water the garden.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:I guess I need

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to explain this all at once since the exact same questions come up over and over. Someone asks "why did God put the tree there?". I answer "there had to be free will." And the next post is "why did God put the tree there?" So I'll start at the beginning...

1. God created the earth.

2. God created man.

3. God's intention was to be in fellowship with man. Not only is this stated repeatedly throughout the rest of the Bible, but it's also acted out in Genesis. God walked with them in the garden. He fellowshipped with them.

4. In order for true fellowship to exist, God gave man free will. Free will is a voluntary decision. (Note: Free will is not a wish. It's not making something come true. Anytime you have more than one option, you have free will. Even if someone says "Do you want to get shot or stabbed?", you are still making a choice. Choosing between two crappy choices doesn't mean it's a non-choice.) If man couldn't choose to not follow God, he couldn't choose to follow Him.

5. The free will was exhibited in the form of a tree that they were forbidden to eat from. While God told them not to do it and what the punishment would be, they still had a choice.

6. Punishment came in the form of death. Not physical death, spiritual death. They were no longer in fellowship with God. Man was never going to be physically immortal.

 

As far as "evil" goes, evil is simply going against God. Choosing not to follow Him. Every action you define as evil goes against what God says to do. He didn't create evil. He allowed people to not follow what He says. You're a parent and your child kills someone, did the parent "create evil"? No. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. That would be like a kid saying "It's your fault I beat him up. You're the one that left us home alone." You can't do something wrong and blame it on the person who let you have the choice because you also had the choice to do the right thing. The only flaw of people is choosing not to follow God.

Well, if my father was God and God is the creator of all things, then yes my father would've created evil. Again, either evil happened without God's intervention and he allowed it to exist or he created it.

 

Which one is it?


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:j_day

sandwiches wrote:

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to explain this all at once since the exact same questions come up over and over. Someone asks "why did God put the tree there?". I answer "there had to be free will." And the next post is "why did God put the tree there?" So I'll start at the beginning...

1. God created the earth.

2. God created man.

3. God's intention was to be in fellowship with man. Not only is this stated repeatedly throughout the rest of the Bible, but it's also acted out in Genesis. God walked with them in the garden. He fellowshipped with them.

4. In order for true fellowship to exist, God gave man free will. Free will is a voluntary decision. (Note: Free will is not a wish. It's not making something come true. Anytime you have more than one option, you have free will. Even if someone says "Do you want to get shot or stabbed?", you are still making a choice. Choosing between two crappy choices doesn't mean it's a non-choice.) If man couldn't choose to not follow God, he couldn't choose to follow Him.

5. The free will was exhibited in the form of a tree that they were forbidden to eat from. While God told them not to do it and what the punishment would be, they still had a choice.

6. Punishment came in the form of death. Not physical death, spiritual death. They were no longer in fellowship with God. Man was never going to be physically immortal.

 

As far as "evil" goes, evil is simply going against God. Choosing not to follow Him. Every action you define as evil goes against what God says to do. He didn't create evil. He allowed people to not follow what He says. You're a parent and your child kills someone, did the parent "create evil"? No. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. That would be like a kid saying "It's your fault I beat him up. You're the one that left us home alone." You can't do something wrong and blame it on the person who let you have the choice because you also had the choice to do the right thing. The only flaw of people is choosing not to follow God.

Well, if my father was God and God is the creator of all things, then yes my father would've created evil. Again, either evil happened without God's intervention and he allowed it to exist or he created it.

 

Which one is it?

He allowed it to exist. If He didn't, people would be robots and could only follow God. They wouldn't be following Him out of choice.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Proper Gander

jcgadfly wrote:

Proper Gander wrote:

j_day wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

I see in your other posts how you jump to Jesus to include the spiritual aspects. Jesus did not exist in Genesis chapters 1-3. Start only with the knowledge you have in Genesis and do not jump forward to future unwritten at the time books in the Bible.

Jesus did exist in Genesis 1-3. "Let us make man in our image." Have you read the book of John where it states that Jesus has always existed? That would mean including before Genesis.

So Mary existed before Genesis too? But I thought she was a human born long after Genesis? Or did Jesus just crawl up her vagina, camp out in her stomach for 9 months before finally deciding to come out? If he already existed, why bother with all that instead of just coming down to earth plain and simple? Sounds like very strange behaviour to me.

Sure, let's open up that can of worms...

"Jesus is God too"

"Really, Was Jesus crucified?"

"Yes. He died for our sins"

"So God died"

"No, Jesus died and God raised him"

"So Jesus isn't God?"

"Yes he is"

<continue ad nauseum>

Since this is a different topic, I'm not going to address it in full except to say that God didn't raise Jesus from the dead. Jesus raised Himself.


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
carx wrote: O while Hello

carx wrote:

 

O while Hello there j_day  it seams you are in the LALALA I cant here or see you camp , so let me please re post my argument disproving free will . Do you have enough manliness to answer me ?
 

 

carx wrote:

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to define free will.
 

 
j_day wrote:

Ex: Choosing between cake, pie, brownies is exercising free will. Adding ice cream is NOT free will.
Had to give them free will. You can't choose anything if you only have one option. In order for God to allow them to choose Him, He had to give them the option not to choose Him.

On the non existence of free will :
You have a peanut allergy and you will die if you eat penults ,  now I give you a choice you can have a peanut cake or cold potatoes what are you going to chose ? Potatoes holy shit and you call this free will awesome just like a psychopath putting a gun to my head and giving me the choice to give him a blow job or he blows my head away of curse its pure free will keep the bull shit flowing.
j_day wrote:

 Free will is the ability to choose; a voluntary decision. Free will is NOT adding a choice and choosing that.

j_day wrote:

Free will and foresight are not opposites. Knowing someone's going to make a choice, doesn't mean they didn't make a choice.

Foresight doesn’t eliminate free will ???? DUUDE you my man  you just defined “free will “ for nothing more then a synonymy of reaction or calculation lets rescale this concept. Glasses have FREE WILL they can chose to obey gravity and fall down or stay suspended violating gravity the fact that I can model in my human brain a  simulation of this physical phenomena and know in advanced what will happen , this  descent eliminate FREE WIL despite me knowing 100% what will happen my foresight doesn’t eliminate free will in your book.
I love you man you’re the best you defined free will in the meaner meaning absolutely nothing then a deterministic reaction applying this process we can surly see that every thing hose this “ free will “ starting from rocks and ending on mathematical formulas 2 + 2 hose free will to decide its out come however surprisingly I know all wais in advance the answer however this doesn’t stop it from hypothetically equaling 5 however this will never happen.

This Is starting to be funny o and define free will I for a fact am a hard core determinist and please give me a definition of free will being something else then a buzz word for :

A) pure determinism
B) pure randomness

Free will is a magical concept like a square with no corners you can say it however it doesn’t  exist or hold shit and remember to rescale your ideas before posting them.
 

Just so you know, free will is not a Biblical term. It's in the dictionary. The definition of free will is a choice, a voluntary decision. Anytime you have two options and you have a choice which one it is, that's a voluntary decision aka free will. As far as you gravity example goes, yes you can choose to not obey gravity. Doesn't mean you're going to. Free will is not a wish. It's not making something come true. It's a decision. Whether or not to go to school, where to work, what to eat are all examples where free will is exhibited. Anytime you have two options you have a choice. Having a choice means you make a decision. That's called free will.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:sandwiches

j_day wrote:

sandwiches wrote:

j_day wrote:

I guess I need to explain this all at once since the exact same questions come up over and over. Someone asks "why did God put the tree there?". I answer "there had to be free will." And the next post is "why did God put the tree there?" So I'll start at the beginning...

1. God created the earth.

2. God created man.

3. God's intention was to be in fellowship with man. Not only is this stated repeatedly throughout the rest of the Bible, but it's also acted out in Genesis. God walked with them in the garden. He fellowshipped with them.

4. In order for true fellowship to exist, God gave man free will. Free will is a voluntary decision. (Note: Free will is not a wish. It's not making something come true. Anytime you have more than one option, you have free will. Even if someone says "Do you want to get shot or stabbed?", you are still making a choice. Choosing between two crappy choices doesn't mean it's a non-choice.) If man couldn't choose to not follow God, he couldn't choose to follow Him.

5. The free will was exhibited in the form of a tree that they were forbidden to eat from. While God told them not to do it and what the punishment would be, they still had a choice.

6. Punishment came in the form of death. Not physical death, spiritual death. They were no longer in fellowship with God. Man was never going to be physically immortal.

 

As far as "evil" goes, evil is simply going against God. Choosing not to follow Him. Every action you define as evil goes against what God says to do. He didn't create evil. He allowed people to not follow what He says. You're a parent and your child kills someone, did the parent "create evil"? No. You have to take responsibility for your own actions. That would be like a kid saying "It's your fault I beat him up. You're the one that left us home alone." You can't do something wrong and blame it on the person who let you have the choice because you also had the choice to do the right thing. The only flaw of people is choosing not to follow God.

Well, if my father was God and God is the creator of all things, then yes my father would've created evil. Again, either evil happened without God's intervention and he allowed it to exist or he created it.

 

Which one is it?

He allowed it to exist. If He didn't, people would be robots and could only follow God. They wouldn't be following Him out of choice.

)

Clearly if god is all powerful he'd be able to allow humans to have the free will he's so concerned about without having to create (or allow) evil.  Afterall god limited my ability to fly and shoot lasers out of my head, however I supposedly still have free will.  Why did god limit our ability to fly, and you still think we have free will.  Afterall we're all robots, just walking around, without the ability to fly.  We're all robots to not being able to fly... and I don't mean by plane... I mean like superman flew.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:He allowed it to

j_day wrote:

He allowed it to exist. If He didn't, people would be robots and could only follow God. They wouldn't be following Him out of choice.

Wrong.

I already explained why that argument doesn't fly:

"God still didn't need to have evil or sin available as a choice in order to give free will. On Saturday I can choose to stay home and watch TV all day or go help build a house for Habitat for Humanity. You can argue that one choice is better than the other but nowhere here is there the need for an evil option, say, the option of killing my neighbor. That last choice doesn't even occur to me when deciding what to do on Saturday (fortunately for my neighbor). Most of us make decisions all day every day with out even considering evil or sinful options. If they're not even considered than they don't even need to be options at all and it would make no difference. So there is no reason to require evil options in order to give us free will."

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


carx
carx's picture
Posts: 247
Joined: 2008-01-02
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Just so you

j_day wrote:
Just so you know, free will is not a Biblical term. It's in the dictionary. The definition of free will is a choice, a voluntary decision. Anytime you have two options and you have a choice which one it is, that's a voluntary decision aka free will. As far as you gravity example goes, yes you can choose to not obey gravity. Doesn't mean you're going to. Free will is not a wish. It's not making something come true. It's a decision. Whether or not to go to school, where to work, what to eat are all examples where free will is exhibited. Anytime you have two options you have a choice. Having a choice means you make a decision. That's called free will.

OK man if something is in the dictionary its not automatically true AND NOW LETS PROVE IT WITH EVIDANCE

Aliens , unicorns , The FSM and alien abductions are in the dictionary however this doesn’t make them real or true.

However in your own words you have defined free will for a “theoretical state” so here you go please stop using this term and substitute this in your posts since they are basically the same.
The sun can hypothetically don’t exist or start dancing samba (translation the sun haze free will) , god wants humans to love him and he gave us a hypothetical state so we can hypothetically be in a state of loving him. Dose this make any sense to you ? Its completely meaningless and pointless in your model you get the same free will like a rock or hot air (free will = 0 ) are you happy ? And what is it that god wants from me to have again to love him ? Air molecules are performing deterministic reactions so yes they have free will (In your model) however they are brainless robots and you are according to your explanation so how about this .

Well thanks for your response your move man .

Warning I’m not a native English speaker.

http://downloads.khinsider.com/?u=281515 DDR and game sound track download


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:If

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
If you isolate yourself from the belief the starting point is neutral. God either exists or he doesn't. The same is true for Ra, Zeus, Thor, and Ba'al. You don't seem to believe Ra is the source of all life on Earth before you open the books of the ancient Egyptians, why not? You have assumed it is a myth before you have even read one word of the ancient Egyptians. The writing should then be analyzed as to reality that is observed and scientific knowledge. Since you do the opposite and assume all is true in the Bible you can not be objective and will only see that which you desire.

Your lack of seeing a snake talk does not make it impossible. If you back up your views with "I've never seen it", then you are using personal experience as evidence. Are you omniscient? Are you omnipresent? If the answer to both of those questions is "No", then you can't decisively say "This has never happened." Just like you can't say with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist. You weren't there when the universe was created, and you haven't been here since then, so you don't know that God doesn't exist. You believe God doesn't exist.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Oh it's in another dimension of reality not ours. Would that be in the fantasy dimension?

No, it would be the spiritual dimension. I'll prove to you it exists when you prove that it doesn't.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
In Genesis 2:11-12 the writer points out the gold and precious stones to impress his readers. However gold was not useful to Adam as there was no one to trade with at the time. It is useless trivia included only to show Adam also lost much riches in precious metal.

Except there eventually would have been people. Hence the "fill the earth". The word "replenish" used to mean fill.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/replenish.asp

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
It actually says they all eat plants in Genesis 1:28-29. (JPS Hebrew Bible)

 

Quote:
29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so.

or if you prefer Douray-Rheims version:

Quote:
29And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:

    30And to all the beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

As to the immortality of Adam and Eve, God says in Genesis 2:17 if they ate of the tree of knowledge they would surely die. As you say, it does not say they were immortal only that if they ate they would die. It seems implied but it matters little from my perspective.

It says that plants were edible. It doesn't say that animals didn't eat animals. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Exactly who were the gods whose likeness was used for the image of man? Yahweh, El, Ba'al, his female part Asherah. It says us not mine or I.

I thought you said you used to be a Christian. God is triune. It's not three separate Gods. 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
As I said - Smoke and Mirrors.
 

That's not smoke and mirrors. God creates something and then He creates something to do something for Him. Or do you just say "smoke and mirrors" when you can't refute my answer? Or it makes sense, but that would bring a possibility that God exists so you have to deny whatever I say. Saying "I don't think that's possible", doesn't make it impossible. Since you're not all-knowing, I don't think you can claim what is impossible or what doesn't make sense.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
Basic overlooked detail here is in Genesis 2:6 the whole Earth was watered by a mist and in Genesis 2:10 it says a river watered the garden. Rain does not occur so where did the water for the river come from and why have 2 methods to water the garden.

Do rivers provide water for vegetation now? Yes. Does rain provide water for vegetation now? Yes. I don't see the problem. Two different sources. Mist is replaced by rain.