(April 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah I don't think you quite get it LukeMC.

Damn, I knew it!

(April 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yes you're right here. Those laws that are indisputable carried forward. There's a distinct turnaround though in that Jesus came to be forgiveness. Like the rainbow before, but this was complete forgiveness and a turnaround in God's methods.

So before we would get stoned to death, now we can be forgiven thanks to Jesus. Okay, I honestly do see the reasoning here.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Idealogically we can't put a limit on God. This is the theoretical and purist stance. On top of that I have reasoning presented in the Bible on the Nature of God, that establishes him with actual attributes. From this I can narrow the definition of God.

From a wider philosophical position, God is unknowable. From reasoned observation recorded in the Bible, from a Christian perspective, we can narrow down the definition.

Obviously this must be under the assumption that the bible is correct (despite parts being added, edited, taken away, etc). As far as I'm concerned, your knowledge of God without using the bible would be as reliable as the knowledge you gain from the bible. Both stupendously likely to be inaccurate or wrong. But of course if you accept the bible as being correct this won't be an issue so I can leave this point.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Like I said, descriptions of God have to be put into terms that humans understand. The Christian God obviously isn't above our capacity to encapsulate.

I meant to say God was above our ability to encapsulate fully, which was one of your premises. I should have been clearer. Besides that I dont' dispute this point.

(April 10, 2009 at 3:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The leap of faith is a singular one of God's existence. The rest involves rational thinking. Everything follows logically. Theists can and do verify it. They can and are sure of the vast majority of it.

The ancient book is just a collection of observations and non factual stories about God gathered over a long period of time. The point being to establish God's nature. From rational observations we can come to conclusions.

I see. Well it appears you've somewhat solidified your views into a form I cannot disagree with. For the most part anyway.
_______________________________________________________________


I still don't think God is all good as you stated before. It would be a shame to end the debate here so lets take a new angle on it.

When God causes a disaster we interpret the disaster as bad. The lesson we learn from it can be seen as good. Therefore, your logic seemed to follow that God is still doing good in the long run. However, you're missing the point that creating a disaster is creating a "bad" thing. Therefore God cannot be all good as he is capable of doing bad things for a debatably good purpose. He is punishing innocents as means to an end. There are only three conclusions that I can think of:

1) God is all good, and the disaster itself is a good thing regardless of what people think
2) God is capable of evil as means to an end
3) God is neutral on the subject and his actions can be perceived either way but just like the weather, they cannot be objectively subject to morality. (saying objectively subject sound ridiculously oxymoronic in my head).

To stand by the first conclusion is to say that the 9/11 attacks were good in their entirety, the holocaust was good in its entirety, hurricane katrina was good in its entirety and the italian earthquakes were good in their entirety. To say this is to annihilate the value of your opinions as you are ultimately wrong about all of your moral convictions if God decides so. If you were choking under a heap of rubble and suffering a slow and painful death, yet somehow considering the experience to be a good thing and an act of grace, you have truly denied your humanity in a most cult-like fashion.


Personally I'd side with option 3. I find a God who doesn't care to be far more rational and it explains the evidence better in my view.

Lets keep it rolling.

Hehe! You do this well

I don't think God causes disasters. If God created this existence then he's responsible for the natural laws that sustain it and play out throughout time. In this scenario God is ambivalent. I don't think it comes into God's realm of activity to interfere in the natural order of things, and especially not to interfere in human mortality.

The Bible establishes humans as having a capacity of God likeness, unlike anything else in existence. An amazing assertion but one which still seems to be viable. This is what the Bible addresses and takes steps to understand, this theoretical aspect of human nature. Nothing physical/ material. Entirely spiritual.

This is gonna sound a bit preachy so apologies in advance. I'm trying to establish the 'good' bit In my experience God is love. He beams love down on us like the Sun only constantly. We all put up shades of varying degree. People who manage to remove the shades momentarily and or to some degree have good lives. The rest of us wander around in miserable darkness. Knowledge of the/ an actual God isn't a prerequisite for this to the best of my understanding.

Sorry I didn't answer your direct question. I hope you see how I think the question would have to be theoretical and outside of my direct understanding of God.

Your response has raised so many questions in my head but I know it can be annoying when you're bombarded with them over a forum so I'll try and keep this to a minimum. Bare in mind I'm under the assumption that you accept the scientific explanations for how we got to where we are (from the big bang, through a string of cosmology to abiogenesis and evolution). If this isn't the case I'll have to change the questions.

Does God have a plan? Most people seem to think so. If he does have a plan, how specific is it? And can we screw up his plan? I ask this because if God isn't responsible for natural distasters, death and such things, it has profound implications as to his nature. If he were omniscient he would know the consequences of creating a particular set of laws and would have known in advance that he would be killing people, and hence responsibility for this does lay in God's metaphorical hands. To lift the responsibility from God, we must strip him of his knowledge of the events to come. But if he can make a plan accurate enough to result in humans eventually coming to be he must be PRETTY knowledgable! It would figure that if God were smart enough to intentionally create sets of laws which would result in humans, he would be well aware of the terror, disease, famine and natural disasters which would reek havoc upon his blessed creation. How do you lift the responsibility from him?

(If you take the young earth creation explanation for origins of life then allow me to edit the question)

Your little poetic paragraph about God being love shining down on us was enjoyable. I can agree with it almost entirely. The only difference between the two of us is that I wouldn't first state that God is love. I'd settle for "love is all around us, beaming down on us like the sun, but constantly. Some people sit in the shade or put on sunglasses to varying degrees. These people should step out into the sun and let the love and happiness surround and engulf them, filling their hearts and making them feel whole". My only legitimate problem with your version of this is how you state that God is love to begin with (of course ). We already have a word for "love"- that word is "love". If God IS love then the definition of God becomes the same as the definition of love. No creation, no children, no supernatural-ness. That isn't what love is/does. UNLESS you mean to say "God is (among other things*) love.
*other things include: creator of the universe, father of Jesus Christ, non-physical entity, incomprehensible, etc."
My pedantic side is running wild, heh.

You write really well. I don't mean that in a pedantic way at all, I just like reading what you put.

(April 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Your response has raised so many questions in my head but I know it can be annoying when you're bombarded with them over a forum so I'll try and keep this to a minimum. Bare in mind I'm under the assumption that you accept the scientific explanations for how we got to where we are (from the big bang, through a string of cosmology to abiogenesis and evolution). If this isn't the case I'll have to change the questions.

You're too kind. Yes I accept all those things I think (lol).

(April 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Does God have a plan? Most people seem to think so. If he does have a plan, how specific is it? And can we screw up his plan? I ask this because if God isn't responsible for natural distasters, death and such things, it has profound implications as to his nature. If he were omniscient he would know the consequences of creating a particular set of laws and would have known in advance that he would be killing people, and hence responsibility for this does lay in God's metaphorical hands. To lift the responsibility from God, we must strip him of his knowledge of the events to come. But if he can make a plan accurate enough to result in humans eventually coming to be he must be PRETTY knowledgable! It would figure that if God were smart enough to intentionally create sets of laws which would result in humans, he would be well aware of the terror, disease, famine and natural disasters which would reek havoc upon his blessed creation. How do you lift the responsibility from him?

It's an altogether different level of responsibility though isn't it. I think it's in line with nature's responsibility for the weather.

God's plan is for us to have full and fulfilled lives. We screw it up by staying in the shade. That's it really.

(April 10, 2009 at 6:44 pm)LukeMC Wrote: Your little poetic paragraph about God being love shining down on us was enjoyable. I can agree with it almost entirely. The only difference between the two of us is that I wouldn't first state that God is love. I'd settle for "love is all around us, beaming down on us like the sun, but constantly. Some people sit in the shade or put on sunglasses to varying degrees. These people should step out into the sun and let the love and happiness surround and engulf them, filling their hearts and making them feel whole". My only legitimate problem with your version of this is how you state that God is love to begin with (of course ). We already have a word for "love"- that word is "love". If God IS love then the definition of God becomes the same as the definition of love. No creation, no children, no supernatural-ness. That isn't what love is/does. UNLESS you mean to say "God is (among other things*) love.
*other things include: creator of the universe, father of Jesus Christ, non-physical entity, incomprehensible, etc."
My pedantic side is running wild, heh.

Yeah I like your version too Where does your love come from? I know the source of mine and it's pure love, an ideal. This helps. Love on it's own doesn't cut it.

God is other things yeah.

(April 10, 2009 at 7:31 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's an altogether different level of responsibility though isn't it. I think it's in line with nature's responsibility for the weather.

The difference between nature's responsibility and God's responsibility is that unlike nature, God consciously and deliberately decided on how things should pan out. While nature and God are both ambiguous terms, we can at least say that God does things with intent whereas nature (by definition) is a natural series of events with no purpose nor goal. If God were able to plan in detail intricate enough to result in humans, he will have been well aware of volcanoes and hurricanes while writing out the blueprints. Perhaps this is the best God could do (not omnipotent) or perhaps he made such things possible as a sort of test.

Bottom line is that God must have been well aware of the side effects of his creation but still went along with it. Leaves us with a few conclusions:
1)God isn't omnipotent (couldn't do a better job if he wanted to)
2)God isn't omniscient (didn't realise the consequences of his plans[unlikely])
3)God purposefully created things which are bad for us

I'd go with 3. Options 1 and 2 would both limit God. Option 3 shows that God is capable of (and willing to create) evil as means to an end, further confirming his limitless and mysterious nature. A limitless God would require him to have the knowledge of and intent to do "bad" things.

fr0d0 Wrote:Yeah I like your version too Where does your love come from? I know the source of mine and it's pure love, an ideal. This helps. Love on it's own doesn't cut it.

God is other things yeah.

For me, this love is completely metaphorical. It doesn't mean anything, it isn't scientific, no doctor would prescribe it. Talking about such things is just a poetic illustration. I don't believe in an external force called love, but the brain is very powerful; visualising a one-ness with the universe and the radiant feeling of being revitalised with positive energy is moving and satisfying. I argue that the feelings do come from within- they are after all, products of brain function. Talking about it in a sexed-up way is just fun

I don't understand God's plan in the same way as you do. I think God added the ingredients and let them go. That initial bang had to have the ingredients that lead to our current reality. God is timeless so he can see the end, the beginning and any bit in between as he chooses. The universe is just what it is, and follows natural laws. God had no need no minutely engineer everything.

LukeMC Wrote:For me, this love is completely metaphorical. It doesn't mean anything, it isn't scientific, no doctor would prescribe it. Talking about such things is just a poetic illustration. I don't believe in an external force called love, but the brain is very powerful; visualising a one-ness with the universe and the radiant feeling of being revitalised with positive energy is moving and satisfying. I argue that the feelings do come from within- they are after all, products of brain function. Talking about it in a sexed-up way is just fun

Perhaps then your love is just pretend where at worst mine is self delusion. Surely I can commit fully to my ideal where you will always know yours isn't real. Therefore there's a point to my belief as there's the benefit of feeling love, whether delusional or not. I don't need to know anything to reap the rewards, just have faith it's true.

(April 11, 2009 at 3:49 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't understand God's plan in the same way as you do. I think God added the ingredients and let them go. That initial bang had to have the ingredients that lead to our current reality. God is timeless so he can see the end, the beginning and any bit in between as he chooses. The universe is just what it is, and follows natural laws. God had no need no minutely engineer everything.

I think minute engineering is exactly what God needed to do. For this particular universe to exist, a certain number of physical constants had to be at an incredibly precise number and any deviation would lead to a completely different universe. God must indeed have put a lot of thought into the outcomes of his creation if it had to be that precise just to lead to us. All I'm saying is that if God planned a universe specifically to be suitable for human life to arise he will have known exactly what horrros he would be creating as a side-effect and he has made the decision to allow this. I still hold him accountable for intentionally creating a universe in which terrible things happen.

UNLESS God didn't create the universe with an intention of human beings arising. In that case he really did just let it run wild. However if he did intend on humans coming about, he will have known how exactly to tune the constants but would also be aware of what terror he would be creating as a result of the constants. I don't see how you can lift the responsibility from him.

(April 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 8, 2009 at 6:06 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Why would I? I'd simply consider myself lucky.

Lucky implies superstition. I don't think 'grateful' works as you've highlighted. I didn't mean it in relation to something external, and I said that.

To you maybe, to me it implies nothing but chance and that we refer to as luck, good or bad, don't give a toss.

(April 8, 2009 at 5:25 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(April 8, 2009 at 6:06 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: More fool you then ... I have no god, period!

You have no god yet you put a description of a god forward. I think I'm justified in addressing your description.

What description? I don't have any gods ... I reject ALL past & current claims to the existence of deity. Describe another if you wish and I will tell you why I do or do not reject such an idea.

Kyu

@LukeMC:

Hard for God to do yet possible for chance? That doesn't work. But I think we're both talking about the same thing. For this physical universe to be what it is, those things you describe as horrific have to be a part. Given other permutations: other outcomes would result. Would they be less or more horrific? I don't agree with the notion that God should have made a cotton candy world where everything would be nicey nicey and sadness wouldn't exist. To me that would be the grotesque reality over this one.

(April 11, 2009 at 6:21 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: @LukeMC:

Hard for God to do yet possible for chance? That doesn't work. But I think we're both talking about the same thing. For this physical universe to be what it is, those things you describe as horrific have to be a part. Given other permutations: other outcomes would result. Would they be less or more horrific? I don't agree with the notion that God should have made a cotton candy world where everything would be nicey nicey and sadness wouldn't exist. To me that would be the grotesque reality over this one.

1) Chance.
I find the universe being the way it is by chance far more likely than a limitless, infinitely powerful and knowing entity which consciously plots out and creates a universe for the purpose of human life. In the least offensive way possible, I find such an idea rather arrogant of humans.
Furthermore, the chances of this universe having these configurations might not necessarily be 1/infinity. String theorists are looking to investigate into the nature of strings and how they are shaped and interact (if they exist) and the results could give us the first clear indication as to why the universe is the way it is and how likely it is that another universe if started from scratch would develop the same configurations. There's a TedTalk on this if anyone wants a link.
The point is, when you say chance, you haven't put too much depth into how high or low this chance is. If we live in a multiverse, we may just be an unlikely exception, or perhaps other universes are quite similar to ours. I think eventually scientists will be able to tell us what the chances actually are. I'll admit my argument here is weak, but I'm just pointing out that you shouldn't dismiss chance.

2) Cotton Candy World
Why do you feel it necessary that innocent people suffer painful deaths? Sure it is nice to feel a wide range of emotions, but the slaughter of innocents is a little extreme for a loving God in my opinion. Emotional turmoil and hardships I could understand. Innocent people who have worked hard in life being killed mercilessly in the way God intended... what about them? They don't gain from it, nor appreciate it. They die. They're cut out of existence entirely. It's all good spicing our lives up with troubles and tribulations, I just think the needless slaughter serves little to the people involved. They feel pain and then die. YES we outsiders can learn from this (though it is still evil means to a minutely good end) but the people themselves. What's in it for them?

Thanks.