cicerone imposter,
Your rejection of Frank's position is logically correct at the level of ordinary concepts of "existence" and "belief". However Frank unwittingly raises a secondary issue of "atheism" being dependent on "theism" for its rationale and therefore somehow "equivalent". Of course this ignores the "no need" position of "atheists" but this can lead to a deeper look the epistemological and ontological factors involved with the concept of "need".
Chumly wrote:real life wrote:Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral.
If my statement is nonsense, then address it directly instead of skirting it.
Who forces God to be or do anything?
You did not ask a question you made a claim as per
real life wrote:Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Now you are rephrasing it as a question, with a person doing the "forcing" as per
real life wrote:Who forces God to be or do anything?
I responded to your initial claim in a rational manner as per
Chumly wrote:Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral.
Logically you'll need to demonstrate the plausibly of your anthropomorphic providential god for your question to have meaning. However a plausibility argument is not needed to support my claim, given the Christian Bible dictates what is expected of the Christian god.
I can't see how we can ever ascribe words like "benevolent", "omnipotent" or "creator" with any confidence if God is seen as limitless or "ultimate". These words describe human relations and abstractions. For instance, it seems to me that to be a creator of something implies a whole set of boundaries and restrictions connected with actions, actions imply actors, actors (in our perception of them) never stand alone (do they?), they are actors with respect to other actors (this is how we differentiate between things), actions themselves take place in set boundaries(otherwise how would we differentiate between actions) etc etc.
The point is that words are bound to relationships between "things". If God is the limitless, "it", (my words misrepresent me here) must be beyond relationship and therefore indescribable, else we run the risk of comparing god with other things which (it seems to me) invalidates a limitless nature. Does this make sense? If the response is simply, well God is beyond these words but we should still try to use our limited knowledge/intellect/intuition to describe it. Why? To describe such a "thing" is to miss the very point of what such a "thing" represents. Of course if the question is simply, why is there a universe (for example) it makes more sense to consider (?) that this god figure is itself bounded by a reality, to create suddenly becomes plausible again. This questioning fails to address the more open ended possibilities of why anything (in the very grandest scheme of things) rather than nothing though. Would this open ended discussion be a wordless one though?
If I'm completely off and I'm failing to understand what I( :wink: ) or others are talking about when they discuss God, I'm happy to learn.
Chumly wrote:real life wrote:Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral. This BTW also answers Neo's question to me as per
neologist wrote:You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?
God cannot act in such a manner such that the outcome is anything less than the most moral, that is in essence highly limiting.
You are now faced with the task of defining what is most moral, what is good and what is bad. Interestingly, it is the same issue raised by Satan in the temptation of Eve. Yet you do not see the conundrum you have proposed.
fresco, I don't think so. We have "evidence" that many people believe in a god. The atheist says, "I don't," and appose the general understanding of what is and what isn't. If not "atheist," what would you call us? "Non-believers" means the same thing.
cicerone impostor wrote:Does god have free will? Is his killing of innocent humans and animals a sin?
We, unfortunately, are not innocent. The bible explains why we have war and crime and sickness and death as it provides God's remedy. You have so far ignored what is written and substituted your own thoughts.
I could understand the position of the non believer were he to provide evidence that he actually understood what was written. You whine over God's destruction of 'innocents'. Would those who died over the past thousands of years be any less dead if they had died peacefully in their sleep after a long and happy life? What if God were to bring all unrighteous people back to life for a second chance? Would that help? Well, the same bible that describes the death of so many also makes the promise of a resurrection. On earth, BTW.
neo, God knew all that before he even considered the creation. He knew man would (and most animals) would fight and kill, and do things that are against subjective church dogma - also created by man (this all comes from having free will).
God knew he would kill innocent humans and animals with his flood. He knew he would sacrifice his "son," to appease his own failings. Human and animal sacrifice were common in many cultures of the past. In Roman times, they even had gladiators fighting humans and animals to the death for "sport."
God sure created a mess, and he wants to blame humans. What about those babies born dead or with disease? What sins are they guilty of?
No matter how hard you believes say god is a loving god, many of us not brain-washed see it quite differently. We call ourselves "atheist."
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, God knew all that before he even considered the creation. He knew man would (and most animals) would fight and kill, and do things that are against subjective church dogma - also created by man (this all comes from having free will).
God knew he would kill innocent humans and animals with his flood. He knew he would sacrifice his "son," to appease his own failings. Human and animal sacrifice were common in many cultures of the past. In Roman times, they even had gladiators fighting humans and animals to the death for "sport."
God sure created a mess, and he wants to blame humans. What about those babies born dead or with disease? What sins are they guilty of?
No matter how hard you believes say god is a loving god, many of us not brain-washed see it quite differently. We call ourselves "atheist."
I understand this to be your belief. However, it does not come from the bible. Were I convinced you actually understood the bible, I would be more willing to accept your rejection of it.
neo, The bible, the word of god, is full of errors and omissions. Some are literal while others are symbolic. Quite confusing, if you ask me!
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, The bible, the word of god, is full of errors and omissions. Some are literal while others are symbolic. Quite confusing, if you ask me!
You ain't the only one to say that, you know. I was comfortable in believing the same thing myself. Tell me your
one biggest objection.
cicerone imposter,
To attempt to clarify. I am in agreement with you on "evidence" at the "layman's level" but I am also aware that from a deeper level "evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. Thus when an "atheist" such as myself involves himself with disputes with "theists" over "evidence" I am laying myself open to Frank's charge of "alternative belief system" not because of Frank's faulty logic (asymmetry kills that dead) but because we are focusing on "evidence" as opposed to "Occam's Razor". In other words I should more properly define myself as an "atheist" because my relationship with a "god concept" is one of "negative need" ....I seek no "evidence".....the status of "evidence" per se is irrelevant because it is "need driven" as is "belief".
fresco, I understand what you are saying. All my siblings and my friends are are christians or theists. I also understand that "belief" isn't always a matter of evidence. Many things beyond religion are a matter of faith, but most things outside of religion may be changed depending on the subsequent reality. There is no such choice in religion, because faith is the only basis without further "proof."
Examples of "faith."
1. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
This assumes I'll be alive, and the sun does indeed show itself in my
part of the world.
2. I will vote for John McCain because he is trustworthy and intelligent.
I now believe John McCain can't be trusted, after he voted for the
torture legislation.
3. I trust my wife.
I have for the past 40 years of our marriage.
4. God will save me from my sins. (?)
Answer will never be known. According to the bible, the "second
coming" have come and gone several times since 2000 years ago.
"The End is Near" is a popular christian belief.
The first three can be proven to be wrong, but the 4th will never be proven - at least to me.
neologist wrote:real life wrote:neologist wrote:real life wrote:snood wrote:Still - two distinct and separate concepts.
You are quite right, my friend.
Just because God knows what we will do (foreknowledge) doesn't mean He 'caused' us to do it (preordination/predestination).
The distinction would seem to be an obvious one.
The alternative that I have heard oft expressed is the illogical position that some here have adopted:
'If God is omnipotent, then Man cannot possibly have free will (i.e. an all powerful God couldn't give Man a free will).'
Clearly that position is self contradictory.
I still take issue with the idea that God must know the future by necessity or compulsionl.
Who said it was by compulsion? Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Is there any indication in the scripture that there are things God does not know?
He gives us choice.
Not sure how that answers my question though.
cicerone imposter wrote:neo, The bible, the word of god, is full of errors and omissions. Some are literal while others are symbolic. Quite confusing, if you ask me!
An 'omission' would be something that is not there.
Perhaps there are things that YOU think SHOULD be in the Bible, but they aren't.
However, that in no way provides any evidence against the trustworthiness of the Bible.
neologist wrote:Chumly wrote:real life wrote:Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral. This BTW also answers Neo's question to me as per
neologist wrote:You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?
God cannot act in such a manner such that the outcome is anything less than the most moral, that is in essence highly limiting.
You are now faced with the task of defining what is most moral, what is good and what is bad. Interestingly, it is the same issue raised by Satan in the temptation of Eve. Yet you do not see the conundrum you have proposed.
I'm not faced with it nope, your anthropomorphic providential god is.
Chumly wrote:You did not ask a question you made a claim as per
real life wrote:Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Now you are rephrasing it as a question, with a person doing the "forcing" as per
real life wrote:Who forces God to be or do anything?
I responded to your initial claim in a rational manner as per
Chumly wrote:Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral.
Logically you'll need to demonstrate the plausibly of your anthropomorphic providential god for your question to have meaning. However a plausibility argument is not needed to support my claim, given the Christian Bible dictates what is expected of the Christian god.
The word 'nobody' in the original statement indicates a person or persons as well.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood the original statement, and that's why you took issue with it.
Chumly wrote:neologist wrote:Chumly wrote:real life wrote:Nobody forces God to do or be anything.
Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral. This BTW also answers Neo's question to me as per
neologist wrote:You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?
God cannot act in such a manner such that the outcome is anything less than the most moral, that is in essence highly limiting.
You are now faced with the task of defining what is most moral, what is good and what is bad. Interestingly, it is the same issue raised by Satan in the temptation of Eve. Yet you do not see the conundrum you have proposed.
I'm not faced with it nope, your anthropomorphic providential god is.
It's funny to see a relativist claim that any standard of morality, whether God's or man's, is in any way invalid or incorrect.
