Theists, if your god exists and is omniscient and omnipotent...

Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Theists, if your god exists and is omniscient and omnipotent...

Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: 2) Beliefs

todangst wrote:

2) Beliefs are not a choice. We must accept them. Not choose them.

Hmmm.  This is why it's rather hard to convert or deconvert someone from a world view.  Correctly understanding an alternative world view is hard.  In fact, I get the impression that StMichael is operating from a different dictionary.  "Free will," "love," "praise," "reward," "punishment," etc. may have different meanings in different world views.  

The Martin Buber "meeting of meanings" becomes rather hard. 

As I recall, Dan Barker wrote a chapter on how fundamentalist Christians define terms differently from other people.  I'm going to have to go back and read that. 

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


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: I've

 

Quote:
I've demonstrated why your position is a rejection of logic: because you must take it on a special plead. You argue that your 'god' is beyond comprehension, yet you continue to assert from a position of postive theology.  You'll do so again in this very post. QED

God is beyond comprehension (perfect understanding of Him), but not knowledge of Him at all. We can know that He exists from natural reason, with certainty. Further, faith, speaking on supernatural grounds, is the ground on which a positive theology can be built, because by Revelation God reveals what He is in Himself.

Quote:

 

This is a naked assertion. You have not supported your claim that one cannot be rational without freewill. 

A rational being, by definition, would have a mind to be rational with and that assumes at least an intellect. Every will, however, is merely the intellectual appetite. Hence, every rational being has a will.

Quote:

Also, this point is moot: even if your claim is true, you can't argue to necessity - your creator could create a rational being without free will. 

God cannot create a logical contradiction. It is not within the scope of omnipotence. Omnipotence designates to do all things; logical contradictions are "no-things."

Quote:

You've not defined what a soul is, you've not demonstrated that people have souls, you've not demonstrated that they are in fact 'required' for anything. More assertions, no demonstrations...

A soul is a principle of life in a living being. The human soul is the mind. If you do not have a mind, I see no reason in speaking at all with you.

Quote:

Oh, and again, you're arguing to necessity, but you can't do so in regards to an omnipotent creator. 

God cannot bring into existence a logical contradiction because it cannot, by definition, exist.

Quote:

This is the sort of nonsense I'd expect from a 14 year old. Are you trying to argue that 'sin' is an absence of good? Dear me, for your own sake, I hope not.

If so: Sin is a descriptor of an intention and an act. Both 'exist' as a behavior.  

Sin is a defect in action. Sin itself does not exist, the action itself does. It is a lack of perfection.

Quote:

I should also add: You beg the question that 'sin' is required for free will, despite the fact that this claim contradicts the supposed omnipotent of your creator - i.e. you are arguing to necessity yet again. 

Sin is not required with free will. But an omnipotent creator cannot ever make a logical contradiction exist; it is impossible. It is without the definition of what it means for God to be omniscient.

Quote:
 

 Furthermore, you never bother to explain why your god would need to allow for any 'sin' that brings harms to others... if sin is a necessary fallout of free will, this does not mean that sin against others is necessary. There is no need for the sin of rape or murder, if the 'purpose' of sin is to allow for people to freely 'choose to believe' in god or not.

Again, God cannot make a contradiction. Sin necessarily entails an evil result, because it is an evil action. But those things that exist in terms of harm to other human beings exist as a result of original sin (because our original state of justice did not include death, but death was an effect of the loss of that grace).

Quote:

And again, beliefs are not a choice, your position is so error riddled that it's hard to pick an error to focus on.

A belief is a choice. Get over it.

Quote:

Finally, again and again you dodge the points before you: that a perfectly responsible creator is perfectly responsible for every parameter of existence, which makes this creator responsible for the possiblity of sin, and the actuality of sin, seeing as this god also controls every aspect of the human who 'makes sin.

God does not control every aspect of the human being that sins. This is precisely the definition of free will. God wills that the will is free.

 

Quote:

Again, (notice how often I must preface my statements that way...) your 'god' created the concept of hell, the concept of 'sin', the concept of right and wrong and good and evil and men and women and human action. He could have created them all differently, or not at all.

Again, omnipotence does not entail making logical contradictions exist. Hell is a necessary correlate of sin and free will. Right and wrong and good and evil flow from the nature of God Himself; He could not have created them differently. Ever. At all. Never ever. 

Quote:
 

Even if you want to insist 'free will, free will, free will!" , you need to grasp that this 'god' created free will, shaped its limits, and then decided to give it to you, along with your personality and character and desires... knowing with perfect clarity what the outcome would be! 

But He did not. You are just asserting that free will does not exist because free will does not exist. Free will is precisely determined by God to be free. He might know every free decision I am going to make, but that does not mean that my decision is not free.

 

Quote:

Fascinating! How can something be axiomatic one day, and not the next?!

I clarified my answer, which you ignored. God has never been properly axiomatic, because what He is is never perfectly comprehended by human beings. He was evident to them through the original grace in which He created Adam and Eve.

Quote:

SPECIAL PLEAD FALLACY.

And if this is your actual position, then 'god' can't be known at all, and all your claims have no rational basis.

God can't be known in Himself by human nature. He can be known from His effects. I have repeated this so often it's not funny anymore.

Quote:

If your 'god' is beyond human understanding, then all you can say is 'I don't know".

Not beyond understanding at all. God is beyond comprehension and perfect understanding of what He is in Himself. He is not beyond knowledge at all, because we can know Him through natural reason - a posteriori. God is knowable, just not in Himself as He is. We can know Him from our end, not His (which would be a priori).

 

Quote:

No, you're just confused.Once one takes a position on faith, via negativa, of course they go on to make positive claims, but the original basis is a concession to via negativa.  I've cited where JP II cites negative theology, and I've given you other fathers of the church who did likewise. The reality is that via negativa is one of the ways of the church. And that's that.

No it isn't. Don't you think it would be a little odd if it was evident to all Catholics that God can never be known at all that they would proceed to speak of Him?

The Pope and the Church Councils have consistently and always defined that God can be known, even without faith, by human reason. You relied on a "paraphrasing" of Fides et Ratio which never appeared in the text. I produced actual texts from the document itself and from other sources of official Catholic dogma, like the First Vatican Council, which clearly defines as dogma that man can know God without revelation through use of his natural reason. If you need it clearer, look it up again. Go back and read my post again. It is apparent that you either never read them or merely dismissed them because you "knew better."

Quote:

Oh... in bold too! Must be true! 

Please get up to date:

From the interview:

Wright: As a matter of fact, you've just expressed a very liberal salvation doctrine... inclusive And modern...

Lorenzo Albacete: I think you could look it up And read in Pope John Paul II, the redeemer of man, Second Vatican Council ... I can give you many references... the cataclysm of the church...

So please, look it up. And while your at it, learn some more about negative theology. 

The Catechism overrides anything you want Msgr. Albacete to believe. The Catechism is infallible official Church teaching; Msgr. Albacete is a fallible theologian whose position not need accurately reflect what the Church believes.

Quote:

No, it's just true. The idea of disbelief as a sin is childish and hateful. If a person doesn't believe, it may well be what his reason brings him to...

There are various sorts of unbelief, as I pointed out earlier. You just ignored them. There is voluntary disbelief, arising from a negligently or intentionally misformed conscience, or from stubornness, which is sinful. Then there is involuntary disbelief, which is not morally culpable.

Quote:

Only if there is a rational grounds for the belief that is being ignored.

That was precisely my point. It is a conclusion of natural reason that God exists and that He can reveal truth, and that this is further necessary if we are to attain to perfect happiness in the Beatific Vision (heaven). It is the acme of ignorance to assume that any revelation ought to be rejected without serious inquiry into its claims. 

Quote:

Parents are NOT perfectly responsible for their children, because they are not OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT CREATORS OF THE UNIVERSERE.

Parents do not create existence, they don't shape the parameters of reality. They don't create the concepts of personality and character and choice and sin... they don't create the concept of personality or desire, nor do they create your personality or your desires... they do not create these things, nor can they even control them with perfect precision.

God does not create our choices. God does not determine our choices. God does not determine the outcome of our wills. God does not force us to choose something against our free nature. God does not create good and evil. God does not determine our decisions by His foreknowledge.

God creates us, like a parent, a free agent. He gives us free wills, perfectly free to choose the good. It is our wills that determine their choice, not God. Thus, only we are morally culpable for our decisions, not God.

God even foreknows all our decisions before we make them, but this does not determine them at all. God knows what we will freely do in the future. The famous comparison exists between His knowledge and a man standing on a high hill. He sees from the hill all the people going through the valleys and the places they will go. But His seeing of them does not mean that they are any less free.

Quote:

Please go walk into a wall and try to believe it's not there.

We are not free to believe what we don't believe. Beliefs are not a choice. People can't just choose to believe whatever they like or dislike. Many beliefs are thrown at us by reality...

This is not a belief then, it is a fact evident to our minds. Belief is not of the same character. Beliefs are something chosen. I can choose to accept or reject even logical evidence thrown at me. I can reject that 2+2=4. I can choose to have the brownie or the cupcake. I can choose against reason; I can choose to have the cake even though I know it's bad for me. I can choose to believe that God is Triune or not. I can choose to believe any number of things according to my freedom. My choices might be limited by my knowledge of choices themselves, but that does not make my will any less free in choosing.

Quote:

One more time: if you ASSUME that god exists, then you're just begging the question that he exists... your faith is therefore an unjustified belief. You start out, without any grounds ,by holding that there is a god.

How can I define a unicorn's horn? "A unicorn's horn is a horn on a unicorn..." "AHA! You are unjustifiedly assuming that a unicorn actually exists!" I do nothing of the sort. I define faith as a trust in something as true because of the authority of the one revealing. Religious faith, or trust in God, is merely the species of this that would trust in what God has revealed as true. It does not beg any questions.

Unless you beg the question by asking how I can believe in God, because you then would beg the question of whether God exists, as well as me.  

Quote:

And you must believe based on this assumption, because as YOU YOURSELF say, your god is beyond comprehension. There is no way to start out 'knowing' god... you must take it on faith... you must believe without any rational grounds.

Knowing that God exists is not from faith, but from reason. God is beyond comprehension, but not from being known at all. Again, you are missing these distinctions.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Way to go StMichael. This

Way to go StMichael. This goes to show how religion and faith can take over a person's logical power and ability to reason.

 

StMichael wrote:

A soul is a principle of life in a living being. The human soul is the mind. If you do not have a mind, I see no reason in speaking at all with you.

How do you reach the conclusion that our minds are our souls? Or is that how you definte it?

Quote:


Sin is a defect in action. Sin itself does not exist, the action itself does. It is a lack of perfection.

Sin itself does not exist? Yet we sin? I'm not rejecting this idea, but can you explain it? I can't grasp the concept of something that we do that doesn't exist (in itself?)


Quote:

A belief is a choice. Get over it.

[...]

This is not a belief then, it is a fact evident to our minds. Belief is not of the same character. Beliefs are something chosen. I can choose to accept or reject even logical evidence thrown at me. I can reject that 2+2=4. I can choose to have the brownie or the cupcake. I can choose against reason; I can choose to have the cake even though I know it's bad for me. I can choose to believe that God is Triune or not. I can choose to believe any number of things according to my freedom. My choices might be limited by my knowledge of choices themselves, but that does not make my will any less free in choosing.

Goes to show you have no understanding of what a belief is. A belief is the acceptance of truth, the real acceptance of truth. Your mind accepts truth according to experiences. For example, if you taste an apple, and think you've never tasted something more unique, then you believe there is nothing like it. You can reject the idea of 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean you don't believe it. Reject the idea, but your mind will still answer '4' if I ask you '2+2' because obviously, to you it's been proven. You have accepted the truth according to what you've seen. Your mind doesn't think 2+2=/=4 because you want it to. Belief is not up to us, it's up to our mind's way of taking in what happens to us. You can not honestly choose to believe something unless your mind has a reason to. Can you taste an apple, thinking it's the best fruit, and say "I believe pineaple is the tastiest fruit ever"? You're confusing the notions of "acceptance of truth" with "wishful thinking". Maybe you don't believe something, maybe you just want it to be true. Badly.

 

Quote:

God does not create our choices. God does not determine our choices. God does not determine the outcome of our wills. God does not force us to choose something against our free nature. God does not create good and evil. God does not determine our decisions by His foreknowledge.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. You're being stubborn, I advice you to confess your stuborness next time you go to church. "He does not he does not HE DOES NOT!" Yee-haw, yee-haw.

Quote:

God creates us, like a parent, a free agent. He gives us free wills, perfectly free to choose the good. It is our wills that determine their choice, not God. Thus, only we are morally culpable for our decisions, not God.

God even foreknows all our decisions before we make them, but this does not determine them at all. God knows what we will freely do in the future. The famous comparison exists between His knowledge and a man standing on a high hill. He sees from the hill all the people going through the valleys and the places they will go. But His seeing of them does not mean that they are any less free.

God does NOT create us like a parent. Parents are not omniscient nor omnipotent, they are nothing like the God you claim exists.

That comparison is invalid. The man standing on a hill didn't create the people nor the valleys. God did. This is what you fail to understand: God created EVERY rule in the game, therefore he is completely, utterly and perfectly responsible for everything (Yes, everything) that happens. God knows everything, so he knows the fate of everything that he created WHILE creating. This means that when he creates a person, he knows he will be an unbeliever (by that person's free [sic] choices) yet he still creates that person. That makes him an evil God, because as you and I know, according to Christianity, 2/3+ of the world is going to hell.

Why? First of all, they barely chose. God gives us no real choice. If I told you 'Kiss my ass or I'll kick the shit out of you' (See Kissing Hank's ass) would you consider you have a choice? There's no free will there, because you are not free to do whatever you want. You are only free to choose between 2 horrible options. Only forced decisions out of complete fear. That's why Christianity holds so many (scared) believers, and that's why it's so hard to get out of that.

Also, what you fail to understand is that God created your mind, and all stimuli that your mind receives is ultimately traced back to God's creation. How is he not responsible for your evil choices? You don't react many ways, now do you? You react one way to things, because that's the way you are. If I point a gun at a person, and that person is frozen by fear, would you tell me that person CHOSE to be paralyzed? He went "Yeah I can be brave and take his gun, or I can be paralyzed and let him kill me. I'll go with paralyzed". That would be ridiculous! EVERYTHING was created by God, including the stimuli you receive ('things' ). Your mind was created by God. Hence the outcome is a direct consequence of God's doing. If the outcome is hell, the only one who is responsible is God.

You have yet to answer to my mouse + labyrinth comparison. You continue to ignore.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: How do you reach

Quote:

How do you reach the conclusion that our minds are our souls? Or is that how you definte it?

That is how I define it.

Quote:

Sin itself does not exist? Yet we sin? I'm not rejecting this idea, but can you explain it? I can't grasp the concept of something that we do that doesn't exist (in itself?)

A sin is a lack of perfection in an act. It does not exist apart from the act. It is, literally in Greek, "missing the mark." It does not itself exist. It exists only in an existing act as a lack. Our actions exist, but the fact that they are sinful is because they lack what they ought - a proper pursuit of the Good.

Quote:

Goes to show you have no understanding of what a belief is. A belief is the acceptance of truth, the real acceptance of truth.

This is a different definition of belief, then.

Quote:
 

Your mind accepts truth according to experiences. For example, if you taste an apple, and think you've never tasted something more unique, then you believe there is nothing like it.

The first is a wrong sense of the word "believe." If I say, "I believe there is nothing quite like this," I can mean, "This experience is very good," or, "I do not hold the opinion that another such good exists." Belief could b holding an opinion, but this is different from the belief I speak of in faith. Further, belief as opinon is not necessitated by experience, as I point out later on.

Quote:

You can reject the idea of 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean you don't believe it. Reject the idea, but your mind will still answer '4' if I ask you '2+2' because obviously, to you it's been proven. You have accepted the truth according to what you've seen.

I can believe it not to be proven and not accept any truth based on a premise that 2+2=4. It is not proven to me. I can act irrationally. It has nothing to do with necessity. There is a reason one could, irrationally, doubt that the world exists. This would be an irrational opinion, but a real opinion nonetheless not determined by fact.

Quote:
 

Your mind doesn't think 2+2=/=4 because you want it to. Belief is not up to us, it's up to our mind's way of taking in what happens to us. You can not honestly choose to believe something unless your mind has a reason to. Can you taste an apple, thinking it's the best fruit, and say "I believe pineaple is the tastiest fruit ever"? You're confusing the notions of "acceptance of truth" with "wishful thinking". Maybe you don't believe something, maybe you just want it to be true. Badly.

But in the last sense, I would agree with you. A true or reasonable belief is not determined arbitrarily. In a manner of speaking, I would even argue that you are completely correct in that a man cannot really think an irrational thing or will an evil directly. :It would never be believed unless it had a reason for belief"; this is Saint Augustine. True religious faith does not exist in an arbitrary manner. It is based on the credibility of the belief itself. Nobody believes the Catholic faith against reason. There is a ground for why we believe what we believe. First, in that it fits with what I know naturally. Second, in that it shows itself forth as a supernaturally instituted religion by reason of its miracles which testify to its God.

Quote:

His claim was that my God was omnipotent in the sense that He can create good and evil according to His whimsy. This is not the case. We do not believe this, so he cannot begin with this fallacious premise.

Quote:

God does NOT create us like a parent. Parents are not omniscient nor omnipotent, they are nothing like the God you claim exists.

They are like God, because parents give life to us. God likewise gives life to us by His creation of us. He allowed our wills to be free, and this is no contradiction, as there is no contradiction in the mode of parental begetting.

Quote:

That comparison is invalid. The man standing on a hill didn't create the people nor the valleys. God did. This is what you fail to understand: God created EVERY rule in the game, therefore he is completely, utterly and perfectly responsible for everything (Yes, everything) that happens. God knows everything, so he knows the fate of everything that he created WHILE creating. This means that when he creates a person, he knows he will be an unbeliever (by that person's free [sic] choices) yet he still creates that person.

But God does not make Him an unbeliever. God allows Him to not believe, freely. He does not make Him not believe. He does not force the man's will. He does not predestine the man to hell. He allows Him to go there of his own choice, but He does not force Him.

Quote:
 

That makes him an evil God, because as you and I know, according to Christianity, 2/3+ of the world is going to hell.

"2/3+" of the world is not necessarily going to hell. I wonder where you got that arbitrary number. I have no definite knowledge that you are going to hell or heaven. I can posit that it would be improbable, reasonably speaking, that you would go to heaven due to your unbelief, but it is ultimately up to God because He is the only one who has certain knowledge about your actions.

Quote:

 First of all, they barely chose. God gives us no real choice. If I told you 'Kiss my ass or I'll kick the shit out of you' would you consider you have a choice?

God does not give us this choice. God gave us initially the choice to love Him and be happy for all eternity. Our choice, OUR choice, was to turn to ourselves as objects of pride. Thus, we lost original justice. God did not want that to happen, nor did He determine that it would happen that way contrary to our freedom. He let us do what we wanted and then attempted to persuade us to come to Him throughout history, culminating in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, the ultimate act of love toward human beings. Our turning from God is its own punishment, not God's. True free will is a choice between two goods. It is in this sense that the blessed angels and saints have free will, choosing only between the infinite goods found in God. But an initial movement of the will toward God is necessary to confirm one in this state. We lost it in the garden, which is why God became man.

Quote:
 You are only free to choose between 2 horrible options. Only forced decisions out of complete fear. That's why Christianity holds so many (scared) believers, and that's why it's so hard to get out of that.

Becoming one with God seems just peachy to me. No fear here, except a fear of offending Him whom I love and of losing Him forever (filial fear versus servile fear, look it up).

Quote:

Also, what you fail to understand is that God created your mind, and all stimuli that your mind receives is ultimately traced back to God's creation. How is he not responsible for your evil choices?

Because He gave me free will, I can move my will in the way I please.

Quote:

If I point a gun at a person, and that person is frozen by fear, would you tell me that person CHOSE to be paralyzed? He went "Yeah I can be brave and take his gun, or I can be paralyzed and let him kill me. I'll go with paralyzed". That would be ridiculous!

Instinctual reactions are not an object of the will, as I have no choice to be flying in the air. But it would be ludicrous to say that I don't have free will because I can't fly. The will can only will those things within its power, and it does so freely, of its own volition. Also, particularly, in this example, YES, the person can be brave and take his gun. I also point out that if actions were never free, any speech about punishments or rewards would be impossible, as we have no ability to choose.

Lastly, a mouse is not a rational creature in the sense a human being is. It possesses no mind or free will. We are not rats in a maze and can freely determine our wills. It is a bad analogy.

 

In the end, I likewise point out that God judges our intention, as He rightly knows our hearts. He judges whether we did something we could, not whether we did something we could not. If a man was invincibly ignorant that murder was wrong and committed murder, He judges that man obviously differently than a man who did know that murder was wrong.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


dchernik
Theist
Posts: 50
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Quote: ...why the hell does

Quote:
...why the hell does he need YOU to defend him?

Because it's fun to learn and to teach what I believe to be true in a subject I am interested in.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:   They

StMichael wrote:

 

They are like God, because parents give life to us.

Parents are like God? Wow.

It's a bad analogy because your supposed God is so much more than just a parent.

Quote:

But God does not make Him an unbeliever. God allows Him to not believe, freely. He does not make Him not believe. He does not force the man's will. He does not predestine the man to hell. He allows Him to go there of his own choice, but He does not force Him.

Not directly, but he is directly responsible for this outcome. He creates your brain, therefore he is responsible for the way you react. He creates the stimuli (as I said, traced back to his creation) therefore he is completely responsible.

Here is what you can't deny: God knew, when he created an atheist, that that person would end up in hell. He chose to create him anyway.

That's it. That's all I need to conclude that if he existed, he would be an evil bastard.

Quote:

"2/3+" of the world is not necessarily going to hell. I wonder where you got that arbitrary number. I have no definite knowledge that you are going to hell or heaven. I can posit that it would be improbable, reasonably speaking, that you would go to heaven due to your unbelief, but it is ultimately up to God because He is the only one who has certain knowledge about your actions.

True. I have no knowledge how many people are going to hell. That's just my prediction. Wait, it's not, that is my would-be prediction if I believed in hell.

Quote:
God does not give us this choice. God gave us initially the choice to love Him and be happy for all eternity. Our choice, OUR choice, was to turn to ourselves as objects of pride.

I never chose to turn myself as object of my pride. When did I do that?

Quote:
Thus, we lost original justice. God did not want that to happen

This my point exactly: he did. Assuming he is omniscient and omnipotent: if he didn't want that to happen, then why did he create man knowing it would happen? Can you answer that?

Quote:
then attempted to persuade us to come to Him throughout history culminating in the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, the ultimate act of love toward human beings.

Excuse me? He didn't attempt to persuade me. He is omnipotent, if he had attempted such thing, he would have.

Sacrifice? What sacrifice? Do you have any proof of the sacrifice? Again, veracity of the bible?

Quote:
Our turning from God is its own punishment, not God's.

Untrue. According to Christianity, God DOES punish you from turning away from him. So much for your 'peachy' God.

Quote:

Becoming one with God seems just peachy to me. No fear here, except a fear of offending Him whom I love and of losing Him forever (filial fear versus servile fear, look it up).

God never offered to me becoming one with him. Sorry, it hasn't happened yet. The bible, humans and all that is different from God.

Quote:

Because He gave me free will, I can move my will in the way I please.

You please in the way God pleases. Please understand. Your preferrence is traced back to God's. Because he made you. The same works with a person who is going to hell. That person 'chose' that because the way God made him. And because God made everything that makes him choose (stimuli).

Quote:
Instinctual reactions are not an object of the will, as I have no choice to be flying in the air. But it would be ludicrous to say that I don't have free will because I can't fly.

I agree. I stand corrected.

Quote:

Lastly, a mouse is not a rational creature in the sense a human being is. It possesses no mind or free will. We are not rats in a maze and can freely determine our wills. It is a bad analogy.

How can you prove a mouse possesses no mind? And they do possess free will.

Of course we are not rats in a maze. That's why it was an analogy.

You probably say it's bad analogy and are reluctant to work with it because you know the answer. It is hard to turn away from religion, takes a lot of time and will power. Not everyone is able to do so. I have hope that in the future all the world will.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Parents are like

Quote:

Parents are like God? Wow.

It's a bad analogy because your supposed God is so much more than just a parent.

We call God "Father." God calls Himself "Father" in Scripture. I don't think it that bad of a comparison. God willed our existence out of love. We might act wrongly, but we still are free not to do so.

Quote:

Not directly, but he is directly responsible for this outcome. He creates your brain, therefore he is responsible for the way you react. He creates the stimuli (as I said, traced back to his creation) therefore he is completely responsible.

This only applies if free will is a materially determined characteristic (if free will were merely electrons firing), which it is not. Free will is the exercise of reason in choosing between goods without external coercion.

Quote:
Here is what you can't deny: God knew, when he created an atheist, that that person would end up in hell. He chose to create him anyway.

That's it. That's all I need to conclude that if he existed, he would be an evil bastard.

But this overlooks the fact that God creates the person in love with the free decision to accept or reject Him. God does not abandon the sinner, but offers him His help until the moment of his death. Further, God never creates a person an atheist - it might happen due to the person's choice, but God never creates a person like this.

Quote:

I never chose to turn myself as object of my pride. When did I do that?

The parents of humankind did so. They lost grace. Hence, all human nature lost original grace.

Quote:

This my point exactly: he did. Assuming he is omniscient and omnipotent: if he didn't want that to happen, then why did he create man knowing it would happen? Can you answer that?

I cannot presume to know God's specific reasoning. We know, however, that God created all things in His love and wisdom, and works all things out for the greater good. His love of the person and the possibility that they could be saved would outweigh the consideration that they might reject His divine aid. Even if He knew them damned, that doesn't mean that they couldn't have accepted God's grace.

Quote:

Excuse me? He didn't attempt to persuade me. He is omnipotent, if he had attempted such thing, he would have.

Persuasion throughout the Revelation of the Old Law and into the New Law of grace with Christ. Further, by your natural reason and the natural law which is written on all men's hearts, He draws all men to love good, and ultimately to love Himself, the uncreated Good.

 

Quote:

Sacrifice? What sacrifice? Do you have any proof of the sacrifice? Again, veracity of the bible?

The sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. You know, Christ...cross...death...resurrection...ect.

I don't know what you mean, exactly.

Quote:

Untrue. According to Christianity, God DOES punish you from turning away from him. So much for your 'peachy' God.

His punishment of us is allowing us to turn away from Him. He allows us to pursue the end which we want because of our free will. This turning away from God is itself the punishment.

Quote:

God never offered to me becoming one with him. Sorry, it hasn't happened yet. The bible, humans and all that is different from God.

Yes, He has. In Christ and His Church, by the Sacrament of Baptism and of the other means of grace in the sacraments, and through His grace.

Quote:

You please in the way God pleases. Please understand. Your preferrence is traced back to God's. Because he made you. The same works with a person who is going to hell. That person 'chose' that because the way God made him. And because God made everything that makes him choose (stimuli).

Again, God makes every stimulus that goes into our brains, yes, but He does not determine the movement of our wills, which is free. God wills that I am free. End of story.

Quote:

How can you prove a mouse possesses no mind? And they do possess free will.

A mouse does not possess free will because a mouse does not have a mind. A mouse possesses a sensitive appetite which follows the dictates of its instinct without rational reflection. A mind is necessary for free will to exist.

Quote:

You probably say it's bad analogy and are reluctant to work with it because you know the answer. It is hard to turn away from religion, takes a lot of time and will power. Not everyone is able to do so. I have hope that in the future all the world will.

Religion has produced most of humanities advancements. Atheism cannot claim nearly as much as religion can. But that is merely a sidenote. It has nothing to do with my will or power to turn away from religion. I believe what the Church teaches and what God has revealed because my reason shows that it is worthy of my belief. I firmly hold that everything the Church teaches is true and I see no way in which it conflicts with any truth of my reason. Christ is Eternal Wisdom.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:   This

StMichael wrote:

 

This only applies if free will is a materially determined characteristic (if free will were merely electrons firing), which it is not. Free will is the exercise of reason in choosing between goods without external coercion.

I'm saying God created your brain. If you are saying that our decisions are influenced by more things than our brain, you will have to prove that.

But I've got news for you. Even if you did prove that, then God would have been the creator too. God is responsible for creating all things. Therefore, he is responsible for creating whatever (Brain, soul, whatever) makes us decide in one way or another.

My argument applies.

Quote:


But this overlooks the fact that God creates the person in love with the free decision to accept or reject Him. God does not abandon the sinner, but offers him His help until the moment of his death. Further, God never creates a person an atheist - it might happen due to the person's choice, but God never creates a person like this.

God offers no help to sinners. Only men offer help to sinners.

I'm sorry. God creates nothing but atheists. Atheism: Lack of belief in a God or gods. You were born atheist. Whether you consider the start as the first cell or the moment when you're born, you have lack of belief. Only when you grow older you believe or continue 'disbelieving'.

Anyway, can you, or can you not deny what I said in bold on my last post? It's ultimately irrelevant what I'm overlooking or not, if the statement is in fact true. Or are you reluctant to admit your 'loving' God does that?

Quote:

The parents of humankind did so. They lost grace. Hence, all human nature lost original grace.

Right. I love it when Christians compare God to a judge in a courtroom or a man standing on a hill; I could also say 'Would a just judge condemn you because of your grandfather's crimes?'. I don't care about Christ or whatever comes after. The point is that to God, we are all born dirty, and I for one, don't think that's fair AT ALL.

Quote:


I cannot presume to know God's specific reasoning. We know, however, that God created all things in His love and wisdom, and works all things out for the greater good. His love of the person and the possibility that they could be saved would outweigh the consideration that they might reject His divine aid. Even if He knew them damned, that doesn't mean that they couldn't have accepted God's grace.

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean God doesn't create people knowing that they will end up in hell, suffering forever. There is no denial on that fact. Sounds like the moral values of a 6 year old playing with plastic soldiers. If you want to worship that tyrant, go ahead. But he's NOT all-loving.

Quote:

Persuasion throughout the Revelation of the Old Law and into the New Law of grace with Christ. Further, by your natural reason and the natural law which is written on all men's hearts, He draws all men to love good, and ultimately to love Himself, the uncreated Good.

He did not try to persuade me, that is the point. If he chose a freaking 2000 year old book full of contradictions to persuade me, then he has failed. That's very sloppy of him. He doens't draw all men to love good, we know that. Not all men love good. Another mission failed.

Quote:

I don't know what you mean, exactly.

I meant there is no proof of any sacrifice, and there is nothing that accounts for the veracity of the bible.

I meant the sacrifice he supposedly did to himself by himself, so he could change something done by himself previously.

Quote:

His punishment of us is allowing us to turn away from Him. He allows us to pursue the end which we want because of our free will. This turning away from God is itself the punishment.

What? Allowing us to turn away is a punishment? Do you realise what you are saying? According to that reason, Adam, Eve, Satan, and everyone in the world were born punished. Isn't 'free will' being able to reject God? If that's the punishment, then we are all born punished. I can see he is very sweet.

And he DOES punish us. Nobody sends themselves to hell, at least not directly. He is the one who chooses we suffer in hell eternally, not the sinners. If it were up to the sinners, they would have no punishment at all. Are you so blind not to see this? Or can't you just admit it?

 

Quote:

 

Yes, He has. In Christ and His Church, by the Sacrament of Baptism and of the other means of grace in the sacraments, and through His grace.

I haven't met Christ.

Is the Church God? Then he hasn't made any offer to me yet.

Quote:


Again, God makes every stimulus that goes into our brains, yes, but He does not determine the movement of our wills, which is free. God wills that I am free. End of story.

I am not trying to dispute the fact that you are "free". "End of story"? That's the church and its stubborness right there.

God does determine the movement of your will, indirectly, for reasons I have specificated before; in a nutshell: omnipotent omniscient being who creates everything includes responsibility for creating everything that dictates every man's reactions, plus the acceptance of every man's fate by aforementioned being at the moment of creation, due of the lack of action.

Quote:

A mouse does not possess free will because a mouse does not have a mind. A mouse possesses a sensitive appetite which follows the dictates of its instinct without rational reflection. A mind is necessary for free will to exist.

Prove a mind is necessary for free will to exist.

Prove a mouse has no mind.

Quote:

Religion has produced most of humanities advancements. Atheism cannot claim nearly as much as religion can. But that is merely a sidenote. It has nothing to do with my will or power to turn away from religion. I believe what the Church teaches and what God has revealed because my reason shows that it is worthy of my belief. I firmly hold that everything the Church teaches is true and I see no way in which it conflicts with any truth of my reason. Christ is Eternal Wisdom.

Lol. It seems somebody is getting touchy.

Religion has not produced most of humanities advancements. That is just an assertion. Science has produced most of our advancements. Just take a look at all science has done for us in the last 100 years.

And for the record, atheism doesn't claim to have done such advancements. Nobody's playing 'Join the better side' here, only you.

Religion, on the other hand, is responsible for every single death in the name of God. 'Holy wars' are because of religion, people dying there is a direct consequence. Inquisition, burning 'witches', hatred towards diversity, and the list goes on.

It was your God that killed literally millions of people in the Bible, and it's due to your God millions have been murdered.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'm saying God
Quote:

I'm saying God created your brain. If you are saying that our decisions are influenced by more things than our brain, you will have to prove that.

But I've got news for you. Even if you did prove that, then God would have been the creator too. God is responsible for creating all things. Therefore, he is responsible for creating whatever (Brain, soul, whatever) makes us decide in one way or another.

The mind, the rational soul, is created free by God. There is no necessity imposed. Our minds are free to choose. If you want proof, you can look at the fact that human beings are not governed by instinct or necessity. Our actions as free follow directly on our character as rational beings. We can choose to sit down or stand up, we can choose one particular path without necessity in our choice. I again point out that commands and punishments would be in vain if there were no such thing as free will (either in human terms or on God's side).

Quote:

God offers no help to sinners. Only men offer help to sinners.

I don't see any reason that this statement ought to be justified. First, there is no proof either from Scripture or from reason why I ought to believe this. Second, if, as you maintain, man has no free will, nobody could help a person in sin (and sin itself would be a meaningless term - a rock cannot sin).

Quote:

I'm sorry. God creates nothing but atheists. Atheism: Lack of belief in a God or gods. You were born atheist. Whether you consider the start as the first cell or the moment when you're born, you have lack of belief. Only when you grow older you believe or continue 'disbelieving'.

I consider this false. First, because while God creates men who might not know intrinsically that He exists, He creates them with minds which are oriented toward Him as their goal. Our entire goal in life is God, and He thus gave us reason to discover Him. Our wills and our minds are naturally oriented toward truth and goodness, and toward God as their ultimate goal. Atheists are not created, but are made that way by their own darkness of heart or intellect. It does not have to be their fault, as circumstances might have influenced them that way, but it is they who will be ultimately accountable before God for their actions.

Quote:

Right. I love it when Christians compare God to a judge in a courtroom or a man standing on a hill; I could also say 'Would a just judge condemn you because of your grandfather's crimes?'. I don't care about Christ or whatever comes after. The point is that to God, we are all born dirty, and I for one, don't think that's fair AT ALL.

We were not "born dirty" at all. God created us in grace. WE lost that grace; He did not take it from us.

Quote:

Irrelevant. That doesn't mean God doesn't create people knowing that they will end up in hell, suffering forever. There is no denial on that fact. Sounds like the moral values of a 6 year old playing with plastic soldiers. If you want to worship that tyrant, go ahead. But he's NOT all-loving.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge the facts doesn't mean that it is impossible. God did not create anybody for hell or eternal punishment. He created mankind in general and the spirits ("angels&quotEye-wink both in a state of natural grace and justice. They had the opportunity to choose God as their Good. Rather, some turned away from God to other goods. This sin was not God's fault, and in the case of man, God rectified whatever sin resulted from the Fall by His Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection. His Cross redeemed the world from the bondage it was in and enables us to be children of God - as we were truly INTENDED TO BE. God foresaw our sin, and did not doom us to hell. That is why He sent His Son to accomplish our redemption.

The Apostle James says to such: "-->Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts He any man. But every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then, when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death."--> James 1:13-15 Solomon, too, in his book of Proverbs, has this answer for such as wish to find an excuse for themselves from God Himself: "-->The folly of a man spoils his ways; but he blames God in his heart."--> Proverbs 19:3 And in the book of Ecclesiasticus we read: "-->Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away; for you ought not to do the things that He hates: nor do thou say, He has caused me to err; for He has no need of the sinful man. The Lord hates all abomination, and they that fear God love it not. He Himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of His counsel. If thou be willing, you shall keep His commandments, and perform true fidelity. He has set fire and water before you: stretch forth your hand unto whether you will. Before man is life and death, and whichsoever pleases him shall be given to him."--> Sirach 15:11-17

Quote:

  He did not try to persuade me, that is the point. If he chose a freaking 2000 year old book full of contradictions to persuade me, then he has failed. That's very sloppy of him. He doens't draw all men to love good, we know that. Not all men love good. Another mission failed.

All men love the good naturally. Everything loved by man is percieved to be a good for them. Further, God did reveal Himself to you by His creation which you could examine in your reason to arrive at knowledge of Him. He implanted His moral law within your heart and mind. He lastly gave the Gospel and the Church to bring you to Himself.

The apostle also says: "-->The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold back the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him are from the creation of the world clearly seen—being understood by the things that are made—even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are inexcusable."--> Romans 1:18-20

Quote:

I meant there is no proof of any sacrifice, and there is nothing that accounts for the veracity of the bible.

YOU are the one arguing from the Bible to me. Further, the Scriptures do say that Christ's Passion and Death were a true sacrifice. "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mk 10:45), But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed" (Is 53:4-5), "This is my body which is (given) for you.... This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Cor 11:24-25). And so on.

Quote:

I meant the sacrifice he supposedly did to himself by himself, so he could change something done by himself previously.

The sacrifice on the Cross was a true sacrifice. A sacrifice is something offered to God that pleases Him and satisfies for sin. Christ's obedience in His Passion was offered to God for our salvation out of charity and pleased God so that it satisfied for all sin, past, present, and future. I see no contradiction.

Quote:

What? Allowing us to turn away is a punishment?

Turning away is the punishment. He allows us to turn away freely and this itself is the way in which God can be said to "punish."

Quote:

Isn't 'free will' being able to reject God?

Actually, that's not true. Free will is being able to choose freely between goods. It is actually a hamper on perfect liberty to choose an evil.

Quote:

And he DOES punish us. Nobody sends themselves to hell, at least not directly. He is the one who chooses we suffer in hell eternally, not the sinners. 

We choose some created good over God in sin. This turning away from Goodness itself is an offense against an infinite Good and deserves infinite punishment. This turning away is likewise its own punishment, as only the Good itself can satisfy for perfect human happiness, and all created goods are good only is so far as they are from God. In choosing these, we choose hell. Hell is the lack of happiness in these created goods and the remorse from not being able to be happy in God (realizing our own mistake and how far we are from God). God does not choose to "put" us in hell; our choice places us in hell. Heaven and Hell are more so dispositions of the soul than physical places.

Quote:

I haven't met Christ.

Is the Church God? Then he hasn't made any offer to me yet.

The Church speaks for God.

Quote:

God does determine the movement of your will, indirectly, for reasons I have specificated before; in a nutshell: omnipotent omniscient being who creates everything includes responsibility for creating everything that dictates every man's reactions, plus the acceptance of every man's fate by aforementioned being at the moment of creation, due of the lack of action.

But this only assumes responsibility if God were creating agents that were not independent. God, however, created independent, or free, moral agents. God does not determine my will, though He may create it and create every aspect of its being. He might order the movement of all irrational things and even of my instincts, but He, by His own will in creating me a rational being, has allowed me to share in His own free will by being a truly free being.

Quote:

Prove a mind is necessary for free will to exist.

Prove a mouse has no mind.

All I need to prove is that we have a mind. Also, it should be obvious that a mind is necessary for free will to exist. How can a will exist without a mind? There is no subject, "I", nor can there be desire for something in my mind without a mind. I can want something in my body, but I can obviously choose something else with my mind (again, the brownie is bad for me, I'll have the carrot).  

Quote:

Religion has not produced most of humanities advancements. That is just an assertion. Science has produced most of our advancements. Just take a look at all science has done for us in the last 100 years.

Science and learning was virtually invented by religion. Refer to Friar Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and other great scientists (not even Christian, look to Islam and Judaism for great advances in science). Universities were invented by the Catholic Church, especially the Dominican order. The preservation of learning was made possible by Saint Benedict's monasteries. Ect.

 

Quote:

Religion, on the other hand, is responsible for every single death in the name of God. 'Holy wars' are because of religion, people dying there is a direct consequence. Inquisition, burning 'witches', hatred towards diversity, and the list goes on.

And atheism is responsible for every death in the name of science and progress. Witness Nazism, Communism, abortion, eugenics, mass genocide, ect. These wars killed more than all religious wars ever did.

Quote:

It was your God that killed literally millions of people in the Bible, and it's due to your God millions have been murdered.

This is unjustified on so many levels. First, God is beyond the sin of murder because He already has the right to take away and give life. It is proper to Him alone. He grants every life and takes every life away. It has nothing to do with murder or not.

Second, I would contend that it is due to a lack of morality which God has commanded ("Do not kill" sound familiar?) that all murder has happened.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Note: I did not read one

Note: I did not read one word of the Bible passages for I am not interested in fantasy or fiction when I'm trying to debate rationally. The Bible has little to no veracity to atheists, it's the Christians that consider the Bible as valid argument.

StMichael wrote:

The mind, the rational soul, is created free by God. There is no necessity imposed. Our minds are free to choose. If you want proof, you can look at the fact that human beings are not governed by instinct or necessity. Our actions as free follow directly on our character as rational beings. We can choose to sit down or stand up, we can choose one particular path without necessity in our choice. I again point out that commands and punishments would be in vain if there were no such thing as free will (either in human terms or on God's side).

You are being irrational.

Have you noticed how I keep asking you things, and you COMPLETELY ignore them and start preaching? It's very very hard to reason with someone who barely reasons at all. Yee-haw, yee-haw.

I continue to point out God is responsible for our decisions, since he is the creator of everything that has an influence on our own decisions. Whether we choose what we choose or not, it doesn't matter, he still IS responsible. Yet you continue to say "Free will, free will, free will, free will, free will." Would you stop and look at what I'm saying for two seconds? It feels like I'm talking to a wall here. I am NOT debating whether we have a choice or not. I am arguing the responsibility of God in this issue.

My idea, once again (and would you puh-leeze stop preaching):

God is the creator of everything. That includes everything that makes you decide in the way you decide. Therefore, your decisions, although a product of your own reasonings and choices, are a direct consequence of your reasoning methods (brain, soul, whatever), which were created by God. Therefore, God is responsible for the consequences of what he created, as he is responsible for everything he created and acknowledges the fate of such things at the moment of their creation.

In a nutshell: No matter how you put it, every decision you make is due firstly to your own 'design', and on a secondary level, the stimulus your receive; both of which are God's creation. Therefore, he is responsible for the outcome, EVEN when you choose to do whatever you do.

Quote:

Quote:

God offers no help to sinners. Only men offer help to sinners.

I don't see any reason that this statement ought to be justified. First, there is no proof either from Scripture or from reason why I ought to believe this. Second, if, as you maintain, man has no free will, nobody could help a person in sin (and sin itself would be a meaningless term - a rock cannot sin).

It's not what you should believe, it's what you shouldn't believe. Do you see God anywhere? Can you perceive, with any of your senses, that he is helping someone? Can you conclude logically that GOD HIMSELF is helping anyone? There is no reason to believe that.

What the Jolly Babble says is irrelevant. There is no veracity in the Scriptures.

If you mention 'free will' one more time my head is going to explode.

Quote:
Quote:

I'm sorry. God creates nothing but atheists. Atheism: Lack of belief in a God or gods. You were born atheist. Whether you consider the start as the first cell or the moment when you're born, you have lack of belief. Only when you grow older you believe or continue 'disbelieving'.

I consider this false. First, because while God creates men who might not know intrinsically that He exists, He creates them with minds which are oriented toward Him as their goal. Our entire goal in life is God, and He thus gave us reason to discover Him. Our wills and our minds are naturally oriented toward truth and goodness, and toward God as their ultimate goal. Atheists are not created, but are made that way by their own darkness of heart or intellect. It does not have to be their fault, as circumstances might have influenced them that way, but it is they who will be ultimately accountable before God for their actions.

Prove God creates people with minds which are oriented towards Him.

Prove our entire goal in life is God.

Prove our wills and our minds are naturally oriented toward 'truth' and 'goodness' (you will have to define those terms while you're at it).

Prove a baby, or a person who has just been born, has ANY reason to believe there is a God. Prove that they even WONDER about that.

This is nothing more than naked assertions.

 

Quote:

We were not "born dirty" at all. God created us in grace. WE lost that grace; He did not take it from us.

I observe no grace in the human race. To the Invisible Sky Daddy, I was born dirty. We are all born sinners. To me that's filthy. I'm just a filthy pig Smiling

I did not lose any grace. I had no grace in the first place. And if some naked chick in a garden lost her grace, it's not either my bussiness or my fault.

Quote:

God did not create anybody for hell or eternal punishment.

I never said that. You fail at reading.

Quote:

He created mankind in general and the spirits ("angels&quotEye-wink both in a state of natural grace and justice. They had the opportunity to choose God as their Good. Rather, some turned away from God to other goods. This sin was not God's fault.

Yes. It was. Read above for 'God's responsibilities'.

I have heard the tale a million times, thank you.

 

Quote:
...and in the case of man, God rectified whatever sin resulted from the Fall by His Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection. His Cross redeemed the world from the bondage it was in and enables us to be children of God - as we were truly INTENDED TO BE. God foresaw our sin, and did not doom us to hell. That is why He sent His Son to accomplish our redemption.

Let's see...

"...as we were truly intended to be."

This would mean, God had an intention, but things turned in a way that was NOT his intention. An omnimax, perfect being can not have things turning in a way he didn't want them to. God has failed.

"That is why He sent His Son to accomplish our redemption."

Hmm. God sent his Son (himself) to accomplish his own creation's redemption. Am I redeemed? How many people in the world are redeemed? If some of us are not redeemed, then Jesus has faied. God has failed.


Quote:

All men love the good naturally.

Prove it.

Quote:
Everything loved by man is percieved to be a good for them. Further, God did reveal Himself to you by His creation which you could examine in your reason to arrive at knowledge of Him. He implanted His moral law within your heart and mind. He lastly gave the Gospel and the Church to bring you to Himself.

God did not reveal himself to me. The Universe revealed itself to me. I have no reason to believe the Universe is God.

You can not prove there is any moral law of Sky Daddy "implanted in my heart", as corny as it may sound.

God did not give me the Gospel and the Church. Men did. Men are not God. Therefore, God has not given me anything.


Quote:

Further, the Scriptures do say...

And the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says otherwise. I don't care what the Scriptures say. There's just stuff written by our ignorant ancestors, 2000 years ago, which contain many contradictions and therefore have no veracity as a whole.

Quote:

The sacrifice on the Cross was a true sacrifice. A sacrifice is something offered to God that pleases Him and satisfies for sin. Christ's obedience in His Passion was offered to God for our salvation out of charity and pleased God so that it satisfied for all sin, past, present, and future. I see no contradiction.

Is Jesus God? You have certainly said so. Therefore:

God's obedience in His Passion was offered to God for our salvation out of charity and pleased God so that it satisfied for all sin, past, present, and future. I see no contradiction.

Hm. "I am so good, I will sacrifice myself to myself, to be satisfied."

Also, what you are saying is untrue. God is NOT satisfied for all sin past present and future. God is NOT satisfied at all. He continues to demand things, if he doesn't do it for sins, then why does he do it?

This is why religion fails. It demands desperate rationalizations for things which should be perfectly clear.

Quote:

Turning away is the punishment. He allows us to turn away freely and this itself is the way in which God can be said to "punish."

Turning away is the punishment? For what? I thought I turned away because I wanted to. I thought you were punished for turning away, not that turning away itself was the punishment. If turning away is the punishment, then he just gave Satan, Adam, and Eve a 'choice to be punished'. Does that seem logical to you?

 

Quote:

We choose some created good over God in sin. This turning away from Goodness itself is an offense against an infinite Good and deserves infinite punishment. This turning away is likewise its own punishment, as only the Good itself can satisfy for perfect human happiness, and all created goods are good only is so far as they are from God. In choosing these, we choose hell. Hell is the lack of happiness in these created goods and the remorse from not being able to be happy in God (realizing our own mistake and how far we are from God). God does not choose to "put" us in hell; our choice places us in hell. Heaven and Hell are more so dispositions of the soul than physical places.

You continue to ignore.

I'm sorry. You are truly mistaken.

1) A finite act towards an infinite being does not deserve infinite punishment. A finite act, towards whatever it may be, deserves a finite punishment. Infinite punishment refers to infinite acts, or, in this case, infinite injustice.

2) It IS God's choice to put us in hell. Do sinners choose to go to Hell? NO. Their choice is in their LIVES. I choose to live my life however I please. If that means something else, it means that's an EFFECT of my choice, not my choice itself. The fate of their souls is ultimately judged by God.

God is the only judge who can send you to Hell, or Heaven.

You fail to understand the difference between choice and consequence. Hell is a consequence, CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF, for our choices. He is responsible for creating Hell, or is he not?

The Bible clearly states Heaven is a place. With roads, and stuff like that. To say they are 'dispositions of the soul' is to contradict your own book.

Quote:

The Church speaks for God.

What is the veracity of the Church? If I say I speak of God, would you believe me? Of course not. The fact that they say they speak for God means nothing.

Quote:

But this only assumes responsibility if God were creating agents that were not independent. God, however, created independent, or free, moral agents. God does not determine my will, though He may create it and create every aspect of its being. He might order the movement of all irrational things and even of my instincts, but He, by His own will in creating me a rational being, has allowed me to share in His own free will by being a truly free being.

Free will again? Revise your reading skills.

I don't see how independence has anything to do with anything, as God created everything. He created all agents.

For further (mis)understanding of my argument, I would refer you to the following post. My words, even though repeated incessantly, continue to fail in making you see my point, therefore I will quote a post by "BobSpence1" who illustrates the point clearly.

"Every choice we make can only be based on our basic urges, our current emotional state, our reaction to what we perceive, in the context of our past experience, our memory, current understandings, our current desires, and our assessment of how best to achieve those current goals. These all seem to be things which we don't actually choose in themselves, although many will be at least partly the result of previous choices.

If we 'chose' some course of action that we have been told by Someone not to pursue, that can only because we perceive that it will make us happier in some way, or else it's just that our basic urges have overcome our conscious judgment. In the first case, if we have have made an incorrect assessment, then our judgment is flawed, in the second case our basic make-up is flawed in that our basic urges are too strong and ultimately harmful. Either way, our poor choice is due to our flawed 'design'. The mere fact that our perceptions and capacities to analyse the ultimate consequences of our actions are finite, limited, means that it is virtually inevitable that we will make mistakes.

If Hell is something that no creature would consciously chose, then any choice that lead to that would be an error of judgment, reflecting those finite and limited faculties. If we have some overwhelming primal emotional drive which leads to such errors of judgment, that is hardly something we chose, it is a flaw in our basic make-up.

No matter how you cut it, such 'bad' actions can only be due to built-in flaws. So 'God' has to take ultimate responsibility."

If you want to address his post, please refer to http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/3809?page=6

 

Quote:
Quote:

Prove a mind is necessary for free will to exist.

Prove a mouse has no mind.

All I need to prove is that we have a mind. Also, it should be obvious that a mind is necessary for free will to exist. How can a will exist without a mind? There is no subject, "I", nor can there be desire for something in my mind without a mind. I can want something in my body, but I can obviously choose something else with my mind (again, the brownie is bad for me, I'll have the carrot).

 

You still fail to prove a mouse has no mind. Assertion, assertion, assertion... zzz

 

Quote:

Science and learning was virtually invented by religion. Refer to Friar Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and other great scientists (not even Christian, look to Islam and Judaism for great advances in science). Universities were invented by the Catholic Church, especially the Dominican order. The preservation of learning was made possible by Saint Benedict's monasteries. Ect.

What the fuck? Learning was virtually invented by religion? That is the single most outrageous statement I have ever heard by a theist in my entire life. Learning is something humans have been able to do since their dawn as species. To say the cause of it is religion is completely nonsenical. In fact, the opposite applies. Religion filled many gaps of knowledge, as I'm sure you are aware. Things we can't explain were justified by religious (fictional) causes. That STOPS humans from trying to find the cause of something, as in their mind, it already has a cause. Religion is what offers false answers, therefore it keeps us away from the truth. This is exactly the reason why religion will not exist in the future. I expect christianity to die relatively soon, but religion might take a while. As science explains more and more, we will find out the need for a Sky Daddy is diminishing at an accelerating rate. His role is smaller with each passing day. Of course, the Church doesn't want to be forgotten so they make up threats like Hell (which was created over time, making it a worse threat as time passed because people needed religion less and less) and that's the main reason people still cling to religion. Fear, and ignorance. That's what religion feeds on.

"Universities were invented by the Catholic Church". Refer to any book (even wikipedia if you like) to check the veracity of this statement. Universities were by no means 'invented' by the Catholic Church.

Quote:

Quote:

Religion, on the other hand, is responsible for every single death in the name of God. 'Holy wars' are because of religion, people dying there is a direct consequence. Inquisition, burning 'witches', hatred towards diversity, and the list goes on.

And atheism is responsible for every death in the name of science and progress. Witness Nazism, Communism, abortion, eugenics, mass genocide, ect. These wars killed more than all religious wars ever did.

 

First of all, you fail to deny religion's responsibility (my claim). That should do it, yet you use the childish argument of 'I'm not the only one!".

Second of all;

Quote:
These wars killed more than all religious wars ever did.

False and naked assertion.

Thirdly, atheism is not responsible for deaths 'in the name of science and progress'. While atheists tend to uphold science, science never, ever claimed to 'kill', let alone 'in the name of atheism'.

Was Nazism in the name of atheism? No.

Was communism in the name of atheism? No.

Abortion, eugenics, all 'in the name of disbelief in a God'? These are not only naked assertions, but ludicrous statements.

Religious killings were all in the name of one deity or the other. These killings you mention, such as genocide, have absolutely nothing to do with 'disbelief in a god'. You fail to understand the meaning of 'atheism'.

Quote:

 

This is unjustified on so many levels. First, God is beyond the sin of murder because He already has the right to take away and give life.

Does that mean he didn't kill millions? No. He still did, whether he has the right or not. He killed millions in the Bible, you can't deny that.

Quote:

 

Second, I would contend that it is due to a lack of morality which God has commanded ("Do not kill" sound familiar?) that all murder has happened.

Then God is one immoral bastard. Didn't he order to kill your rebellious teenage children? You've read the Bible, you are familiar with cherry picking.

God killed people for ridiculous reasons, and not only that- but he ORDERED many to kill. I'm sure you are VERY aware of the killings he committed, plus the killings he ordered- but if you want to play the innocence game like all Christians do, I'll be happy to find many passages in the Bible which clearly illustrate these events.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Note: I do not read one

Note: I do not read one word of any discussion by an atheist dealing with what the Bible says for I am not interested in his fantasy or fiction in interpreting what the Scriptures say when I'm trying to debate rationally. The Bible has little to no veracity to atheists, so don't argue against Christians that consider the Bible as valid argument if you refuse to answer objections.

 

Quote:
I am NOT debating whether we have a choice or not. I am arguing the responsibility of God in this issue.

OK, assuming we have free choice, God is not responsible because our wills are free from God's interference. Our wills are independent moral agents.

Quote:

In a nutshell: No matter how you put it, every decision you make is due firstly to your own 'design', and on a secondary level, the stimulus your receive; both of which are God's creation. Therefore, he is responsible for the outcome, EVEN when you choose to do whatever you do.

But God does not create my decisions themselves. I create my decisions. They flow from my free will. He might cause them to exist, but He causes them to exist as MINE, not as HIS. There is a big distinction. God has no moral responsibility for MY actions.

 

Quote:

It's not what you should believe, it's what you shouldn't believe. Do you see God anywhere? Can you perceive, with any of your senses, that he is helping someone? Can you conclude logically that GOD HIMSELF is helping anyone? There is no reason to believe that.

First, I do "see" God in His effects in nature. Things are in motion, ect. Second, I can deduce that as He created man for grace, He does help by His grace. Nothing nature does is in vain, ect. Third, it depends what you mean by "helping," as it is clear that God orders all things by His wisdom and Providence by natural reason: His intellect knows all things perfectly and His will orders all things according to His perfect knowledge. Hence, yes, by His Providence God helps people.

 

Quote:

Prove God creates people with minds which are oriented towards Him.

Our minds naturally know truth as an intellectual good. God is the ultimate cause of truth itself. Our minds are ordered toward God as the Truth itself as their ultimate good.

Quote:

Prove our entire goal in life is God.

Our wills desire not merely a finite created good, but Goodness taken universally. The only such Good exists in Goodness itself, which is God. Hence, the end of human willing lies in God.

Quote:

Prove our wills and our minds are naturally oriented toward 'truth' and 'goodness' (you will have to define those terms while you're at it).

Our wills only will the good. This is axiomatic, as our will is our desire of something. But the good exists as something that is desired. So the will can only desire that which is desirable. Thus, the will wills only the good.

Similarly, the mind can only know something as true. It cannot truly know something as false, as a false thing in itself is a nothing. Falseness denotes a lack of conformity between the intellect and reality. Thus, our minds only know truth, because only something that is at least somehow true can be intelligible. 

Quote:

Prove a baby, or a person who has just been born, has ANY reason to believe there is a God. Prove that they even WONDER about that.

I think it is apparent that all men naturally wonder about God because they wonder about the causes of things. This eventually comes to a wondering of something like God. Further, the world testifies that a God exists. There exist things in motion, ect.

 

Quote:

 I observe no grace in the human race. To the Invisible Sky Daddy, I was born dirty. We are all born sinners. To me that's filthy. I'm just a filthy pig Smiling

OK, but this is just an assertion then. And sin can only exist in relation to God. If you want to speak about Christian doctrine in this way, don't pervert it and read what I write next time. Otherwise you merely exemplify irrationalism.

Quote:

I did not lose any grace. I had no grace in the first place.

You did not because our first parents lost that. Unless of course you were baptized, in which case you would have grace in your soul when you were baptized.

Quote:

Let's see...

"...as we were truly intended to be."

This would mean, God had an intention, but things turned in a way that was NOT his intention. An omnimax, perfect being can not have things turning in a way he didn't want them to. God has failed.

God has two senses in which He wills things: primary and contingent. It is His primary will that man be happy forever in Paradise. However, His contingent will is that such happen by way of free choice.

Quote:

"That is why He sent His Son to accomplish our redemption."

Hmm. God sent his Son (himself) to accomplish his own creation's redemption. Am I redeemed? How many people in the world are redeemed? If some of us are not redeemed, then Jesus has faied. God has failed.

His Son is a different Person but the same substance. You are not redeemed, presumably, because you have not accepted His grace. God has not failed, because, again, this redemption is won on two levels: first, because the Cross did win all the graces necessary for the satisfaction of all sins ever committed, and second, because His redemption is contingent on our free will.

Quote:

God did not reveal himself to me. The Universe revealed itself to me. I have no reason to believe the Universe is God.

I never said the universe is God. You can see from the universe, however, that things are in motion, ect. and the unmoved mover is hence necessary.

Quote:

You can not prove there is any moral law of Sky Daddy "implanted in my heart", as corny as it may sound.

Your will can only desire the good, by defintion of the desirable as the good. This leads to a discovery of moral truths based on the fact that we known that we ought to "pursue the good and avoid the evil." The question becomes "what is good and evil?" and the intellect can discover a great deal about this.

Quote:

God did not give me the Gospel and the Church. Men did. Men are not God. Therefore, God has not given me anything.

Of course, that is just your contention. If God is the motive force of the Church, He has.

Quote:

 There's just stuff written by our ignorant ancestors, 2000 years ago, which contain many contradictions and therefore have no veracity as a whole.

No contradictions exist in the Scriptures which are not able to be solved.

Quote:

Hm. "I am so good, I will sacrifice myself to myself, to be satisfied."

Again, Persons versus substance. Also, "...[one] properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured...."

Quote:

Also, what you are saying is untrue. God is NOT satisfied for all sin past present and future. God is NOT satisfied at all. He continues to demand things, if he doesn't do it for sins, then why does he do it?

What does this have to do with anything? God has recieved satisfaction for sin, but we have not yet cooperated with grace. By analogy, if we have a large debt, and someone gives us enough money to pay that debt, we still must actually pay that debt in order for it to actually be forgiven, though it be potentially so.

Quote:

Turning away is the punishment? For what? I thought I turned away because I wanted to. I thought you were punished for turning away, not that turning away itself was the punishment. If turning away is the punishment, then he just gave Satan, Adam, and Eve a 'choice to be punished'. Does that seem logical to you?

Yes. It does. Either God or a created good. They chose the created good.

Quote:

1) A finite act towards an infinite being does not deserve infinite punishment. A finite act, towards whatever it may be, deserves a finite punishment. Infinite punishment refers to infinite acts, or, in this case, infinite injustice.

If I commit an act of murder against a president rather than against a common citizen, the latter demands a greater punishment. The object of the offense determines the gravity of the punishment. But the finite created object to which the will turns likewise requires a sort of finite satisfaction (which is why the Catholic Church acknowledges the satisfaction for this by good works, indulgences, Purgatory, ect.).

Quote:

2) It IS God's choice to put us in hell. Do sinners choose to go to Hell? NO. Their choice is in their LIVES. I choose to live my life however I please. If that means something else, it means that's an EFFECT of my choice, not my choice itself. The fate of their souls is ultimately judged by God.

Your choice is made for something that is not the infinite Good. Hence, you choose hell.

Quote:
You fail to understand the difference between choice and consequence. Hell is a consequence, CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF, for our choices. He is responsible for creating Hell, or is he not?

God did not create hell. Hell is more a state of soul rather than a physical place. Hell is a consequence, but it is a consequence from the nature of the act itself, not from God's damning you (in a sense, they are the same).

Quote:

The Bible clearly states Heaven is a place. With roads, and stuff like that. To say they are 'dispositions of the soul' is to contradict your own book.

I ignore your reference to my "Jolly Babble." Apparently, referring to my text to defend myself cannot be done without offending your wee sensibilities.

Quote:

What is the veracity of the Church? If I say I speak of God, would you believe me? Of course not. The fact that they say they speak for God means nothing.

The fact that they prove it makes all the difference. Aka, "Is it easier to say 'your sins are forgiven' or 'rise and walk?' So that you may know the Son of Man has the power on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, 'Rise and walk.'" Miracles prove the Church's divine institution.

Quote:

I don't see how independence has anything to do with anything, as God created everything. He created all agents.

But He creates them as free agents. He wills not to determine their choices. It makes ALL the difference.

Quote:

You still fail to prove a mouse has no mind. Assertion, assertion, assertion... zzz

And? I only need to prove that YOU AND I do!

Quote:

What the fuck? Learning was virtually invented by religion? That is the single most outrageous statement

Stop being such an superficial reader. Learning is another word that can mean "knowledge of letters," or "education," ect.

 

Quote:

In fact, the opposite applies. Religion filled many gaps of knowledge, as I'm sure you are aware. Things we can't explain were justified by religious (fictional) causes. That STOPS humans from trying to find the cause of something, as in their mind, it already has a cause. Religion is what offers false answers, therefore it keeps us away from the truth.

Only if you assume that its conclusions are false does the argument follow. Otherwise, religion fills a gap of knowledge that cannot be filled by scientific knowledge or philosophical knowledge or mathematics or any other naturally known science.

Quote:
 

This is exactly the reason why religion will not exist in the future. I expect christianity to die relatively soon, but religion might take a while.

 That is a totally and utterly ridiculous statement. If you are waiting for the demise of religion, you're gonna have to wait right until the angel blows his trumpet, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. Further, the Catholic Church is the longest standing institution in history, far outlasting any earthly civilization. Keep that in mind when you are waiting. It ain't going nowhere.

Quote:

As science explains more and more, we will find out the need for a Sky Daddy is diminishing at an accelerating rate. His role is smaller with each passing day.

Or, of course, bigger as the case may be. Don't be so biased. If you are Catholic, of course, our increasing knowledge of the complexity of the natural universe gives us an ever-increasing look at the intelligence which created the universe and His goodness.

 

Quote:

Of course, the Church doesn't want to be forgotten so they make up threats like Hell (which was created over time, making it a worse threat as time passed because people needed religion less and less) and that's the main reason people still cling to religion. Fear, and ignorance. That's what religion feeds on.

That's of course your assertion. You can provide no historical evidence to support your claim that "worse threats of hell" developed over time. It is total nonsense. Further, most people don't cling to religion out of fear. I challenge you to ask the average believer, including Protestants, why he believes in God. I can almost guarantee that most people you ask would say something like, "Because God fulfills me somehow."

Quote:
  

"Universities were invented by the Catholic Church". Refer to any book (even wikipedia if you like) to check the veracity of this statement. Universities were by no means 'invented' by the Catholic Church.

How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman

Marrone, Steven P. “Medieval Philosophy in Context: Monastic Discipline

and Scholarship,” in
Cambridge Companion to Medieval Studies. A.S.

McGrade editor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

I quote from the Wikipedia article on Medieval Universities:

"The predecessor of the modern university found its roots in Paris, [which, by the way, was founded by Papal decree] especially under the guidance of Peter Abelard, who wrote Sic et Non ("Yes and No&quotEye-wink, which collected texts for university study. Dissatisfied with tensions between burghers and students and the censorship of leading intellectuals by the Church, Abelard and others formed the Universitas, modelled on the mediaeval guild, a large-scale, self-regulating, permanent institution of higher education.

By the 13th century, almost half of the highest offices in the Church were occupied by degreed masters (abbots, archbishops, cardinals), and over one-third of the second-highest offices were occupied by masters. In addition, some of the greatest theologians of the High Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas and Robert Grosseteste, were products of the mediaeval university.

The development of the mediaeval university coincided with the widespread reintroduction of Aristotle from Byzantine and Arab scholars and the decline in popularity of Platonism and Neoplatonism in favour of Aristotelian thought." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

Quote:

 First of all, you fail to deny religion's responsibility (my claim). That should do it, yet you use the childish argument of 'I'm not the only one!"

It is a non-unique argument. Humanism and atheism is most certainly more bloody than religion has ever been; and atheism has only had a few years to reign compared to my religion.

Quote:

Was Nazism in the name of atheism? No.

Was communism in the name of atheism? No.

Um, yes! If you are not totally uninformed, the basis behind both national socialism and communism is atheistic materialism. The dedicated goals of both of these parties was more or less to stomp out religion as inimical to "progress" and "science."

Quote:

Abortion, eugenics, all 'in the name of disbelief in a God'? These are not only naked assertions, but ludicrous statements.

Eugenics arose as a predominant science from an atheist humanist who was a disciple of Charles Darwin.

“Your book drove away the constraint of my old superstition, as if it had been a nightmare.”-- Sir Francis Galton, letter to Darwin, recorded in Life and Letters of F. Galton (1914) In abortion, modern abortion was pushed most fervently by such atheists as Margeret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She also, coincidentally, happened to be in good standing with Hilter and her theories were implemented in the Reich's policies. 
Quote:

These killings you mention, such as genocide, have absolutely nothing to do with 'disbelief in a god'. You fail to understand the meaning of 'atheism'.

That's a good one. Extermination of one people as inferior to another is found consistently in atheism, as "science" can define whatever life is below your own to be whatever you like. I point out as well extreme environmentalists, usually tied to atheism, who encourage the destruction of the human species as a cancer on the planet.

Quote:

Does that mean he didn't kill millions? No. He still did, whether he has the right or not. He killed millions in the Bible, you can't deny that.

It does not matter because God cannot properly murder anyone. If God exists, which you of course are assuming for the purpose of argument, He grants and takes away all life and thus has is the only agent who can properly take away life without infringing on the creature's rights. Murder does not apply to God - it doesn't make sense.

Anyway, why should I respond as you are referencing my "Jolly Babble?" I obviously have no way to defend myself against such a terrific attack of supreme intelligence.

Quote:

Then God is one immoral bastard. Didn't he order to kill your rebellious teenage children? You've read the Bible, you are familiar with cherry picking.

No. He did not.

Quote:

God killed people for ridiculous reasons, and not only that- but he ORDERED many to kill. I'm sure you are VERY aware of the killings he committed, plus the killings he ordered- but if you want to play the innocence game like all Christians do, I'll be happy to find many passages in the Bible which clearly illustrate these events.

First, even if He did, it would be justified because all moral authority derives from Him in this area especially. Second, He did not order irrational deaths; I contend your interpretation of Scripture is awful and superficial. Third, why should I respond to your use of the "Jolly Babble" as obviously I have no way to respond?

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

 

Ora Pro Nobis, Sante Pater Dominice, Ut Digni Efficiamur Promissionibus Christi! 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Kelreth
Kelreth's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2006-09-14
User is offlineOffline
because for all of its power

because for all of its power and greatness they speak of, it is the most childish being in existance (suppsosedly)


QuadrivialMind (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Note: I

StMichael wrote:

Note: I do not read one word of any discussion by an atheist dealing with what the Bible says for I am not interested in his fantasy or fiction in interpreting what the Scriptures say when I'm trying to debate rationally. The Bible has little to no veracity to atheists, so don't argue against Christians that consider the Bible as valid argument if you refuse to answer objections.

The problem is, you use your Bible to support your claims. Therefore, I'm not doing anything invalid when I point out that by your own Bible, there are problems, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc., because you think it's right. It is invalid however, tell me something is "because the Bible says so", because I do not believe in the Bible. That's the difference. You do, so for you, what the Bible says applies (as you want to follow it). I don't, so to me, it doesn't.

 

Quote:
Quote:
I am NOT debating whether we have a choice or not. I am arguing the responsibility of God in this issue.

OK, assuming we have free choice, God is not responsible because our wills are free from God's interference. Our wills are independent moral agents.

I am done with this argument as you are in complete denial. It's been thoroughly explained and if you want to look away, it's your "free will."

Quote:

 

But God does not create my decisions themselves. I create my decisions. They flow from my free will. He might cause them to exist, but He causes them to exist as MINE, not as HIS. There is a big distinction. God has no moral responsibility for MY actions.

Here it goes again...

True, God does not create your decisions themselves. But god creates everything that CAUSES your decisions, whether it's your choice or not. By creating all the causes, he is responsible for the effects.

Quote:

First, I do "see" God in His effects in nature. Things are in motion, ect.

I think you have the objections to the "first cause" argument perfectly clear to you. I can not do anything but hope you figure it out on your own. His Noodly Appendage knows I've tried.

Quote:
Our minds naturally know truth as an intellectual good. God is the ultimate cause of truth itself. Our minds are ordered toward God as the Truth itself as their ultimate good.

Our wills desire not merely a finite created good, but Goodness taken universally. The only such Good exists in Goodness itself, which is God. Hence, the end of human willing lies in God.

Our wills only will the good. This is axiomatic, as our will is our desire of something. But the good exists as something that is desired. So the will can only desire that which is desirable. Thus, the will wills only the good.

Similarly, the mind can only know something as true. It cannot truly know something as false, as a false thing in itself is a nothing. Falseness denotes a lack of conformity between the intellect and reality. Thus, our minds only know truth, because only something that is at least somehow true can be intelligible.

Personally, I find no reason to believe this. I don't know if there's a flaw, but to be honest, I don't care. To me, it's pure assertions, from the first sentence: "Our minds know..."; "God is..."; "Our wills will...". I will not ask you to back up these assertions, as there is no point. I've found there are many more reasons why we wouldn't agree in the end, despite this particular matter.

Quote:

I think it is apparent that all men naturally wonder about God because they wonder about the causes of things. This eventually comes to a wondering of something like God. Further, the world testifies that a God exists. There exist things in motion, ect.

1) If it's "all men", it's not "all babies" (or did you mean that too?)

2) All men wonder first, they don't believe.

3) Not all men think "the world testifies that a God exists" (I've heard your argument and you claim to know things not even quantum scientists know. You are obviously trying to come up with some weird rationalization to fill in the gaps your God forgot to explain)

I think we can safely conclude, that everybody is born atheist, and probably is atheist for a significant time of their early life. Wondering comes before believing.

 


Quote:
Quote:

Let's see...

"...as we were truly intended to be."

This would mean, ARGUMENTGod had an intention, but things turned in a way that was NOT his intention. An omnimax, perfect being can not have things turning in a way he didn't want them to. God has failed. END OF ARGUMENT

God has two senses in which He wills things: primary and contingent. It is His primary will that man be happy forever in Paradise. However, His contingent will is that such happen by way of free choice.

You ignore the matter. I'm not asking for a lesson about God. I'm asking if you can deny, that by your own statements, God wills something that is not? Refer to the argument you quoted.

Quote:
Quote:

"That is why He sent His Son to accomplish our redemption."

Hmm. ARGUMENT God sent his Son (himself) to accomplish his own creation's redemption. Am I redeemed? How many people in the world are redeemed? If some of us are not redeemed, then Jesus has faied. God has failed. END OF ARGUMENT

His Son is a different Person but the same substance. You are not redeemed, presumably, because you have not accepted His grace. God has not failed, because, again, this redemption is won on two levels: first, because the Cross did win all the graces necessary for the satisfaction of all sins ever committed, and second, because His redemption is contingent on our free will.

I don't care who his son is. And I'm not redeemed, so therefore not everyone is redeemed. I'm asking you again, if you can deny, that by your own statements, God wills something that is not? Refer to the argument you quoted.

Quote:
I never said the universe is God. You can see from the universe, however, that things are in motion, ect. and the unmoved mover is hence necessary.

I disagree. I claim to have no knowledge of the Universe's beginning, if there was one. I think nor should you.

Quote:
Quote:

You can not prove there is any moral law of Sky Daddy "implanted in my heart", as corny as it may sound.

Your will can only desire the good, by defintion of the desirable as the good. This leads to a discovery of moral truths based on the fact that we known that we ought to "pursue the good and avoid the evil." The question becomes "what is good and evil?" and the intellect can discover a great deal about this.

If you define "good" as "benefitial towards men" and "evil" as "harmful to men", then yes. But there is no reason to believe I get those concepts from God. There is however, logical reason to believe I don't.

 

Quote:
Quote:

There's just stuff written by our ignorant ancestors, 2000 years ago, which contain many contradictions and therefore have no veracity as a whole.

No contradictions exist in the Scriptures which are not able to be solved.

No contradictions? That's a very bold statement.

Surely you don't want me to cut and paste all the contradictions found online. Therefore I will not. Even if I did, I wouldn't want you to try and resolve every single one of them. I shall pick rather trivial ones:


1) Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
- II Samuel 21:8

 

2) If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife.
- Deuteronomy 25:5

If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing... they shall be childless.
- Leviticus 20:21

 

3) I'll quote this one that I found on a webpage (given upon request)

"A second major difficulty associated with the Resurrection lies in the contradictory accounts in the four gospels of what occurred. The following represent some of the major disagreements surrounding the events connected with the Resurrection:

A. At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

B. Who came?- Mary Magdalene alone (John 20:1) vs. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (Mark 16:1) vs. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women (Luke 24:10)

C. Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

D. Whom did they see at the tomb?- The angel (Matt. 28:2) vs. a young man (Mark 16:5) vs. two men (Luke 24:4) vs. two angels (John 20:11-12)

E. Were these men or angels inside or outside the tomb? -Outside (Matt. 28.2) vs. inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12).

F. Were they standing or sitting? - Standing (Luke 24:4) vs. sitting (Matt. 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

G. Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).

If the stories were consistent, one could write one long continuous narrative incorporating all four versions without fear of divergencies. Yet, this has never been done without adding, altering or omitting key verses. Apologists often submit the witness-at-an-auto-accident argument which is quite irrelevant since two diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive versions of the same event can not be simultaneously accurate. One or the other is false. Moreover, witnesses at an accident, unlike gospel writers, are not claiming inerrancy."

 

Regarding the veracity of the Bible, let's just take one story, out of all. How do you explain the Flood? It says water covered the Earth, yet I think science has told us that can't have happened at all. Furthermore, there are incoherences regarding the animals (like penguins, koalas, etc) Can you solve that? How can you satisfactory explain that story happened? Or is the Bible making it up?

Quote:
Quote:

Also, what you are saying is untrue. God is NOT satisfied for all sin past present and future. God is NOT satisfied at all. He continues to demand things, if he doesn't do it for sins, then why does he do it?

What does this have to do with anything? God has recieved satisfaction for sin, but we have not yet cooperated with grace. By analogy, if we have a large debt, and someone gives us enough money to pay that debt, we still must actually pay that debt in order for it to actually be forgiven, though it be potentially so.

That means God is not satisfied.

Except God has given me nothing, and if I don't "pay the debt" I suffer forever in hell. Bad analogy.

Quote:
Quote:

Turning away is the punishment? For what? I thought I turned away because I wanted to. I thought you were punished for turning away, not that turning away itself was the punishment. If turning away is the punishment, then he just gave Satan, Adam, and Eve a 'choice to be punished'. Does that seem logical to you?

Yes. It does. Either God or a created good. They chose the created good.

It does? So to you, God gave them a choice to be punished, and that's logical with an all-loving God? "You're fine, but I'll give you a choice to be punished." Ok. Up to opinion then.

Quote:
Quote:

1) A finite act towards an infinite being does not deserve infinite punishment. A finite act, towards whatever it may be, deserves a finite punishment. Infinite punishment refers to infinite acts, or, in this case, infinite injustice.

If I commit an act of murder against a president rather than against a common citizen, the latter demands a greater punishment. The object of the offense determines the gravity of the punishment. But the finite created object to which the will turns likewise requires a sort of finite satisfaction (which is why the Catholic Church acknowledges the satisfaction for this by good works, indulgences, Purgatory, ect.).

Indeed, if I kill the president, it's greater punishment than just any murder. But the object of the offence does not necessarily determine the gravity. If I kill millions of worthless people, I will still probably be sentenced to death.

There is one MAJOR flaw with this argument, even if I agreed on the fact that the object of offence determines gravity... The problem here, is that I'm NOT killing God. I'm just "walking away" from him. If I walked away from the president, nothing would happen. Even if I offended the president, rejected whatever gifts he made me, spits in is face, denied him as a president; worst thing they could do would be some time in jail (finite; for spitting probably) and maybe cast me out of the country- where I certainly don't burn forever. See why it's a bad analogy?

Quote:
Quote:

2) It IS God's choice to put us in hell. Do sinners choose to go to Hell? NO. Their choice is in their LIVES. I choose to live my life however I please. If that means something else, it means that's an EFFECT of my choice, not my choice itself. The fate of their souls is ultimately judged by God.

Your choice is made for something that is not the infinite Good. Hence, you choose hell.

We are adressing this in another thread (your stubborness to admit Hell is not a choice, but a consequence, that is)

Quote:
Quote:
You fail to understand the difference between choice and consequence. Hell is a consequence, CREATED BY GOD HIMSELF, for our choices. He is responsible for creating Hell, or is he not?

God did not create hell. Hell is more a state of soul rather than a physical place. Hell is a consequence, but it is a consequence from the nature of the act itself, not from God's damning you (in a sense, they are the same).

Untrue. Jesus descended into Hell ("Harrowing of Hell&quotEye-wink, that's what the Bible says. YOUR Bible.

And God is the creator of all things. Including Hell.

Quote:
Quote:

The Bible clearly states Heaven is a place. With roads, and stuff like that. To say they are 'dispositions of the soul' is to contradict your own book.

I ignore your reference to my "Jolly Babble." Apparently, referring to my text to defend myself cannot be done without offending your wee sensibilities.

You're not offending me. You're also not denying that you're saying things that contradict the Bible.


Quote:

The fact that they prove it makes all the difference. Aka, "Is it easier to say 'your sins are forgiven' or 'rise and walk?' So that you may know the Son of Man has the power on earth to forgive sins, I say to you, 'Rise and walk.'" Miracles prove the Church's divine institution.

There is no scientific evidence of the Chuch speaking from God, as there is no scientific evidence of God existing, let alone him "talking", however metaphorical that may be.

I have yet to see any miracles proven.

Quote:
Quote:

I don't see how independence has anything to do with anything, as God created everything. He created all agents.

But He creates them as free agents. He wills not to determine their choices. It makes ALL the difference.

Is that how it is, or is that how you would like it to be? I will not refer to the same argument again, it's boring. You certainly do know how to repeat yourself. Free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will, free will.

Quote:
Quote:

You still fail to prove a mouse has no mind. Assertion, assertion, assertion... zzz

And? I only need to prove that YOU AND I do!

No. You said my analogy of the mouse and the maze was not a good one because "mouses have no mind". That makes that an assertion.


Quote:
Quote:
In fact, the opposite applies. Religion filled many gaps of knowledge, as I'm sure you are aware. Things we can't explain were justified by religious (fictional) causes. That STOPS humans from trying to find the cause of something, as in their mind, it already has a cause. Religion is what offers false answers, therefore it keeps us away from the truth.

Only if you assume that its conclusions are false does the argument follow. Otherwise, religion fills a gap of knowledge that cannot be filled by scientific knowledge or philosophical knowledge or mathematics or any other naturally known science.

And has it not (and continues to) offer conclusions that are/were false? We have evidence that has happened (not for Christianisty in particular, but for religion in general)

Quote:
Quote:

This is exactly the reason why religion will not exist in the future. I expect christianity to die relatively soon, but religion might take a while.

That is a totally and utterly ridiculous statement. If you are waiting for the demise of religion, you're gonna have to wait right until the angel blows his trumpet, 'cause it ain't gonna happen. Further, the Catholic Church is the longest standing institution in history, far outlasting any earthly civilization. Keep that in mind when you are waiting. It ain't going nowhere.

That's your opinion. In my opinion, it is quite obvious people will eventually discard religion as part of their lives. To me, it's only a matter of time. I'm sure that by "Christ, infinite wisdom" you know everything in the world and you're never ever wrong (as you continue to prove to this very moment), and of course you know this too.

Quote:
Quote:

As science explains more and more, we will find out the need for a Sky Daddy is diminishing at an accelerating rate. His role is smaller with each passing day.

Or, of course, bigger as the case may be. Don't be so biased. If you are Catholic, of course, our increasing knowledge of the complexity of the natural universe gives us an ever-increasing look at the intelligence which created the universe and His goodness.

The majority of people in the world are not Catholics. Therefore it is irrelevant what people think of Sky Daddy's role if they're such a minority. I'm not biased, it's just that the majority of the world will need it less and less. I'm glad at least Asia is virtually free of your God. Of course they're all just going to Hell. They're the majority of the world, yet you Christians are still right. Entire ancient asian civilizations are wrong.

Quote:

That's of course your assertion. You can provide no historical evidence to support your claim that "worse threats of hell" developed over time. It is total nonsense. Further, most people don't cling to religion out of fear. I challenge you to ask the average believer, including Protestants, why he believes in God. I can almost guarantee that most people you ask would say something like, "Because God fulfills me somehow."

Yes, it is my assertion. Simply by the fact that a God such as yours wouldn't need the idea of Hell, I conclude that if he existed, the notion was invented by humans. It's my assertion, unfounded as it may be for you, I believe it to be true.

The believers think God fulfills them. And that's probably because they've got used to the idea of fear by now. It usually works with children, that's why it's a complete abuse to raise them Christian.

Quote:


How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman

Marrone, Steven P. “Medieval Philosophy in Context: Monastic Discipline

and Scholarship,” in
Cambridge Companion to Medieval Studies. A.S.

McGrade editor. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

I quote from the Wikipedia article on Medieval Universities:

"The predecessor of the modern university found its roots in Paris, [which, by the way, was founded by Papal decree] especially under the guidance of Peter Abelard, who wrote Sic et Non ("Yes and No&quotEye-wink, which collected texts for university study. Dissatisfied with tensions between burghers and students and the censorship of leading intellectuals by the Church, Abelard and others formed the Universitas, modelled on the mediaeval guild, a large-scale, self-regulating, permanent institution of higher education.

By the 13th century, almost half of the highest offices in the Church were occupied by degreed masters (abbots, archbishops, cardinals), and over one-third of the second-highest offices were occupied by masters. In addition, some of the greatest theologians of the High Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas and Robert Grosseteste, were products of the mediaeval university.

The development of the mediaeval university coincided with the widespread reintroduction of Aristotle from Byzantine and Arab scholars and the decline in popularity of Platonism and Neoplatonism in favour of Aristotelian thought." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_university

That's "Medieval University". I would encourage you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University Section "History".

Quote:

 

Quote:

Was Nazism in the name of atheism? No.

Was communism in the name of atheism? No.

Um, yes! If you are not totally uninformed, the basis behind both national socialism and communism is atheistic materialism. The dedicated goals of both of these parties was more or less to stomp out religion as inimical to "progress" and "science."

It seems history tells to each of us a different story Smiling

Quote:
Quote:

Abortion, eugenics, all 'in the name of disbelief in a God'? These are not only naked assertions, but ludicrous statements.

Eugenics arose as a predominant science from an atheist humanist who was a disciple of Charles Darwin.

I don't care. It was not in the name of atheism.

Quote:

In abortion, modern abortion was pushed most fervently by such atheists as Margeret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She also, coincidentally, happened to be in good standing with Hilter and her theories were implemented in the Reich's policies.
Right. An atheist knew Hitler. Very good argument.
Quote:

It does not matter because God cannot properly murder anyone. If God exists, which you of course are assuming for the purpose of argument, He grants and takes away all life and thus has is the only agent who can properly take away life without infringing on the creature's rights. Murder does not apply to God - it doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't matter to you, that your so called ever-loving God killed millions in what you consider to be the "holy" book, that's your bussiness.

Quote:
Quote:

Then God is one immoral bastard. Didn't he order to kill your rebellious teenage children? You've read the Bible, you are familiar with cherry picking.

No. He did not.

Ok. Your Bible says:

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

and:

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Do you Christians follow those rules? Then you cherry-pick. Sorry.

 

Quote:

Second, He did not order irrational deaths;

Refer to specifications above of the "Holy Bible".

 

On a more personal note, I think we will go on forever. I'm not sure I will still argue your answers. I'm tired of this, and I think it will never end Smiling It's way too big. I might have to agree to disagree, or let someone else take over. To be perfectly honest, you seem like a nice guy, but I don't even know why I'm doing this Sticking out tongue To my personal opinion, you have failed (and continue to) to address certain matters that are to me, crucial and I thereby mantain my position. The rest doesn't matter (although I still consider they haven't been solved) as long as those remain unresolved.

Let's just say, I have enough evidence for myself Smiling


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
QuadrivialMind, I think I

QuadrivialMind, I think I would have to agree, continuing to 'debate' StMichael, seems fruitless. He has medieval understanding of both science and religion, a deeply confused and hostile conception of Atheism, and shows no sign of grasping any of the points we attempt to make.

StMichael, you are obviously deeply committed to your position and beliefs, but you present nothing that we haven't heard before except you present it in a much more confusing manner. Nothing that makes much sense to me at any level.

Sure, if I could get myself into the strange, ancient world-view of the authors of scripture, it would probably make sense to me, but I much prefer to taken advantage of the vast improvement in our understanding of both Man and the Universe at large, in the millenuium or so since those writings were set down.

I am as comfortable as I could expect to be with my view and understanding of the world and human society, but happily continue to learn from people who offer fresh insights into the nature of things. Based on your posts, the last thing we can expect to hear from you is fresh ideas, yours were tired centuries ago. Sorry.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
 Essential points of the

 Essential points of the discussion:

 Point 1: God determines all action, hence He determines my action even though I have the ability to choose.

Quote:
But god creates everything that CAUSES your decisions, whether it's your choice or not. By creating all the causes, he is responsible for the effects.

Answer: God does not determine our action. This is precisely the point. Despite all causes or exterior events that might influence our decisions, our decisions are still free. We can still will to do this or that in any circumstance.

Point 2: All claim about God's existence from cosmology is merely a "god-of-the-gaps" argument.

Answer: This is false because our proof would only be such if it existed purely on the realm of science or physics. However, the proof is metaphysical in nature, not scientific. If I were making an argument that the cat gets hot because of buggles that come from the sun, this would be truly an argument that is "god-of-the-gaps," as I attempt to fill in what is properly scientific knowledge with a theory which is unscientific in nature. However, science only treats of things in the universe and of the universe itself. The cause of the universe's existence is a topic of enquiry that is beyond physics - it is metaphysical. We can know things in a certain manner from logical deduction about the nature of being. In this way, we can come to a knowledge of God's existence from the fact that things are in motion, changing, and hence require a mover.

Point 4: The Scriptures contain apparent contradictions.

Answer: While I think that all of those which you presented have more or less obvious solutions, I don't think it is a productive effort to argue about it. We do not both hold the same opinion about the veracity of Scripture, so it seems pointless.

 Point 5: Knowledge of God is purely derived from the Bible, or Scripture.

Answer: This is not true, as God's existence can be known naturally. Likewise, faith itself can never contradict the truths known to natural reason because both derive from the same source.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
I dont understand why a

I dont understand why a persons opinion about the truth of the bible would make a discussion about it pointless. I mean if it's true then any reasonable person could be convinced. It sounds almost like you are saying that to accept it you have to believe it first. If you already believe it then what's the point?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, the Bible is not

Well, the Bible is not self-evident. The Bible is a means of Revelation. It is, in fact, a record of Revelation. It is not a proof for God's existence. It deals of things that human reason cannot attain on its own power. It therefore really cannot be argued within by someone who cannot accept its principles. Likewise, I would not use the Bible as a proof to prove anything where the person I am proving to does not accept the Bible as an authority.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Well, the Bible is

Quote:
Well, the Bible is not self-evident.

Yeah, that's kind of the point isn't it. If it was then there would be no point in discussing the veracity of claims made in it.

Quote:
The Bible is a means of Revelation. It is, in fact, a record of Revelation. It is not a proof for God's existence.

If it's a means of revelation and it's accurate then it would be proof of god's existence.

Quote:
It deals of things that human reason cannot attain on its own power. It therefore really cannot be argued within by someone who cannot accept its principles. Likewise, I would not use the Bible as a proof to prove anything where the person I am proving to does not accept the Bible as an authority.

Yeah, that's what I said to accept it you have to believe it first. The only reason that I brought this up is because reasonable people usually have a difficult time rejecting things that are empirically true. So when you say that it's pointless to even discuss the issue it sounds like you mean that people here are so unreasonable that they won't accept the facts when they are presented, either that or you have doubts about it yourself. Of course I don't want to put words in your mouth or assume that I know what your thoughts are, that's just the impression that I get.

 

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


LoeLoe (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
What about miracles? When

What about miracles? When miracles happen he's taking away free will right there.


benjaminbryant
Theist
benjaminbryant's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
  Actually if evolution is

 

Actually if evolution is true then we would have come from the earth (dirt)  


benjaminbryant
Theist
benjaminbryant's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2006-07-24
User is offlineOffline
Defending God

God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

              -Francis Collins


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
QuadrivialMind wrote: I

QuadrivialMind wrote:
I might have to agree to disagree, or let someone else take over.

Yeah, I already ran out of patience.  I'm glad someone else took over.  I guess we're going to do this in tag-teams? Smiling 

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


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Quote: eah, that's kind of

Quote:

eah, that's kind of the point isn't it. If it was then there would be no point in discussing the veracity of claims made in it.

I never claim it as a self-evident work, nor is it such. It would be evident only because of two things, which are precisely the grounds on which we recieve Revelation: [a] compatibility with reason, and [b] miracles/prophecies.

But, further, I think it rather silly to discuss Scripture with someone who doesn't accept the principles of the work's authority in general. I could merely speak of how the Church interprets it and why such an interpretation is necessary from the text, but I don't think that topic really gets us anywhere.

 

Quote:

If it's a means of revelation and it's accurate then it would be proof of god's existence.

No it would not. It would be circular reasoning if we were to show God's existence by a text whose authority relies on God's power as revealer of the text. 

I do not mean that you are not rational people. It's just a bad place to hold a conversation on something we cannot mutually agree on. I find it preferable to speak from philosophically demonstrated principles and work from there to Revelation.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 


 

 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.