Quote:Saying we as mankind are sinners does not mean he created us to sin.

Well Tacky,that's one of those paradoxes so beloved of Jesuit sophists.

The Abrahamic God has the infinite qualities of omniscience. omnipotence and omnipresence. That means he knew precisely how each human being would behave before it was created. Predestination abrogates free will.

The answer of the sophists I was given at school was " knowing what will happen is not the same as making it happen". However,a better answer than the all time favourite Catholic response to difficult questions: "It's a mystery of faith"

While we're on free will: IF I'm given two choices, the outcome of one being truly splendid,and the other truly horrible, (such as heaven or hell) that is coercion. . "Believe in me and obey me or I'll hurt you" is bullying,the opposite of allowing free will. YHWH stacked the deck.

(June 13, 2010 at 1:04 am)tavarish Wrote:

---

(June 13, 2010 at 12:32 am)ecolox Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 8:52 pm)tavarish Wrote: You have still to explain WHY God has a specific nature, which was my question.

Why do you have a personality?

Non-sequitur. I'm not an infinite being, nor do I possess the ability to go against the laws of nature to which I am bound. My personality is largely irrelevant and a bad analogy.

---

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote:

(June 12, 2010 at 1:09 pm)tavarish Wrote: 1. You didn't answer my question. I asked you why God has a nature, not if he HAS to have a nature. Why does God have a particular nature instead of no nature or a different nature?
2. First, I'm not alleging that I'm the author of my being, or the author of the natural laws I'm bound by. I'm a finite being, which isn't a good analogy. I'm asking if God can do things like lie and create a squared circle, and if not, why not?
3. What constructs have to be in place in order for a being such as God to have an effective will rather than an ineffective will? It is assumed God is the creator, but why is this so?
4. So why is he bound by a nature if there isn't anything he can't do?

Is there anything about God's existence that distinguishes him from being non-existent? Not that I can currently measure.

So if there isn't a way that God is distinguishable as being existent, how can you make the claim that he exists? Is there any good reason or argument you can put forth that would convey such a thing?

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- Why does God have one nature as opposed to another nature or anything nature at all? As an entity it's defined by having a definite, individual existence and is real in itself. Surely God believes God is real.

That made no sense and didn't answer the question, but it could be that I just didn't understand it properly. Can you rephrase it please?

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 2- I suppose God could lie or create a square circle, yes.

So why doesn't he?

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 3a-I'm tired you're going to have to define "effective will" and "ineffective will" for me please.

Effective will = God wills something and it happens, something akin to Genesis 1.
Ineffective will = God wills something and it doesn't happen.

What constructs have to be in place in order for things to follow God's will?

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 3b-The Judeo God is considered the creator because design is seen in nature and the Bible states he created.

So the Christian God is the creator because Christian doctrine says so.

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 4-I don't think God is bound by the "laws of nature" but bound by his nature as an entity, you're confusing the definition.

WHY is God bound to a necessary nature?

Keep in mind I'm assuming for the sake of argument that God is the author of natural law. It would not follow that he would have to be bound by a specific nature if he is in fact a prescribing force.

---

1- By the very definition of the word entity, all entities must have a definite, individual existence and is real in itself. The definition of personal nature is a set of inherit characteristics. If God is an entity and a consciousness then he has a self-identity and thus would have a nature. Is the nature I espouse 100% correct? I have no clue, it's a presumptions based on what little I observe, but a nature none-the-less.

2- Because it isn't in his nature or character. Why would he build laws and rules and then go break them.. is your presumption of his malevolence transparent yet.

3a- OK I think I understand the question now. I believe God has an effective will. You're asking what has to be in place for this to be so? Well I would guess logically that he would have to have somewhere and somehow to effect. Within the laws of the known universe he would also have to have something to create from (matter or energy). Is that what you're talking about?

3b- If you want a more generic answer. In the context of a creator, one can either create from inside and allow to grow outside your control or from outside and maintain that perspective. Since the topic of creation is chronologically prior to the creation of causality, the latter is logically the likely case. The most common concept for a creator is to call it god. The concept has evolved over the centuries and different sects of different religions attribute certain abilities and things to it and sometimes diversify it's attributes to multiple deities. As long as there is a question as to the how and why things got started, there will be a creator concept.

4- Just as the self has a nature, anything with a self-identity has a nature of who they are. Regardless of the effective power of said entity, it can't be anything other than what it is without denying self. An ant can only be an ant, A person can only be a person, etc.

(June 13, 2010 at 5:35 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

---

(June 13, 2010 at 12:28 am)tackattack Wrote: It's shorter than an explicative definition and similar to love if love had an absolute moral true.

Just what is your definition of God's unique blend of love then?

tackattack Wrote:You're still not changing your perspective. I'll use my hillbilly speak for this.

If you can't convince me otherwise regarding the Biblical God's apparent immorality through educated premises then you need to go back and rethink your argument, not start making uneducated guesses about its supposed nature.

Y'all okay with that?

---

1-love = a conditional and mercurial intense affection for another person based on familial or personal ties
God's Love = unconditional and self sacrificing-patience, kindness, truth seeking. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It's not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs and it never fails. Always seeks the best interests and a closeness with those who accept that love.
2- What you didn't like the abridged version? Well what I was pointing out was that it wasn't through neglect . It was intentional.. God thought eternity was important enough to let us know about it, by sending a part of himself to suffer human intolerance, ignorance and hatred and then die horribly for the glimmer of hope that mankind would listen. In the end, from an omnificent perspective, it will be worth it.

(June 13, 2010 at 7:19 pm)padraic Wrote:

---

Quote:Saying we as mankind are sinners does not mean he created us to sin.

Well Tacky,that's one of those paradoxes so beloved of Jesuit sophists.

The Abrahamic God has the infinite qualities of omniscience. omnipotence and omnipresence. That means he knew precisely how each human being would behave before it was created. Predestination abrogates free will.

The answer of the sophists I was given at school was " knowing what will happen is not the same as making it happen". However,a better answer than the all time favourite Catholic response to difficult questions: "It's a mystery of faith"

While we're on free will: IF I'm given two choices, the outcome of one being truly splendid,and the other truly horrible, (such as heaven or hell) that is coercion. . "Believe in me and obey me or I'll hurt you" is bullying,the opposite of allowing free will. YHWH stacked the deck.

---

My answering of your questions is neither 'specious' nor 'deceptive' nor do I stand to gain anything from sharing with you my interpretation. You labeling of sophist doesn't stand in my book. Predestination only abrogates free will when the perspectives are equal, which I've said they're not. I would never say it's a mystery of faith, that's ridonculous (intentional sp?).
Knowing and actions aren't the same at all, do you deny that? That's why theism is a choice as opposed to atheism. You can choose to believe in something either splendid or horrible after you die, or be left with a null stance. How exactly is it coercion or bullying? If I told you it was raining outside and you didn't believe me and went outside and got wet, then decided to stay outside because you denied the rain would you say I coerced/bullied you into going outside by the mere fact you're by nature impetuous and willful (not anyone specifically just a question)?

(June 14, 2010 at 2:29 pm)tackattack Wrote: Knowing and actions aren't the same at all, do you deny that? That's why theism is a choice as opposed to atheism. You can choose to believe in something either splendid or horrible after you die, or be left with a null stance. How exactly is it coercion or bullying? If I told you it was raining outside and you didn't believe me and went outside and got wet, then decided to stay outside because you denied the rain would you say I coerced/bullied you into going outside by the mere fact you're by nature impetuous and willful (not anyone specifically just a question)?

Yes, you are a bully, since you made the rain just for the purpose of punishing him, and you forcefully made him stay in it. And he's not staying in the rain denying it's there, since it's not there right now while he's alive. The alleged 'rain' (eternal torture of hell) it is said not to happen until after the rain creator kills you. Surely, a threat consequence of that magnitude should be presented by your god with at least a little evidence for us silly logical humans so that its utter lack of perceptability won't cause millions of people to suffer needlessly forever (as if the shitty immoral rules you xtians think your god wants while we are alive weren't bad enough).

(June 14, 2010 at 8:39 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote: Yes, you are a bully, since you made the rain just for the purpose of punishing him, and you forcefully made him stay in it.

Justice is not bullying.

(June 14, 2010 at 9:00 pm)ecolox Wrote:

(June 14, 2010 at 8:39 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote: Yes, you are a bully, since you made the rain just for the purpose of punishing him, and you forcefully made him stay in it.

Justice is not bullying.

A flippant response ended with a mindless cliche, but not within shouting distance of an argument.

Whose justice,yours? As stated in some book? Law and justice are seldom the same thing.

The concept of justice is based on moral precepts. For Jews, Christians and Muslims,moral precepts are absolute , dictated by dogma. Concepts of justice as basic as vengeance, punishment and compensation have varied throughout recorded history and still do in different societies.

A moral relativist, I reject the notion of moral absolutes and of external moral authority,recognsiing only conscience.

"Obey me or I'll hurt you" is "do as I say because I say so " and is indeed bullying.


My ideal is to do what I consider to be right because it is right and for no other reason. However, because I'm a human being,I tend to be motivated by self interest more often than not. The theist does right for the reward of heave or to escape the punishment of hell. That is self interest,understandable but in no way a morally superior position. Justice does not enter the equation.

My observation is that gods reflect the people who invent them.YHWH (a modifed version of "El" (he) a minor Sumerian desert god) was invented by a tribe of bronze age goat herders and shares their characteristics IE he is rather stupid, petty,petulant,jealous,vindictive, sadistic and cruel -and of course ,unjust at a visceral level.

(June 14, 2010 at 8:39 pm)Scented Nectar Wrote:

---

(June 14, 2010 at 2:29 pm)tackattack Wrote: Knowing and actions aren't the same at all, do you deny that? That's why theism is a choice as opposed to atheism. You can choose to believe in something either splendid or horrible after you die, or be left with a null stance. How exactly is it coercion or bullying? If I told you it was raining outside and you didn't believe me and went outside and got wet, then decided to stay outside because you denied the rain would you say I coerced/bullied you into going outside by the mere fact you're by nature impetuous and willful (not anyone specifically just a question)?

Yes, you are a bully, since you made the rain just for the purpose of punishing him, and you forcefully made him stay in it. And he's not staying in the rain denying it's there, since it's not there right now while he's alive. The alleged 'rain' (eternal torture of hell) it is said not to happen until after the rain creator kills you. Surely, a threat consequence of that magnitude should be presented by your god with at least a little evidence for us silly logical humans so that its utter lack of perceptability won't cause millions of people to suffer needlessly forever (as if the shitty immoral rules you xtians think your god wants while we are alive weren't bad enough).

---

Your view of modern Christianity is still very skewed. Don't kill unjustly, love thy neighbor, don't lie, steal or cheat, obey the laws of mankind, etc.. I still can't see how you can honestly hold your view that modern Christians follow immoral rules. Anyways back to point.
The rain in the scenario is just what happens without God. Imagine in avast nothingness there is only one light. You can be in the light or in the cold. Secondly the hell of the Bible was actually intended for a place for the fallen angels, not intended to be our place of damnation. It just happens to be all that's left if we're not in his light. Thirdly, each in faith according to their portion. If you're truly honestly unbiasly looking at a belief in God and don't see the evidence then it's not unreasonable that you don't believe at all.


@min- You know full well that not all theists do right for the reward of heaven or to escape the punishment of hell. I'll take a poll and see how many do.

I'm back, had to be away for awhile, noboby probably missed the fundie. I've been reading this post all the way through and as usual the theme gets left out and I'm as bad about that as anyone else.

This time I'll try to stay on theme at least for a short statement. As for me and most christians God is a superior being or why else would we worship Him. I'm not going to worship anything that I'm an equal to, that would be foolish, I believe it would be quite foolish to worship anything less than an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being and my reasoning is that only a being that fits that description can make promises and then keep them. Also a being of this magnitude can be creator of an entire universe and all that is in it, a being like this is worthy of worship and not just because of the above description but because of what that description represents. If you were to take away any one of the three then God could be any one/way He chose to be but as long as all three are in place God is bound by them and this is His nature (that is as humans think). God as creator would naturally be outside of His creation and not bound by the natural laws He put into place so that He could have control over it. If God is not outside of His creation then He to would be bound to the same natural laws and not have control over the universe.
With God being omniscient,omnipotent and omnipresent gives Him the authority to establish moral laws/limits and the justice/just standards that go with them and these would be for His created beings not for Himself. So IMO the worship that is given to God and the reason for that worship is evidence that God is a superior being. There is much more to say about the reasons to worship God but they would lead us off topic and I'm trying not to do that yet.

(June 15, 2010 at 12:54 am)tackattack Wrote: Your view of modern Christianity is still very skewed. Don't kill unjustly, love thy neighbor, don't lie, steal or cheat, obey the laws of mankind, etc.. I still can't see how you can honestly hold your view that modern Christians follow immoral rules. Anyways back to point.

Secular law already has much better versions of those same rules. For instance, murdering a neighbouring tribe for having a different religion is no longer considered just. There is no law demanding that you unecessarily feel a particular emotion about your neighbours, replaced by much better, more detailed rules keeping your actions fair and just, eg, laws against them blasting music in the middle of the night.

Quote:The rain in the scenario is just what happens without God. Imagine in avast nothingness there is only one light. You can be in the light or in the cold. Secondly the hell of the Bible was actually intended for a place for the fallen angels, not intended to be our place of damnation. It just happens to be all that's left if we're not in his light.

Bullshit. The bible does not say anything like the above. It specifically says that hell is a real thing, not an absence of things. God actively sends people there, not for nothingness (he could have left them peacefully dead for that), but for torment, gnashing of teeth, and suphuric pits of fire. It's also not very good to just say that it's ok, since he's only torturing angels, not us. That's like saying it's ok, Hitler's only killing those other people, not us. Hey, why did an entire third of the angels decide that god is too fucked up to stay with? They left the remaining .666 behind to stay with god. What's up with that?

Quote:Thirdly, each in faith according to their portion. If you're truly honestly unbiasly looking at a belief in God and don't see the evidence then it's not unreasonable that you don't believe at all.

Even the believers don't see any real evidence. That's why they use a combination of faith (believing something without any evidence) and making the facts fit, like when reading horoscopes and seeing ways that it applies to you personally. Anyone can do that with anything. All one has to do is be convinced that the bible/horoscope is telling you the truth.

It's OK You beautiful bloom.....

He doesn't red his 'Good Book' obliviously!!

(June 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: We consider everything. We apply what fits.

And we can definitely see how accurate that interpretation is because God has only one working model in the world.

...



How can you distinguish traits of a being whose existence is indistinguishable?

That doesn't make any sense.

At all.

(June 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm)tavarish Wrote: And I disagree. I'd reach the conclusion that an entity that cannot be demonstrably distinguished from being non-existent is most likely a fabrication of the person asserting it. Also, the sheer fact that your claim that "You would have to reach the same conclusions" is demonstrably false. Look at all the religions and denominations in the world, there is no consensus on the definition of what God is specifically.

(June 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No you wouldn't because you couldn't. I'd very easily dispose of your idea. Same with any wildly illogical statement. What you have with a coherent and logical God model is something you can't dismiss. I'd disagree that there isn't a consensus. Show me any actual Christian definition and I'm sure I'd agree with it. Same goes for any mature consideration of god (mature conforming to the intellectually coherent).

Consensus means everyone agrees, not just people under your tent. By the way, there are Christians who have wildly varied definitions of God and his attributes. Just look at how the Westboro Baptist Church interprets divine intentions versus that of a Unitarian Church. Apply that to all the other denominations which pick and choose what doctrines and attributes they want to apply to their God and you have a drastically different picture.

I'm not talking about having a vague interpretation of "omnimax being", I'm talking about specific attributes and definitions for this God and his motives.

(June 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Destructive/ negative. Given creation adds then the balance that takes away is anti God. Positive is good.

Destruction happens all the time. It's actually inevitable. Is there an opposing force that is equal to God influencing the universe? I've never heard of the concept of anti-God in the bible in terms of universal energy distribution.

(June 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Because God as creator observably made order. To make chaos would be the opposite. Evidentially we have a God of creation & not destruction. God, again, is unrestricted and can do as he wants. In this reality, we observe order.

Good job begging the question.

"Why is God the creator?"

"Because he created"

It's a nonsense statement, and touches on really vague and ambiguous claims. "In this reality" - as opposed to any other reality? Please be realistic and come down to Earth. To have evidence for something, you have to have clearly defined parameters. You have to first define your God, then provide evidence that he exists in a way that is distinguishable from non-existence, then provide evidence as to his necessary intentions and actions and give an account for why that is. You can't just make an assertion saying "God just is" and expect people to go along with it. It's a practically and logically incoherent premise because it relies on an extra unobservable step in the process, and kills the line of questioning, without giving any real insight to anything.

I'll make a logically consistent statement:

If apples exist, invisible dragons exist.

That doesn't make it true.

(June 13, 2010 at 4:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I can't see how it's possible to deviate from the consensus. It's how I'm arguing with you : because I have a coherent model and so does every other religious person that argues this model.

A model of God that is literally indistinguishable from being non-existent is a coherent model.

If you believe that, I have a sandbox in Kuwait that I'm selling - perhaps you're interested.

(June 13, 2010 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So you're saying there's no problem with creation being to God what geometry is to Math? We're in agreement then?

I'm saying you're missing the point of my questioning and begging the question and regurgitating tautologies.

(June 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You misquoted me unfairly there. He has these attributes because we have worked out that we can logically apply them.

You don't seem to understand what I'm asking at all.

You say that his attributes are what we've worked out so far. Fine. For the sake of argument, I'll grant you this premise. How then, can you claim that he is capable of anything outside these parameters?

In addition,

How would you distinguish an all-powerful being from a really powerful one?
How would a being that thinks he is all-knowing find that he is actually all-knowing or not?

How can you say that you can logically apply parameters to such an entity when such parameters are illogical when paired together?

(June 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Being a physical object with known causes, we can give evidential proofs as to the formation of the orange colouring.

In the static model of God, we can demonstrate logical progression to each attribute similarly.

And what is the account for why these attributes are observable? Why does God put forth the attributes you're seeing, rather than any others?

(June 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm)tavarish Wrote: 2. How do you work out the intentions of an entity of which you can't establish its existence?

(June 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: From the logically deducible from evidence. Establishing existence is contrary to the logical model, and would be contradictory to the model.

You're off your fucking rocker. Existence isn't an attribute OF something, it's the state to which all attributes apply. You can't say something is green and non-existent, that makes no fucking sense. You say a God exists, apply attributes to him, then say his existence is somehow secondary and irrelevant?

Do you not understand how you could apply this to literally any fabrication of the imagination and have it come out with the same conclusion?

(June 13, 2010 at 12:44 pm)tavarish Wrote: 3. Given that there are certain criteria for God, is there anything that can happen that would convince you that there is no God in control of all this? I'm talking about an event so unlike his nature that it would negate your version of his alleged attributes.

(June 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't see how. Belief isn't external but internal. At any point I could decide not to believe which would be extremely minor in comparison, but fundamentally crucial to my world view.

Ok, what would a catalyst for such an event be?