(August 17, 2012 at 1:06 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

spockrates Wrote:Never said John's evidence was more substantial; just tried to make the point that John's information is additional. He added details of Jesus' life the others left out of their gospels. We see the same today, don't we? Some journalist writes a biography of some president. It sells a lot of copies, and the public becomes interested. A former member of the president's administration writes another biography, with details not found in the previous one. People buy that one, too--not because the new biography rehashes the same old details of the man's life, but because the new biography has additional information not presented in the previous biography. See what I mean?

Ok, I see what you're saying in this case. If we use your metaphor, then what I understood (wrongly?) last time was that a younger journalist would be getting more/better information than an older journalist. I didn't see anything to do with the person's position. Maybe I misunderstood.

Either way, let's go with what you have written here. I can see how it would be reasonable to expect John to have more information.

Yes, in fact, John ends his gospel with these words:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Seems like more evidence that the purpose of John's gospel was to write down some of the additional information about Jesus' life, and he was making the point that there is much more that might never be written.

Quote:Is it coincidence though that his Gospel was the last one written as well? It seems to me like the content in it is the icing on the cake where the cake is simply a shaky foundation consisting of the dubious Synoptics.

Why dubious?

Quote:So I guess my question would be how much did 'John' know of the others and how much did he stretch the truth?

It's possible John could have stretched the truth, but I think it would be improbable. For it would be out of character for the one who wrote:

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

(1 John 1)

I think that for me to believe John intentionally tried to deceive, I'd have to see some evidence supporting the idea that he was dishonest, or perhaps going insane, or I'd need to see evidence that the one writing his gospel was not the same one who wrote his letters found in the Bible. Regarding him making up stories, I don't see how he would benefit from these, given that anyone associated with Jesus and claiming he was God got a target put on him by both the Roman and the Jewish authorities. After Jesus' death, if he did not rise from the dead as he said, the wisest thing would be to keep one's mouth shut and go into hiding.

Quote:I'm sure you're familiar with all the instances where Jesus seems to be a lot more divine than in the Synoptics.

Why do you think the writer of Matthew's gospel did not believe Jesus was God incarnate?

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Fair enough. It was not an ad hominem attack, because I believe I have not made any assertion to attack. I stand corrected, and please accept my apology.

Of course, I'm not one to hold grudges.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: What I don't understand, Mister is why you think I have a view on atheism, since I have not expressed one!

You've expressed your definition of atheism, which is at odds with ours, and you stick to it despite that. That's a pretty strong view about atheism.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: What I have done is to ask questions about the reasons others have given why they are atheists. I'm not sure why you believe asking questions about why someone believes is the same as denying what someone believes. (However, I'd love to ask you why, if only you would care to answer!).

I'm not sure why you believe that I believe asking questions about why someone believes is the same as denying what someone believes. I'm not sure why you believe a lot of the things you've said about me.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: I don't think I have said that anything anyone has told me was not true--though I should make an exception in your case and say it is untrue that I'm insincere about seeking the the truth.

Seeking the truth is a two-way street. A discussion isn't someone asking more questions, getting anwers, asking more questions, getting answers, ad infinitum. When it comes to your original question, you're not giving us much back to go on in making progress. And when I did get some feedback from you (it was like extracting a tooth), your response was either borderline hostile or indicated a density that cannot be penetrated (your choice) that can be summed up as 'you became an atheist because you decided to be close-minded'. Which is why none of us is getting anywhere with you. Please just go ahead and become a Catholic.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: It seems to me your opinion of me is like that of the critics of Socrates saying he denied the pagan gods were wise simply because he asked the pious Euthyphro some questions about why he believed they were. Asking Euthyphro how he knew the gods were wise (given that the gods disagreed and fought among themselves about what was wise and what was foolish) was not the same as denying they were wise, regardless of Euthyphro's inability to answer the question. At best, the only thing Socrates' questions proved was that Eutyphro didn't know, which is quite different from asserting that what Euthyphro thought he knew was untrue.

My opinion of you is that you are amusing yourself at our expense, that is, you are a troll: your goal is to stir up reactions to get a feeling of control, your method is JAQ-ing off. It's one of the most effective methods because it keeps the game going the longest. You don't have to be impolite or insulting, so no ban, and not much ire: just the most time wasted by us for the smallest effort on your part. I am a good example of how even people who know better fall for it.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Best of luck to you, too. (BTW, I still like your avatar's costume!)

Thanks. I am willing to change my mind about you if I see you fully engage. The psychic thing seemed to get you going much more than anything you got in response to why someone is an atheist.

(August 17, 2012 at 11:09 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Fair enough. It was not an ad hominem attack, because I believe I have not made any assertion to attack. I stand corrected, and please accept my apology.

Of course, I'm not one to hold grudges.

Thank you.

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: What I don't understand, Mister is why you think I have a view on atheism, since I have not expressed one!

You've expressed your definition of atheism, which is at odds with ours, and you stick to it despite that. That's a pretty strong view about atheism.

Fair enough. Would you say I believe in definition (1) of atheism, but you believe in definition (2)? I'm thinking definition (2) is more broad and definition (1) is narrower, and perhaps speaks of a specific kind of atheism. Neither definition is necessarily wrong, it's just that not all atheists who are (2) are necessarily also (1). Do you agree?


a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: What I have done is to ask questions about the reasons others have given why they are atheists. I'm not sure why you believe asking questions about why someone believes is the same as denying what someone believes. (However, I'd love to ask you why, if only you would care to answer!).

I'm not sure why you believe that I believe asking questions about why someone believes is the same as denying what someone believes. I'm not sure why you believe a lot of the things you've said about me.

Also fair. My thought was that you are thinking my use of the Socratic Method means I've already made up my mind that the things people are saying to me is untrue. Sounds like I've misunderstood you. Again, I apologize.

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: I don't think I have said that anything anyone has told me was not true--though I should make an exception in your case and say it is untrue that I'm insincere about seeking the the truth.

Seeking the truth is a two-way street. A discussion isn't someone asking more questions, getting anwers, asking more questions, getting answers, ad infinitum. When it comes to your original question, you're not giving us much back to go on in making progress. And when I did get some feedback from you (it was like extracting a tooth), your response was either borderline hostile or indicated a density that cannot be penetrated (your choice) that can be summed up as 'you became an atheist because you decided to be close-minded'. Which is why none of us is getting anywhere with you. Please just go ahead and become a Catholic.

A discussion using the Socratic Method is exactly that, though both people might ask questions, of course. I'm certainly open to answering any questions you have for me.

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: It seems to me your opinion of me is like that of the critics of Socrates saying he denied the pagan gods were wise simply because he asked the pious Euthyphro some questions about why he believed they were. Asking Euthyphro how he knew the gods were wise (given that the gods disagreed and fought among themselves about what was wise and what was foolish) was not the same as denying they were wise, regardless of Euthyphro's inability to answer the question. At best, the only thing Socrates' questions proved was that Eutyphro didn't know, which is quite different from asserting that what Euthyphro thought he knew was untrue.

My opinion of you is that you are amusing yourself at our expense, that is, you are a troll: your goal is to stir up reactions to get a feeling of control, your method is JAQ-ing off. It's one of the most effective methods because it keeps the game going the longest. You don't have to be impolite or insulting, so no ban, and not much ire: just the most time wasted by us for the smallest effort on your part. I am a good example of how even people who know better fall for it.

Yes, I tend to have that effect on people. Socrates said he had the same effect on people as well:

I tell you this long story, friend Theaetetus, because I suspect, as indeed you seem to think yourself, that you are in labour-great with some conception. Come then to me, who am a midwife's son and myself a midwife, and do your best to answer the questions which I will ask you. And if I abstract and expose your first-born, because I discover upon inspection that the conception which you have formed is a vain shadow, do not quarrel with me on that account, as the manner of women is when their first children are taken from them.

For I have actually known some who were ready to bite me when I deprived them of a darling folly! They did not perceive that I acted from good will, not knowing that no god is the enemy of man-that was not within the range of their ideas; neither am I their enemy in all this, but it would be wrong for me to admit falsehood, or to stifle the truth.

(Theatetus)

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Best of luck to you, too. (BTW, I still like your avatar's costume!)

Thanks. I am willing to change my mind about you if I see you fully engage. The psychic thing seemed to get you going much more than anything you got in response to why someone is an atheist.

Would you like (at least for awhile) to be the one to ask questions, and have me be the one to answer them?

(August 17, 2012 at 7:09 am)spockrates Wrote: I do appreciate your reply. I think I have a tedious way of asking simple questions that sometimes turns people off. I do find your answer fascinating and want to hear more.

Maybe that's it. Law of Charity says I should not assume malice when awkward style is sufficient explanation, and here you're giving the kind of feedback I was talking about. Thank you.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: In answer to your question, I'd say I'm not convinced, yet. I'm unsure of the premise that it is possible for God to create a person in such a way that she would never choose what is morally wrong. It's actually an ancient question answered by an early Christian by the name of Iraenius.. His answer to the question went something like this:

1. God's purpose is that we will love one another and love him

2. Love requires freedom to freely choose to love or not love

3. If God made us so we were incapable of choosing to hate, we would be incapable of freely choosing to love or not love

Does God have to make us incapable of choosing hate to only make people who freely choose to love? Couldn't God make everyone with free will, use omniscience to know in advance which ones won't choose love freely, and simply not make those people?

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: 4. To prevent us from freely choosing to love would be unloving and unwise

To allow us to be born into circumstances that prevent us from freely choosing love would be unloving and unwise. Yet there are children who are raped to death before they make it to five. It seems if there is someone in charge, they are completely fine with people never having a chance to freely choose love.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: 5. If God were unloving, he would not be omnibenevolent, and if he were unwise, he would not be omniscient

6. If God were not omnibenevolent, nor omniscient, he would cease to be God

If God is omniscient, he may not be able to be omnibenevolent. An omniscient being is incapable of doing anything but we it already knows it will do. Omniscience doesn't allow for multiple scenarios, there can be only one. Since mere humans can easily imagine scenarios where we would have a better chance to freely choose love without being robots, this suggests some sort of constraint on an omnibenevolent deity.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: 7. It is impossible for God to cease to be who he is

Yet another exception on God's omnipotence, and mere assertion as well.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Therefore,

A. God cannot possibly still be God and at the same time, make us incapable of doing what is morally wrong

God cannot possibly be the God of theodicy and still stack the deck against us. It doesn't make us robots if bad parents fail to have children or no one is born with the brain impairments associated with sociopathy or no one develops brain tumors that drive formerly decent people to murderous violence or is born into the 'wrong' religion. And the God of theodicy wouldn't come up with a hell to torment those who don't make the cut for eternity. Seriously, 'I don't stop crazies from cutting messages in a little girl's back and then urinating in the wounds, but I will threaten you with an eternal whupping after you're dead.'?

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: I'm thinking Iraenius is right. Making us like puppets on strings, or robots incapable of choice would make not only make hate impossible; it would also make love impossible. Can an existence void of love be the most perfect God could possibly create?

Iraneius is wrong. I get why free will might be important to God, but love is an emotion, and absolutely he could make us to feel it all day long our whole lives. If God wants us to love and be loved, easy peasy for an omnipotent being. What Iraneous seems to imply that God REALLY wants is for beings without much of a clue to choose to love him, for no good reason (he doesn't do anything for them, he treats nonbelievers the same, he allows haters to flourish, he doesn't even let them know for sure he exists). He's like someone who cries 'I want you to love me for ME, not for what I do for you!' A little demanding, possibly creepy, but understandable. BUT, hell. And incredible suffering for multitudes while we're alive, much of it NOT due to human action but due to the environment which God supposedly made for us.

If you want to keep your God belief and your intellectual integrity, I recommend you follow Drich's example and cut one of the legs of theodicy down to a level consistent with the reality we observe. He chose omnibenevolence, but I recommend omnipotence and omniscience: an omnibenevolent god who is only very wise and very powerful and is doing the best he can in a vast universe that is necessarily imperfect seems much more worthy of adoration (to me) than one who is all-knowing and all-powerful but treats us like residents in an ant farm--even if that is a relatively valid comparison.

Theoretically, we may be able to create universes ourselves one day. I have an ethical reservation about doing so: if it is possible for life to develop in a cosmos we create, then wouldn't WE be responsible for the enormous suffering life entails?

(August 17, 2012 at 11:31 am)spockrates Wrote: Fair enough. Would you say I believe in definition (1) of atheism, but you believe in definition (2)? I'm thinking definition (2) is more broad and definition (1) is narrower, and perhaps speaks of a specific kind of atheism. Neither definition is necessarily wrong, it's just that not all atheists who are (2) are necessarily also (1). Do you agree?


a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism?s=t

Yes, most atheists use 2. as it is more inclusive without also including agnostic theists, which would be confusing...and kudoes for getting that disbelief is a synonym for not believing. You'd think the '1.' atheists and the '2.' atheists would get into 'true atheist' arguments, but although the first (strong or gnostic) atheists might consider us (weak or agnostic athiests) wimpy or something, we pretty much all agree we're all atheists.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Also fair. My thought was that you are thinking my use of the Socratic Method means I've already made up my mind that the things people are saying to me is untrue. Sounds like I've misunderstood you. Again, I apologize.

No worries. Communication is hard without voice or body language.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: A discussion using the Socratic Method is exactly that, though both people might ask questions, of course. I'm certainly open to answering any questions you have for me.

The Socratic method is very tricky. I'm not sure that anyone but Socrates can pull it off.

Thanks for being open to questions, maybe we can get on a better foot.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Yes, I tend to have that effect on people. Socrates said he had the same effect on people as well:

At least you don't seem to be using it for trickery: some people ask a lot of questions in an attempt to set someone up for a 'gotcha' and I am not seeing that with you.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Would you like (at least for awhile) to be the one to ask questions, and have me be the one to answer them?

As long as you try to answer questions when I do ask them, I am happy. I realize that you are one person responding to many, and will take that into account. You don't have to anwer everybody, but if you have to pick and choose, I really respect someone who takes on the substantive ones over snipes and potshots, even though those are tempting.

(August 17, 2012 at 9:45 am)spockrates Wrote: There is a third option: Suggest a different purpose God has in mind. You said:

Quote:No, you got it. Here's why I think that this would have to be the case in a world with a God whose attributes included omnipotence and the power to create:
If this creator has the power to make any world he wants, then it follows that he necessarily takes free will from the equation. Reason being, if it is the case that he can make any world, he chose a world where events played out a certain way. If he chose a world where events played out a certain way, then all the events of that world are subject to his will. If all events are subject to his will, then nothing that occurs in that world is against his will (unless he is too stupid to make a world where everything matched his will) and all choices you could possibly make are null. Choices are nullified because the your will is really the will of that God, having chose the universe where you would make the decisions you are making and not different decisions. To rephrase, you aren't the arbiter of your own choice, the omniscient God chose the world where you would choose as you do. True free will isn't subject to a God's choice of a world.

What if the world (or reality) God intended to make was one in which you and I have freedom of will? Would it then necessarily follow that God would have to create a reality with no freewill? I'm thinking the purpose of God the Bible describes is to create us to be free to love, or hate as we choose. For without choice, love is impossible. The Bible indicates the end game of God is to promote this love that requires freedom, I believe.

Most often God isn't given the properties of true omnipotence, because the concept in practice is impossible and logically contradictory. They simply give him the power to make a universe as he sees fit, with the boundaries set firmly in what is logically possible and non-contradictory. If the God you espouse is free from logical base laws, then cool, you have a God with the capacity to do anything and as such would be able to do things that contradict his nature. Chew on that and toss it around in your mind to find what is implied here.

Quote:I can cite several passages to this effect,

Goody. I don't really care. I would have taken you at your word.

Quote:To counter this premise, you would need to show either (a) God's ultimate goal is not that we love him and each other, or (b) love is possible with the complete absence of freewill.

I have to do no such thing. To ask me to do either means you simply misunderstood my argument in the first place. It was probably too hazy for you to understand the God I was talking about because I only implied he couldn't contradict logic, so that was my fault.
You seem to be saying that if he can create any world he wants, he can ignore his own attributes and create a world where he doesn't know everything while knowing everything. This would allow him to create a world with free will, I guess... I don't really see how he could be omniscient without being omniscient or the logical implications of contradictory logic in reality, but whatever floats your boat.

Quote:I would not ask you to accept this argument, but if I've inadvertently made some factual errors, or logical errors, please point them out.

If I screw up, call me out on it. If you screw up, I give you my word that you'll know.

Quote:

Quote:Perhaps it would help to imagine a scenario where a being without freewill exists. Let's say you are a scientist exploring deep space hundreds of years from now. During the trek, you create a drug that gives you perpetual youth, so that you might live forever. Unfortunately, the members of the spaceship's crew all refused to take the drug. One by one they die of old age, eventually leaving you all alone.

You decide to make a companion for yourself--a robot. You create this robot to look like a beautiful woman and program her to say she loves you. She can never say otherwise, for this is how you programmed her--without the freedom to choose to not love you. When she says the words, "I love you," are they a genuine expression of love? If so, why?

Is the robot highly complex and capable of radical thought pattern changes? Is she technically "capable" of changing thought patterns like love, yet programming makes her believe that she loves him because of her own thoughts?
This is what defines a person who believes that he loves someone if he/she didn't really have free will. We all feel these emotions and feel we have control over our lives, but determinism says otherwise. A God-based determinism like the one God as defined by millions as defined by me necessarily must create, as I argued, holds water until such time that you accept God is capable of disregarding logic at any point in time. This puts you in another sinking boat, unless you go back to the beginning and choose one of my original options:
Either choose that
1. My definition of God is wrong, meaning he doesn't have omniscience or the ability to create any world he wishes to create (bar logical/trait-based contradictions).
2. Argue that I was flawed in my logic somewhere and show me where and how, or
3. Submit to the argument and accept that a deterministic God necessarily follows from his traits.

Did I mess up his traits?
Can he ignore logic?
Is my argument flawed?

It's up to you what you feel is correct, but you owe me an explanation if you are going to dismiss the argument for any other reason than these three. One reason might be that there were more choices that I didn't consider...

(August 17, 2012 at 11:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 17, 2012 at 7:09 am)spockrates Wrote: I do appreciate your reply. I think I have a tedious way of asking simple questions that sometimes turns people off. I do find your answer fascinating and want to hear more.

Maybe that's it. Law of Charity says I should not assume malice when awkward style is sufficient explanation, and here you're giving the kind of feedback I was talking about. Thank you.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: In answer to your question, I'd say I'm not convinced, yet. I'm unsure of the premise that it is possible for God to create a person in such a way that she would never choose what is morally wrong. It's actually an ancient question answered by an early Christian by the name of Iraenius.. His answer to the question went something like this:

1. God's purpose is that we will love one another and love him

2. Love requires freedom to freely choose to love or not love

3. If God made us so we were incapable of choosing to hate, we would be incapable of freely choosing to love or not love

Does God have to make us incapable of choosing hate to only make people who freely choose to love? Couldn't God make everyone with free will, use omniscience to know in advance which ones won't choose love freely, and simply not make those people?

Love requires a choice, so yes, if we are free to choose, we would have to be free to choose to love, or to not love. If we were not free to choose to not love, we would not be free. I'd say everyone, to one degree, or another, at times chooses not to love. So omniscience, in this case, would only reveal to God that he should create no one, for no one succeeds at loving 100% of the time. It seems God did not create us to be perfect, but to long to become perfect. I desire to be so much more than I am, and that is the hope I have for the life to come.

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: 4. To prevent us from freely choosing to love would be unloving and unwise

To allow us to be born into circumstances that prevent us from freely choosing love would be unloving and unwise. Yet there are children who are raped to death before they make it to five. It seems if there is someone in charge, they are completely fine with people never having a chance to freely choose love.

There are those who are mistreated who choose to react to their mistreatment by not becoming like those who mistreated them. Victims always have a choice, I think. Suffering even has the potential to make those who suffer more empathetic, and so more apt to love.

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: 5. If God were unloving, he would not be omnibenevolent, and if he were unwise, he would not be omniscient

6. If God were not omnibenevolent, nor omniscient, he would cease to be God

If God is omniscient, he may not be able to be omnibenevolent. An omniscient being is incapable of doing anything but we it already knows it will do. Omniscience doesn't allow for multiple scenarios, there can be only one. Since mere humans can easily imagine scenarios where we would have a better chance to freely choose love without being robots, this suggests some sort of constraint on an omnibenevolent deity.

Please elaborate, as I don't understand.

Quote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: 7. It is impossible for God to cease to be who he is

Yet another exception on God's omnipotence, and mere assertion as well.

I think, perhaps we have a different understanding of omnipotence. I could be wrong, but at the moment, I'm thinking omnipotence is not an unlimited amount of power, it's an unlimited quality (or perfection) of power. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omniscience, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unwise. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omnibenevolence, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unloving. The three aspects of God must be in perfect harmony, or God becomes less than perfect. Wisdom, rather than making God's power less than perfect, is a perfect guiding of God's power. Love, rather than making God's power less than perfect, is a perfect application of God's power.

For example, if God had unlimited power (power not limited by his wisdom or love) there would be nothing impossible for him to do. This is not the case, for we read in Hebrews:

...it is impossible for God to lie... .

(Hebrews 6:18)


Since there is something that is impossible for God to do, does this mean his power is limited (or he chooses to restrain his power)? Yes, I think so. For his power is restrained by his love and wisdom. Since there is something that is impossible for God to do, does this mean he is not perfect in power? No, it means his power is made perfect in wisdom and love--the three qualities of God in perfect harmony.

---

Now, please understand that my speaking from a Christian point of view does not mean I'm speaking as a partisan. I'm not into partisan religion, and am willing to consider whether atheism holds the truth, rather than Christianity. I'm playing the devil's advocate, so to speak! and hope I'm not sounding dogmatic by answering your questions, rather than asking the questions, myself.

---

(August 17, 2012 at 2:17 pm)Skepsis Wrote:

(August 17, 2012 at 9:45 am)spockrates Wrote: There is a third option: Suggest a different purpose God has in mind. You said:


What if the world (or reality) God intended to make was one in which you and I have freedom of will? Would it then necessarily follow that God would have to create a reality with no freewill? I'm thinking the purpose of God the Bible describes is to create us to be free to love, or hate as we choose. For without choice, love is impossible. The Bible indicates the end game of God is to promote this love that requires freedom, I believe.

Most often God isn't given the properties of true omnipotence, because the concept in practice is impossible and logically contradictory. They simply give him the power to make a universe as he sees fit, with the boundaries set firmly in what is logically possible and non-contradictory. If the God you espouse is free from logical base laws, then cool, you have a God with the capacity to do anything and as such would be able to do things that contradict his nature. Chew on that and toss it around in your mind to find what is implied here.

Quote:I can cite several passages to this effect,

Goody. I don't really care. I would have taken you at your word.

Quote:To counter this premise, you would need to show either (a) God's ultimate goal is not that we love him and each other, or (b) love is possible with the complete absence of freewill.

I have to do no such thing. To ask me to do either means you simply misunderstood my argument in the first place. It was probably too hazy for you to understand the God I was talking about because I only implied he couldn't contradict logic, so that was my fault.
You seem to be saying that if he can create any world he wants, he can ignore his own attributes and create a world where he doesn't know everything while knowing everything. This would allow him to create a world with free will, I guess... I don't really see how he could be omniscient without being omniscient or the logical implications of contradictory logic in reality, but whatever floats your boat.

Quote:I would not ask you to accept this argument, but if I've inadvertently made some factual errors, or logical errors, please point them out.

If I screw up, call me out on it. If you screw up, I give you my word that you'll know.

Quote:

Quote:Perhaps it would help to imagine a scenario where a being without freewill exists. Let's say you are a scientist exploring deep space hundreds of years from now. During the trek, you create a drug that gives you perpetual youth, so that you might live forever. Unfortunately, the members of the spaceship's crew all refused to take the drug. One by one they die of old age, eventually leaving you all alone.

You decide to make a companion for yourself--a robot. You create this robot to look like a beautiful woman and program her to say she loves you. She can never say otherwise, for this is how you programmed her--without the freedom to choose to not love you. When she says the words, "I love you," are they a genuine expression of love? If so, why?

Is the robot highly complex and capable of radical thought pattern changes? Is she technically "capable" of changing thought patterns like love, yet programming makes her believe that she loves him because of her own thoughts?
This is what defines a person who believes that he loves someone if he/she didn't really have free will. We all feel these emotions and feel we have control over our lives, but determinism says otherwise. A God-based determinism like the one God as defined by millions as defined by me necessarily must create, as I argued, holds water until such time that you accept God is capable of disregarding logic at any point in time. This puts you in another sinking boat, unless you go back to the beginning and choose one of my original options:
Either choose that
1. My definition of God is wrong, meaning he doesn't have omniscience or the ability to create any world he wishes to create (bar logical/trait-based contradictions).
2. Argue that I was flawed in my logic somewhere and show me where and how, or
3. Submit to the argument and accept that a deterministic God necessarily follows from his traits.

Did I mess up his traits?
Can he ignore logic?
Is my argument flawed?

It's up to you what you feel is correct, but you owe me an explanation if you are going to dismiss the argument for any other reason than these three. One reason might be that there were more choices that I didn't consider...

Yes, I have to concede that God is not omniscient if by omniscient we mean he can (and does) do anything at all. For example, Paul writes of the:

...God, who does not lie... .

(Titus 1:2)

One might say that being dishonest is something God is powerless to do. For if God were dishonest, he would be unwise (and so not omniscient) and unloving (and so not omnibenevolent). Of all the choices there are to a sentient being, the only things God has the freedom to choose are those that are not just a demonstration of perfect powerful alone, but also a demonstration of perfect wisdom and love.

But here is what I wonder: Does God not lie because he is powerless to lie, or does God not lie because he has the power to lie, but chooses to not lie? If the latter, rather than the former is true, then I'm thinking God truly is all-powerful, but chooses (by reason of wisdom and love) to restrain his power.

---

But please tell me: Do you think omnipotence is having the power to do everything, or do you think omnipotence is not only having the power to do everything but also doing everything?

(August 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm)spockrates Wrote: Love requires a choice, so yes, if we are free to choose, we would have to be free to choose to love, or to not love. If we were not free to choose to not love, we would not be free. I'd say everyone, to one degree, or another, at times chooses not to love. So omniscience, in this case, would only reveal to God that he should create no one, for no one succeeds at loving 100% of the time.

Thanks for the nuanced reply. It is kind of a mystery why a perfect being should create anyone, especially when it involves large amounts of suffering.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: There are those who are mistreated who choose to react to their mistreatment by not becoming like those who mistreated them. Victims always have a choice, I think. Suffering even has the potential to make those who suffer more empathetic, and so more apt to love.

Not if they don't survive it.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: Please elaborate, as I don't understand.

Sorry. What I'm trying to say is that omniscience is incompatible with free will. Say a Genie granted me perfect knowledge of the future. From that moment I will be incapable of doing anything but what I have already foreseen I will do. The rest of my life will be just going through the motions: I may act surprised, but I won't be. I may appear to change my mind, but it's an illusion, I already know what I'm ultimately going to think.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: I think, perhaps we have a different understanding of omnipotence. Omnipotence is not just an unlimited amount of power, it's an unlimited quality (or perfection) of power. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omniscience, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unwise. God's omnipotence must always be in balance with God's omnibenevolence, so God's omnipotence will never be used to accomplish something that is unloving. The three aspects of God must be in perfect harmony, or God becomes less than perfect. Wisdom, rather than a limit on God's power, is a perfect guiding of God's power. Love, rather a limit on God's power, is a perfect application of God's power.

Sounds sweet. Have you added 'unlimited quality of power' to omnipotence so that omnipotence means 'both unlimited quantity and quality of power' or re-defined omnipotence to 'unlimited quality of power' instead of 'unlimited quantity of power'? Are you defining 'omniscience' as something other than 'knowing everything'?

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote: For example, if God had unlimited power (power not limited by his wisdom or love) there would be nothing impossible for him to do. This is not the case, for we read in Hebrews:

...it is impossible for God to lie... .

(Hebrews 6:18)

Since there is something that is impossible for God to do, does this mean he is not all-powerful? No, it means his power is made perfect in wisdom and love.

This might be more persuasive if not of the cognitive acrobatics required to make God consistently truthful. He says to see him is to die but shows himself to people who lived. He tells Adam and Eve that the day they eat the forbidden fruit they will die, but they live for centuries afterwards. He admits to sending prophets lying spirits to deceive the people.

Of course I don't expect a book written by many different people to be very consistent, even about this, but it's a problem for people who take it as the word of God.

Can I take it as written that when you make claims about God, you are deriving them from your understanding of the Christian Bible?

---

(August 17, 2012 at 2:34 pm)spockrates Wrote: But here is what I wonder: Does God not lie because he is powerless to lie, or does God not lie because he has the power to lie, but chooses to not lie? If the latter, rather than the former is true, then I'm thinking God truly is all-powerful, but chooses (by reason of wisdom and love) to restrain his power.

I would say the answer depends on whether the version of God you're speaking of has free will.

(August 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm)Cinjin Wrote: No thanks. I've had my fill of the apologists mental & verbal gymnastics. As in all things religious, it's all about interpretation, and you have no more authority on the "true meaning" of the scriptures than any other christard. There's nothing you could ever say that can ever justify the horrific things in the bible or ever convince me that your inept, impotent god could ever be the "one true god." Sorry, but I'm quite sure that your religion is stupid and your god is a phoney.

No problem. Please let me know if you care to share other reasons why someone should become an atheist.

right ... as if what I said isn't reason enough.

(August 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm)spockrates Wrote: Please let me know if you care to share other reasons why someone should become an atheist.

You know what spock, I really don't see why it's any of our responsibility to sell it to you.

Figure it out for yourself. If you can't, carry on believing your nonsense and leave everyone else to it. It's that simple. I just find you're the biggest damn time waster here.


Frankly, watching you drag these threads on is getting that bad I just consider you more of a troll the more I watch you type. You're always coming up with every response you can think of, besides the most obvious and most logical, that your god doesn't exist and your religion is bollocks.

It's like you will scramble for any explanation you can find, regardless of how far fetched it is, to try and explain and justify the fact that your god is an inept communicator, and a shitty designer.

Tiresome and annoying.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:27 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You should probably read those things before you post them. Insulting you isn't an ad hominem.

You're wrong and you're hair is funny: insult.

You're wrong because your hair is funny: ad hominem.

I think it is an ad hom otherwise what's the contextual point of including it in the sentence, in the thread, during the course of an internet dialogue being observed by others - yesterday, today, tommorrow and into the future?