god or no god?

[Conza88]

Mathematically it makes sense to believe in God because it's the only path to #winning!:

God/Believe = #winning
God/No Believe = #fail
No God/Believe = #dead
No God/No Believe = #dead

False dilemma. Bow bow.

​

 

[Revolution9]

False dilemma. Bow bow.

​

And here he is again. The master of quoting another's mental process outcomes instead of his own. Just the ditzy hairdo on the clown in the video frame tells me I don't need to watch it. I return you now to your "service to self" paradigm failure.

Best Regards
Rev9

 

[erowe1]

Can we agree that the improbability of choosing sin is not equivalent to the logical impossibility of such?

If the probability of something is actually zero, how is that different than it being logically impossible?

I've had people insist that there's a difference between saying that something absolutely can't happen and saying something absolutely won't happen. But I have trouble seeing it.

 

[WilliamC]

I don't even know what that means

Old Steve Martin joke from the 70's, something about teaching kids to speak wrong and how that would make them sound stupid when they started school.

Strange now that I think about it it seems to have come to pass in a way, 'cause there's lots of things kids talk about these days that I have no idea what they are saying.

I'm becoming old fashioned and obsolete right before my very eyes....

 

[jmdrake]

But if it's possible for there to be beings with free will who would never make the choice to sin, then God could have only created beings with free will in the first place who would never make that choice. He chose instead to make creatures who would make that choice. And that choice, ultimately, was his choice. It was not just a choice to create creatures with free will, but positively to create creatures who were going to sin, when he could have created creatures with free will who wouldn't.

I'm not following you. That paints a picture of a sado-masochistic God who created creatures just so they could sin, He could kill Himself and kill most of them in the process.

The picture I have of God is of a loving creator who wants beings that freely choose Him. Adam and Eve initially made the wrong choice. He had to pay the price for their sin and the sins of their descendants so that they would have a second chance to make the right choice. After seeing the results of the wrong choice, choosing the right choice on faith, and seeing the ultimate results of making the right choice, it would be illogical to make the wrong choice again. Anyone tempted to sin could just look over the records of what happened last time and say "I wouldn't choose that". Someone so twisted as to make such a dumb choice all over again won't make it it. There's still freewill even though you are not willing to accept it.

 

[jmdrake]

What are the requirements for a being to have the capacity to choose sin while in heaven? Did Satan have the capacity to choose sin in heaven because he was "perfect", and humans are imperfect (and therefore are incapable of choosing sin in heaven), or are humans incapable of sinning in heaven because they have experienced sin on earth (and Satan has not -- really?).

Can we agree that the improbability of choosing sin is not equivalent to the logical impossibility of such?

Lucifer did not know the consequences of sin. How could he? Likewise Adam and Eve didn't know the consequences of sin. Remember the tree was the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil". The only true way to "know" evil is to experience it or to at least see the results of someone else experience it. Most of the angels chose to trust God and not experience sin. But they've had a chance to learn from seeing our experience. If you think of sin as a virus invading the universe, those who have been exposed to sin and come out victorious are like people who have survived the chickenpox. Just like the physical body can build up an immunity to something, the spiritual body can, with God's help, become immune. Right now we still have our genetic predispositions to sin that war against the spiritual power we receive from choosing to serve God. (See Joshua 24:15; Romans 8:7; Psalms 51:5). But at the resurrection God will give us new bodies that are not only immortal but are also incorruptible. That means that the new body won't be predisposed to sin. Because it is sin that brings death.

1 Corinthians 15:50-56
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 15:50-56&version=KJV
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.

So no. It won't be possible for people who have been exposed to sin, seen the results of sin, rejected sin and have chosen God, and who have received new bodies that are no longer predisposed to sin as our bodies have been thanks to generations of sin, to then sin. But freewill still exists.

Are you aware of epigenetics? It's a relatively new field of biology that asserts that lifestyle choices can effect the genetics of future generations. (See: http://fitplusmag.com/magazine/augu...s-such-as-exercising-can-alter-gene-behavior/) We've got thousands (at least) of years of epigenetic choices of our ancestors that we have to overcome along with the temptations of daily life. The resurrection will reset that.

 

[jmdrake]

There is no god and religious people are retarded.

Freedom of speech, bitches

And you follow a retarded leader then (Ron Paul). Freedom of speech right back at you.

 

[erowe1]

The picture I have of God is of a loving creator who wants beings that freely choose Him. Adam and Eve initially made the wrong choice. He had to pay the price for their sin and the sins of their descendants so that they would have a second chance to make the right choice. After seeing the results of the wrong choice, choosing the right choice on faith, and seeing the ultimate results of making the right choice, it would be illogical to make the wrong choice again. Anyone tempted to sin could just look over the records of what happened last time and say "I wouldn't choose that". Someone so twisted as to make such a dumb choice all over again won't make it it. There's still freewill even though you are not willing to accept it.

But the choice Adam and Eve made, and the choice Lucifer made before them, was the choice they were going to make. It was the case that they were going to make that choice from before they were created. And God could have created them such that they would have not made that choice.

One might object that to say that any person's choice is already 100% certain before they make it is to deny them free will. However, you have already denied yourself this recourse by saying that in Heaven, it will be 100% certain that people will not choose to sin, even though they will still have free will.

My points aren't based on a picture of God, either loving as I would wish to define loving, or sado-masochistic as I would wish to define sado-masochistic, just on logic itself. I don't claim to understand God, or how this all works. Nor do I feel any need to fill in the details with a picture of my own creation.

Edit: To put what I'm saying in the context of this thread, if I understand the argument you originally made against Clay, it was that, in order for God to prevent evil from existing, he would have had to eliminate the possibility of his creatures choosing to do evil, and in order to do this, he would have to eliminate their free will. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines here. If that's not what you were saying, please clarify.

But later in the thread, you conceded that there can be a situation where the possibility of choosing evil is eliminated, even with creatures retaining free will. From this I infer that God could have created his creatures in the first place both as having free will and without any possibility of them choosing evil. But if this possibility existed, then God's decision to create a universe in which evil might come about could not have only been because that was an unavoidable consequence of creating creatures with free will. There must have been some other reason he had for creating creatures that were perhaps going to sin, rather than creating creatures that were not going to sin but that still had free will.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

I personally have no interest in debating these issues of morality or the question of evil. God's morality is not necessarily a trait of theism, it just happens to be a common theme in religious debates.

I am an atheist because I see no evidence for God, nor of any absolute truth present in the Bible or any other religious book or teaching. In fact, the basis for Abrahamic religions seems a bit absurd to me - that premise being that there is this one particularly book that you just know for sure is true without any supporting evidence. Why do you believe the Bible is absolutely true? Why not the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Norse Eddas, the Communist Manifesto, the Illiad, or Lord of the Rings? Why choose one particular book to believe absolutely without question? Many Christians who accept the absolute truth of the Bible haven't even read it, much less studied the highly questionable content or the history of how it was written and compiled.

 

[jmdrake]

But the choice Adam and Eve made, and the choice Lucifer made before them, was the choice they were going to make. It was the case that they were going to make that choice from before they were created. And God could have created them such that they would have not made that choice.

That's your opinion. But it's not biblical.

Joshua 24:15

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

If man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice, God would not have admonished men through Joshua to choose Him.

As for Lucifer:

Ezekiel 28:14,15

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


The Bible is clear. Lucifer was created perfect. The iniquity that was found in him was not part of that perfection. I know that those who believe in predestination try to explain away clear Biblical teaching that contradicts it and frankly I grow weary in these debates. But the Bible is 100% clear on this. Adam and Eve had freewill. The knuckleheaded Israelites that Joshua was talking to had free will. Lucifer had free will.

My points aren't based on a picture of God, either loving as I would wish to define loving, or sado-masochistic as I would wish to define sado-masochistic, just on logic itself. I don't claim to understand God, or how this all works. Nor do I feel any need to fill in the details with a picture of my own creation.

Part of the reason God created man in His likeness is to have intelligent creatures who could grow daily to better understand His nature. That's why Jesus in parables told those who He cast into outer darkness I never knew you. And there's no need for you to define God as loving. The Bible already declares God to be the definition of love.

1 John 4:7,8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

The picture of God that you attempt to perpetuate is not of a loving God, but of a God that purposefully creates creatures for their on downfall just so that He can die for some of them. That's not only unbiblical, it makes no sense. And it's not love. Because God declared Himself to be love, our attempts to explain what God does has to be grounded in who He says He is.

Understanding the basic truth that God is love is Christianity 101. Before people delve into different theological debates, if they don't understand God's nature based on what He declares about Himself then they will forever bark up the wrong tree.

Edit: To put what I'm saying in the context of this thread, if I understand the argument you originally made against Clay, it was that, in order for God to prevent evil from existing, he would have had to eliminate the possibility of his creatures choosing to do evil, and in order to do this, he would have to eliminate their free will. Perhaps I'm reading between the lines here. If that's not what you were saying, please clarify.

That is correct. The only way to prevent someone from ever choosing evil, something that before evil was created nobody understood the consequences of would be to create creatures without free will. Now those free will creatures have had a chance to see the consequences of sin and made a free will choice to reject sin. For those of us on earth we've had to make that choice on faith without the benefit of even knowing 100% that God even exists.

But later in the thread, you conceded that there can be a situation where the possibility of choosing evil is eliminated, even with creatures retaining free will.

Stop right there. Did you even read what I wrote in post # 146? Did you understand the point I was making about immunity as well as the point about the epigenome? If you did then you shouldn't still be confused. We're talking about people who have already made a freewill choice and rejected sin, seen the full consequences of sin, seen the glory of the restoration after sin, and received new bodies no longer tainted by sin. Sure they could choose sin again, but why on earth would they? At the resurrection God simply fully empowers people to do what they've already chosen to do. That is totally different from God creating creatures without freewill.

 

[erowe1]

That's your opinion. But it's not biblical.

Joshua 24:15

But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

If man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice, God would not have admonished men through Joshua to choose Him.

As for Lucifer:

Ezekiel 28:14,15

14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.

15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.


The Bible is clear. Lucifer was created perfect. The iniquity that was found in him was not part of that perfection. I know that those who believe in predestination try to explain away clear Biblical teaching that contradicts it and frankly I grow weary in these debates. But the Bible is 100% clear on this. Adam and Eve had freewill. The knuckleheaded Israelites that Joshua was talking to had free will. Lucifer had free will.



Part of the reason God created man in His likeness is to have intelligent creatures who could grow daily to better understand his nature. That's why Jesus in parables told those who He cast into outer darkness I never knew you. And there's no need for you to define God as loving. The Bible already declares God to be the definition of love.

1 John 4:7,8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

The picture of God that you attempt to perpetuate is not of a loving God, but of a God that purposefully creates creatures for their on downfall just so that He can die for some of them. That's not only unbiblical, it makes no sense. And it's not love. Because God declared Himself to be love, our attempts to explain what God does has to be grounded in who He says He is.

I do accept that God is loving. But I let the Bible inform me on what that means. I don't think I have the right to make up a picture of what I would like it to mean and claim that's in the Bible.

With your response here I'm even more confused about your position.

Here you say, "If man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice, God would not have admonished men through Joshua to choose Him."

But earlier you said that people in heaven will still have the ability to make a choice even though it would be 100% certain that the outcome of their choice will not be to sin.

You can't have it both ways. Either it is logically possible to have free will and still have one's choices be 100% certain, or it is not.

If it is logically possible, then it must have been logically possible for God to create creatures with free will who were as certain never to sin as people in Heaven will be. But God did not create people who were that certain never to sin, and it logically could not be the case that his reason for doing that was in order for them to have free will, given that free will and the certainty of sinlessness are compatible.

 

[jmdrake]

I personally have no interest in debating these issues of morality or the question of evil. God's morality is not necessarily a trait of theism, it just happens to be a common theme in religious debates.

I am an atheist because I see no evidence for God, nor of any absolute truth present in the Bible or any other religious book or teaching. In fact, the basis for Abrahamic religions seems a bit absurd to me - that premise being that there is this one particularly book that you just know for sure is true without any supporting evidence. Why do you believe the Bible is absolutely true? Why not the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Norse Eddas, the Communist Manifesto, the Illiad, or Lord of the Rings? Why choose one particular book to believe absolutely without question? Many Christians who accept the absolute truth of the Bible haven't even read it, much less studied the highly questionable content or the history of how it was written and compiled.

Whether Christianity is true or not it a totally separate question from whether God exists or not. Assume for a moment that the Bible is wrong. Does that mean God doesn't exist? The very fact that you can find some stories in the Bible, like Noah's flood, replicated in texts not at all associated with any Abrahamic religion means that there is likely some truth to the story.

There is objective evidence of truth in the Bible. For archeologists are always finding artifacts from sites that the Bible said existed but that skeptics claimed were made up like the pool of Siloam. One of the logical errors atheists make is that because they run into Christians that haven't read the Bible and don't know the Bible was compiled. Many Christians actually do. On the same token some atheists can't really articulate the arguments put forward by the great thinkers on their side. They just know they don't believe in God and some really smart people agree with them.

It's odd that you link the communist manifesto and the Lord of the Rings in with religious texts. The c.m. is neither right nor wrong. It just "is". That's like arguing whether the constitution is "right" or "wrong". Right or wrong about what? And the author of the Lord of the Rings was actually a Christian. As for the other books, yeah they have their adherents. I have less faith in a religious text written by a single man (the Koran) than I do texts compiled by multiple people. Safety in numbers is my thought. Some of the other stories with gods that contradict each other and you don't know who's foot you might be stepping on at any particular time? Eh....fine for some, not for me. But I don't look down on neopagans. They believe what they believe.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

I don't claim that the Bible has to be true for the existence of a deity or deities. I still stand by my point that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.

As for the Bible or any particular claims by specific religions, generally the more concrete the claim the more absolutely the claim can be refuted. Absolute Biblical literalism is easy to refute by showing passages of the Bible that contradict each other or that are contrary to what we know from modern science. More symbolic or allegorical interpretations of the Bible are harder to contradict as believers bend their interpretation of the Bible to facts they know from more credible sources. Its pretty much impossible to refute deism as it is so vague, it claims almost nothing about the physical world.

In any case, I see no meaningful evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Certainly nothing that justifies the certainty that believers often claim to have in extremely precise details of God's nature or motivations.

 

[jmdrake]

I do accept that God is loving. But I let the Bible inform me on what that means. I don't think I have the right to make up a picture of what I would like it to mean and claim that's in the Bible.

Your claim that God created Adam and Eve for the purpose of sinning is what is not in the Bible. Really I get tired of people not backing up their arguments with the Bible then saying the person they disagree with is making an unbiblical claim.

Now this is in the Bible.

1 John 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.

So Christ dying for our mistake is a sign of love. But if He purposefully made us to sin then that undermines the love. I'm going to put someone in harm's way so I can "save" them? That's not love. Common sense should tell you that.

With your response here I'm even more confused about your position.

You shouldn't be. The position is clear. God made man with the freewill choice which included the possibility to choose evil. That possibility was heightened by the fact that man didn't know what evil was. Post sin, people who know what sin is and who made a freewill choice to reject it aren't going to go back and chose it. That doesn't mean freewill has been taken away. It's almost impossible to find a Jewish person today who supports Adolf Hitler. That doesn't mean a Jewish person couldn't read Mein Kampf and thing "Yeah! This Hitler dude was really on to something." But because we sit have warped twisted minds thanks to thousands of years of sin, that could still happen. At the resurrection we'll have the benefit of both 20/20 hindsight along with a mind/body that's not bent towards sin.

Here you say, "If man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice, God would not have admonished men through Joshua to choose Him."

Yep. Let me rephrase the above as a question. Let's see if you have what it takes to answer it. "If man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice, then why would God have admonished men through Joshua to choose Him?"

I will not respond to anything else you say until you at least attempt to answer that.

But earlier you said that people in heaven will still have the ability to make a choice even though it would be 100% certain that the outcome of their choice will not be to sin.

Yep. Because people will have already made the choice, they would have already seen the consequences of making the wrong choice, and they would have been delivered from a corrupt mind/body that bends them toward the wrong choice. You keep ignoring everything I say and then say "I'm confused". I think you're choosing to be confused.

You can't have it both ways. Either it is logically possible to have free will and still have one's choices be 100% certain, or it is not.

I'm not having it "both ways". You don't understand immunology.

 

[erowe1]

Your claim that God created Adam and Eve for the purpose of sinning is what is not in the Bible.

I never said it was in the Bible. I was pointing out what logically followed from your own claims.

Yep. Let me rephrase the above as a question. Let's see if you have what it takes to answer it. "If man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice, then why would God have admonished men through Joshua to choose Him?"

There is only one way I could know the answer to that question, and that's if the Bible answered it. The Bible doesn't tell me why God does this, it only tells me that he does it. If I were to claim to know why, it could only be by way of making up my own picture of what I wish God were like and claiming that to be so.

Edit: I should point out that the language here of saying "man wasn't created with the ability to make a choice" is your language, not mine. I have never claimed that in this thread or any other. My answer to you here should not be taken as a concession on my part that I accept your premise, it's just an answer that takes your premise as a given for the sake of argument.

Does the Bible teach that God ever commands people to do things when it is 100% certain what they will do (either that they will obey it or that they will disobey it)? Yes, the Bible does teach that. There are numerous places in Scripture that teach that people were 100% certain to sin, and that the certainty of their sin does not in any way mitigate their responsibility for it.

I'm not having it "both ways". You don't understand immunology.

But you are having it both ways. Fine, I don't understand immunology, nor do I claim to. It isn't really necessary to understand immunology to understand this.

Is it logically possible for someone to have free will and for their choices to be 100% certain? You have claimed both that it is and that it isn't.

If immunology explains one way that it can be possible, then you cannot claim that it would have been logically impossible for God to create beings with free will whose choices were 100% certain.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't claim that the Bible has to be true for the existence of a deity or deities. I still stand by my point that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.

As for the Bible or any particular claims by specific religions, generally the more concrete the claim the more absolutely the claim can be refuted. Absolute Biblical literalism is easy to refute by showing passages of the Bible that contradict each other or that are contrary to what we know from modern science. More symbolic or allegorical interpretations of the Bible are harder to contradict as believers bend their interpretation of the Bible to facts they know from more credible sources. Its pretty much impossible to refute deism as it is so vague, it claims almost nothing about the physical world.

In any case, I see no meaningful evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Certainly nothing that justifies the certainty that believers often claim to have in extremely precise details of God's nature or motivations.

Time after time those "contradictions" have been shown not to be contradictions at all. I gave you one small example. For years "scientists" claimed that lack of evidence for the pool of Siloam proved the Bible false. Then they found the pool. Also every "contradiction" I've seen in scripture has turned out not to really be a contradiction if you understand thought inspiration as opposed to word inspiration. Example is the supposed "contradiction" of how Judas died. Did he hang himself, or did he fall headlong in a field and with his guts falling out? That's easily reconciled by understanding how a hanging body can putrefy to the point where the branch or rope could brake and the body fall and burst open. Some accounts of lynchings have shown that to have happened. (See: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html)

So what you as a skeptic might see as "proof the Bible can't be accurate", people of faith see as "a reason to do further digging". But at the end of the day, if you don't believe you don't believe. It's no skin off my nose.

 

[jmdrake]

I never said it was in the Bible. I was pointing out what logically followed from your own claims.

No. My claims never pointed to God creating Adam and Eve for the purpose of them sinning. That would be what logically flows from your claims. You're the one that doesn't believe in freewill remember?

There is only one way I could know the answer to that question, and that's if the Bible answered it. The Bible doesn't tell me why God does this, it only tells me that he does it. If I were to claim to know why, it could only be by way of making up my own picture of what I wish God were like and claiming that to be so.

Let's see Mr. "I was pointing out what logically followed from your own claims." You can't logically follow the Bible but yet you think you can logically follow what I'm saying? Either you can use logic or you can't. So using your logic, why would God tell man to make a choice if man can't really make a choice?

Does the Bible teach that God ever commands people to do things when it is 100% certain what they will do (either that they will obey it or that they will disobey it)? Yes, the Bible does teach that. There are numerous places in Scripture that teach that people were 100% certain to sin, and that the certainty of their sin does not in any way mitigate their responsibility for it.

Says you.

But you are having it both ways.

No. You're the one having it both ways. You want to claim God created Adam and Eve for them to sin, then falsely claim that flows from my claims when it doesn't.

Is it logically possible for someone to have free will and for their choices to be 100% certain? You have claimed both that it is and that it isn't.

If immunology explains one way that it can be possible, then you cannot claim that it would have been logically impossible for God to create beings with free will whose choices were 100% certain.

You've made it clear that you are only conditionally logical. When you're ready to be 100% logical let me know.

 

[erowe1]

When you're ready to be 100% logical let me know.

OK. I'm ready.

Now I'll repeat my question, which, as far as I can tell, you haven't directly answered yet.

Is it logically possible for someone to have free will and for their choices to be 100% certain?

Let's see Mr. "I was pointing out what logically followed from your own claims." You can't logically follow the Bible but yet you think you can logically follow what I'm saying? Either you can use logic or you can't. So using your logic, why would God tell man to make a choice if man can't really make a choice?

I know of no way that logic can provide an answer to that question. If you can actually present a syllogism that does so, and it's not just a made-up picture of your own creation, but an actual outworking of the laws of logic using biblical premises, then I will accept it as correct.

 

[jmdrake]

OK. I'm ready.

Now I'll repeat my question, which, as far as I can tell, you haven't directly answered yet.

Is it logically possible for someone to have free will and for their choices to be 100% certain?

I've answered your questions repeatedly and you have refused to even entertain mine. When you're ready to be 100% logical that means you'll answer my questions too.

But I'll answer your question with a question. Do you understand the difference between knowing what an outcome will be and preordaining that outcome? Just because I might know the choice you'll ultimately make doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

Now back to my question. Why would God tell people to choose Him if they don't have a choice?

 

[erowe1]

Do you understand the difference between knowing what an outcome will be and preordaining that outcome?

No, I personally don't understand the difference.

But what's your answer to my question? For your sake, I'll ask it again.

Is it logically possible for someone to have free will and for their choices to be 100% certain?

Your answer should be either "yes" or "no."

As for your "why" question, I've told you I can't possibly know why. Nor do I see any reason I ought to know why.

Edit: And, once again, I don't accept the premise that "people don't have a choice."