The universe is just one enormous 'Soul Filtering machine'

[SteveII]

Part of a series on the attributes of God.
The first line of the wiki article: "Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power."

Reference #1 Saint Augustine: A theologian.

Reference #2 John Polkinghorn: A theologian.

Well they would say that wouldn't they?

This is getting to be a stupid tangent. You have uncovered the fact that theologians have been discussing a theological term for 1700 years!!! AND that there are books written on the subject. Of course this illustrates exactly the opposite of what you think: that the word cannot be defined in 7 words. Thanks for making my point.

[Harry Nevis]

Part of a series on the attributes of God.
The first line of the wiki article: "Omnipotence is the quality of having unlimited power."

Reference #1 Saint Augustine: A theologian.

Reference #2 John Polkinghorn: A theologian.

Well they would say that wouldn't they?

This is getting to be a stupid tangent. You have uncovered the fact that theologians have been discussing a theological term for 1700 years!!! AND that there are books written on the subject. Of course this illustrates exactly the opposite of what you think: that the word cannot be defined in 7 words. Thanks for making my point.

It also means the word doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean.

[Simon Moon]

[quote='Simon Moon' pid='1626145' dateline='1506459396']

Then, doesn't it seem unfair, to cultures that have never heard of Jesus, to send missionaries to tell them? Seems to me, they are better off not knowing, so they won't be judged on whether they believe or not.

The point is that your objection to God revealing himself so imperfectly is not all that strong. 

So then, don't create people at all. Just create the souls he wants to spend eternity with in the first place. Instead of creating a situation that assures, that some high percentage of your creation will not make it through the Soul Filtering device.

Is there free will in Heaven?

You mean souls without (or with limited) free will? That seems to have been done with the angelic beings. We are made in his image with the certain abilities because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. Even a high failure rate does not outweigh the reward to him and those that do respond. 

You seem to gloss right over that little phrase, 'high failure rate'. In you dogma, a 'high failure rate' results in billions of 'souls' being subject to eternal punishment, or 'separation from god', or whatever idiotic result you believe occurs, for a finite thought crime.

Why wouldn't there be free will in heaven? However, before you think that is an argument in your favor, you are comparing entirely different circumstances. We have a preexisting relationship with God, we have new bodies, we are in a new place, and we constantly in the presence of Christ--none of those things would apply to this life.

So, your 'god' is able to design a dimension, where free will exists, and humans have free will, yet are unable to do evil. Why didn't he just create the dimension we currently inhabit, with humans having free will, yet are unable to do evil?

[SteveII]

You mean souls without (or with limited) free will? That seems to have been done with the angelic beings. We are made in his image with the certain abilities because it seems thinking, rational beings capable of choice, morality, and a real relationship between creator and creature seems to be the pinnacle of anything anyone could ever create--including God. Even a high failure rate does not outweigh the reward to him and those that do respond. 

You seem to gloss right over that little phrase, 'high failure rate'. In you dogma, a 'high failure rate' results in billions of 'souls' being subject to eternal punishment, or 'separation from god', or whatever idiotic result you believe occurs, for a finite thought crime.

Finite thought crime. Is that what we are talking about? I don't think so. Rejecting the only mean of salvation has profound consequences inherent in the rejection. Rejecting infinite salvation has a proportionally infinite negative consequence. 

Why wouldn't there be free will in heaven? However, before you think that is an argument in your favor, you are comparing entirely different circumstances. We have a preexisting relationship with God, we have new bodies, we are in a new place, and we constantly in the presence of Christ--none of those things would apply to this life.

So, your 'god' is able to design a dimension, where free will exists, and humans have free will, yet are unable to do evil. Why didn't he just create the dimension we currently inhabit, with humans having free will, yet are unable to do evil?

But you can't get to the "heaven" dimension without first having experienced this dimension. As you pointed out, a filter has already been applied. The flaw in your logic is using a generic human when clearly the dimension of "heaven" is filled with specific humans having specific experiences that led to them being there.

[Minimalist]

Since you're neither omniscient nor omnipotent, I find your speculation and assertions woefully uninformed.

Clever. However, Simon would need to show that it is plausibly actually possible for his objection to carry any weight. I don't think that is something he or you can do. Omnipotence does not mean the ability to do things that are not possible, especially not within the context of a overriding goal: free will.

You'd best talk to this jesus freak.  He completely disagrees with you.

https://www.gotquestions.org/God-omnipotent.html

Question: "What does it mean that God is omnipotent?"

Answer: The word omnipotent comes from omni- meaning “all” and potent meaning “power.” As with the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, it follows that, if God is infinite, and if He is sovereign, which we know He is, then He must also be omnipotent. He has all power over all things at all times and in all ways.

[Succubus]

But you can't get to the "heaven" dimension without first having experienced this dimension. As you pointed out, a filter has already been applied. The flaw in your logic is using a generic human when clearly the dimension of "heaven" is filled with specific humans having specific experiences that led to them being there.

If there was any doubt that friend Stevell is taking the piss then this post should dispel it.

[Harry Nevis]

You seem to gloss right over that little phrase, 'high failure rate'. In you dogma, a 'high failure rate' results in billions of 'souls' being subject to eternal punishment, or 'separation from god', or whatever idiotic result you believe occurs, for a finite thought crime.

Finite thought crime. Is that what we are talking about? I don't think so. Rejecting the only mean of salvation has profound consequences inherent in the rejection. Rejecting infinite salvation has a proportionally infinite negative consequence.

Why is that?  We've been given no real reason to accept the bible as fact, so we're not rejecting anything.  And if the acceptance and rejection are both infinite, what does that say about your god?

[SteveII]

Finite thought crime. Is that what we are talking about? I don't think so. Rejecting the only mean of salvation has profound consequences inherent in the rejection. Rejecting infinite salvation has a proportionally infinite negative consequence.

Why is that?  We've been given no real reason to accept the bible as fact, so we're not rejecting anything.  And if the acceptance and rejection are both infinite, what does that say about your god?

I posted this before:

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of).

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments.

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments.

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

[The Grand Nudger]

"People believe, therefore there are good rational reasons to believe."

[Harry Nevis]

Why is that?  We've been given no real reason to accept the bible as fact, so we're not rejecting anything.  And if the acceptance and rejection are both infinite, what does that say about your god?

I posted this before:

People come to the place where they are willing to believe in God/supernatural for all kinds of reasons. Most are wired with something. Some are raised that way, some have events happen in their life (bad and good things), some encounter people who's testimony is compelling, and some read and find the person/message of Christ compelling (or a combination of any of these or something else I haven't thought of).

Why is it not pure faith? Well there are good rational reasons to believe. As we have been discussing, the NT events certainly compelled the witnesses of those events to believe (miracles and such) and continue to be compelling to those that accept the evidence for them as true. Another category of rational reasons are the Natural Theology Arguments.

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

These are NOT the arguments, they are the conclusions of a series of arguments.

IMPORTANT: it is the cumulative case for Christianity that is rational. Atheists like to pick a component and claim--that's not convincing enough...so therefore your belief is irrational. That is simplistic and disingenuous.

These are the conclusions, not of objective reasoning, but those which try to cover any objections with a simplistic assertion.  "Best", in this case, means efficiently dodging.