19 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYour leaps in logic defy logic!
Knowing all possible futures is as good as knowing nothing as you do not know which future will become real. For example I know all possible winning numbers in the lottery.
Though one can of course change the set of numbers in the lottery so as to eliminate all undesirable numbers.
So a God that knows all possible futures, must either take responsibilit ...[text shortened]... suffering due to practically unavoidable causes (though some like to blame those all on Adam).
So a God that knows all possible futures, must either take responsibility for them, or be incapable of designing a universe in which the only possible futures are desirable.
Um, how so, exactly?
... why he doesn't do a bit more guiding.
According to everything presented by the atheist, the only obstacle is the supposed illogical position we find ourselves in with an omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient God. Subtracting logic out it for the time being (one cannot assume to have all of the data necessary to evaluate the veracity of such a God, let alone the ramifications of the relational dynamics), everything that is left, i.e., conscience, personality, spiritual yearnings, unfulfilled expectations toward life and etc., all act as guides toward God.
I'd say that's pretty good guiding.
well known issue suffering
Another leap. You've yet to establish the primacy of lack of suffering as the ideal. You imagine a world that doesn't exist (one without suffering) but are able to do so only on the basis of an ideal that is universal: the perfection of God. You need Him in order to set up an argument against Him!
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziRenouncing god's alleged omniscience is the only way you can salvage 'free will.' He blunders around in the dark just like the rest of us, not knowing how anything is going to turn out. That is the only way he can be relieved from the charge of being a sadistic monster, which is exactly what he would be if his omniscience were to be retained.
you fail to grasp the concept of design
(A) is stupid. god didn't design us to be murderers, he designed us to have free will. some will choose to murder to get what they want and some will choose a more socially accepted method.
that means that in 1 billion humans or just 10, some will make the wrong choices and some will make the right choices. just ...[text shortened]... e?
what use is a life as a prop in a puppet show, where each line is known beforehand?
I use the postulated attributes of a Christian god to demonstrate, not that he is evil, but that he is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by rwingettfree will is the only reason god would begin the experiment that is humanity. that being said, how is he to blame for anything the humans do? would you like him to hold your hand more?
Renouncing god's alleged omniscience is the only way you can salvage 'free will.' He blunders around in the dark just like the rest of us, not knowing how anything is going to turn out. That is the only way he can be relieved from the charge of being a sadistic monster, which is exactly what he would be if his omniscience were to be retained.
I use the ...[text shortened]... monstrate, not that he is evil, but that he is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist.
He blunders around in the dark just like the rest of us, not knowing how anything is going to turn out
i suspect this little concept makes you giggle like a little girl but is totally irrelevant.
you read the bible and find it preposterous. as a result, the whole concept of god seems preposterous to you. the ancient greeks thought that the earth was a sphere and that helios the sun god is getting in his chariot each morning to circle the earth and that atlas is supporting the whole ski on his shoulders. does this mean that the earth, the sun and the stars are all fabrications? or simply that the reality is somewhat different and actually the part about the earth is really true.
just because somewhere in the bible it says that god is omniscient doesn't mean that when you prove omniscience denies free will he is proved non-existent.
I use the postulated attributes of a Christian god to demonstrate, not that he is evil, but that he is self-contradictory and therefore cannot exist
or that he exists but doesn't have all or most or exactly in the same form characteristics christians claim.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnother leap. You've yet to establish the primacy of lack of suffering as the ideal. You imagine a world that doesn't exist (one without suffering) but are able to do so only on the basis of an ideal that is universal: the perfection of God. You need Him in order to set up an argument against Him!
Your leaps in logic defy logic!
[b]So a God that knows all possible futures, must either take responsibility for them, or be incapable of designing a universe in which the only possible futures are desirable.
Um, how so, exactly?
... why he doesn't do a bit more guiding.
According to everything presented by the atheist, the only obstacle ...[text shortened]... universal: the perfection of God. You need Him in order to set up an argument against Him![/b]
you started good. made sense. but then you ruined it with "but are able to do so only on the basis of an ideal that is universal: the perfection of God.". who is making the leaps now?
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you deny one of his alleged attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence), then it would be possible for such a god to exist, although I do not believe it myself. A god which retains all three attributes is wholly incompatible with the presence of evil in the world and therefore cannot exist.
free will is the only reason god would begin the experiment that is humanity. that being said, how is he to blame for anything the humans do? would you like him to hold your hand more?
[b]He blunders around in the dark just like the rest of us, not knowing how anything is going to turn out
i suspect this little concept makes you giggle like a little ...[text shortened]... sts but doesn't have all or most or exactly in the same form characteristics christians claim.[/b]
Furthermore, a god who is omniscient and omnipotent is wholly incompatible with 'free will.' If god is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or both, then free will could be said to exist (although some would say not even then).
21 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettSome Christians might call it 'learning' (about evil,etc.)
If you deny one of his alleged attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence), then it would be possible for such a god to exist, although I do not believe it myself. A god which retains all three attributes is wholly incompatible with the presence of evil in the world and therefore cannot exist.
Furthermore, a god who is omniscient and omnip otent, or both, then free will could be said to exist (although some would say not even then).
I call it 'colonizing the universe'😏
21 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan you explain where?
Your leaps in logic defy logic!
Um, how so, exactly?
God creates a universe in which a certain set of futures is possible. He knows what all those futures are.
He could either redesign the universe with out some of those futures (undesirable ones) or he is incapable of doing so.
If he is capable of doing so, then he must take responsibility for leaving them available should they occur.
I'd say that's pretty good guiding.
And I'd say the results prove you wrong.
Another leap. You've yet to establish the primacy of lack of suffering as the ideal. You imagine a world that doesn't exist (one without suffering) but are able to do so only on the basis of an ideal that is universal: the perfection of God. You need Him in order to set up an argument against Him!
I don't understand you.
Are you saying that suffering is desirable? If so, why?
I also don't understand why you think I need God in my argument - or why it would be a leap if I did (as his existence is being assumed in the argument anyway.)