Originally posted by whodeyNo...I told you, I don't care about free will in the slightest, and I still am not sure what you mean by the term. You suggest that one can have free will frustrated by desiring something and being prevented from attaining it. That exists in this universe; clearly we don't have free will. My universe would have much greater freedom of will since the scenario you describe could not occur.
So I think it fair to say that all the atheists here would prevent their creation from sinning while somehow preserving free will, no?
Originally posted by whodeyGood question! You seem to think the scenario makes sense. Maybe you can explain it to us. I think it clearly points out the nonexistence of God or at least an imperfect benevolence.
That is indeed a sad story. I know of another, however. I know of a man who was born into a poor family. He grew up poor and remained so throughout his entire life. Not only that, he was persecuted and scoffed at his entire life. In fact, he did nothing to deserve this treatment. He never even had the time to marry and have a family of his own. He neve ...[text shortened]... had no sin to did absolutly nothing to deserve such a fate. How could God permit such a thing?
Originally posted by Conrau KYes. I've tossed this out a bit in the thread, but none of the xians (understandable) want to bite on it. I really thought Freaky would go for it actually.
Or keeping the assumption that God is perfect, couldn't it follow that evil is not imperfect as you had assumed?
So either God is imperfect (and perhaps doesn't exist) or evil is in someone way part of perfection.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung*sigh*
He's immortal? I thought he died?
I do sincerely search for that which is true. However, one can only do so much searching since we're limited. Christianity has so much going against it that I only spend a little time on it and the time I do spend on it only emphasizes the low chance of Christianity being true.
You skeptics harp on such insignificant points that it's difficult to understand why you even pretend to have integrity.
Obviously by 'immortal', I meant 'existing forever'. Also obviously (since we both appear to be assuming Christianity for argument's sake) this existance can occur in either bodily or spiritual form. So when God (the Son, btw, the Father has never died) died bodily, He continued existing spiritually.
So even though God the Son died, the Father still lived, and that is assuming you don't simply accept the explanation that 'eternal existence' was meant.
My point about angels remains. You seem to be stuck on the idea of humans. Who ever said that humans had to be part of creation?
You're obviously making up this "true love" stuff out of thin air. Again when it comes to metaphysics for every rationalizing excuse there are 20 others that are just as creative. I'm not going to argue against fiction.
I will quote the following portion of your post because it reveals that you still do not understand how probabilities work.
That act of pure love is enough to justify making the possibility that they will in the future sin nearer to 0, since they have already showed that when times are at their roughest (in a situation of pain, sorrow, etc) they would choose Him. What is the likelihood that they'd rebel against Him in paradise?
Is it zero or is it near zero? If it is only near zero for every individual, then given that heaven is everlasting it is certain that all members will rebel eventually. Just add another property to your magic "true love" that once you have made the choice you never sin again in heaven. That will take care of things. See? I could be a theologian too. LOL.
You'll have to show me where I called something crap in my response to your post. Perhaps you are not being careful to differentiate my posts from those of your other critics.
I'm using the second sense of imperfection. Evil exists. The fact that it would contain evil (and that your god knew it would at conception) means that it wasn't actually perfect to begin with. A perfect creation would not produce evil. If free will could not exist in a perfect creation then so be it. If that bothers your god, he should ask Muffy to change the supernatural rules of what can and can't be created.
You claim to have addressed my argument from creating the world despite evil people suffering, but I have not seen it. Do so again, please or I will call BS on you.
Which argument was this? Is this that bit about how god likes rewarding good people more than he dislikes punishing bad people? If so, then don't accuse me of not answering. If you didn't get it, then tell me what you don't understand and I'll try to clear it up. My response takes into consideration that he is 'conscious of the suffering.' The way you stated his preferences the utility from rewarding an additional good person could compensate for the disutility of punishing the additional bad people. I cannot be faulted if you really don't understand. Tell you what. If you had taken an intro microeconomics course or worked hard in your first semester calculus course you'd see the problem very quickly. You really should moderate your tone on this. Just admit that you don't study optimization and that you don't understand why your argument doesn't work as is. It's no big deal to me.
Hell, I'll give you the answer. You either need to say that the marginal cost of sending people to hell is increasing everywhere or that his marginal utility from adding a saved person increases at a decreasing rate and the marginal cost (in terms of additional punished people) is either constant or increasing.
You might think this is just needless technical jargon, but it is actually essential for your argument to make sense. If you'd like me to write up a quick canned example that shows exactly why your statements were insufficient, I will. I don't want to be too long-winded.
Now you need to tell us which of these cases above describes god's position and what the shape of the curves are in those directions such that you know that he prefers an outcome with some hellbound sinners to one with no sinners and the number of good agents equal to the number of good angels. When you get that detailed about god's prefences that's when my BS-detector goes off.
"He had to do so once He made the decision to do so!" makes no sense. It isn't as though he made the decision to create seperately and then got to see what his options for creating were. His choice set included all feasible creations (you argue that this set is more restricted than I do) as well as the choice not to create. You really don't have to be as arrogant in your return here to RHP as you were the first time. Chill out.
I have tried to give you and the other interested readers something interesting to ponder. If you (or anyone else for that matter) have any more specific, well-posed questions on this, I'd be more than happy to answer them next time I'm free. Otherwise, have a good time.
Originally posted by DarfiusYou're saying I have no integrity because you are unable to communicate what you mean in correct English? My integrity is in no way tied to your ignorance, buddy.
*sigh*
You skeptics harp on such insignificant points that it's difficult to understand why you even pretend to have integrity.
Obviously by 'immortal', I meant 'existing forever'. Also obviously (since we both appear to be assuming Christianity for argument's sake) this existance can occur in either bodily or spiritual form. So when God (the Son, ...[text shortened]... is assuming you don't simply accept the explanation that 'eternal existence' was meant.
Obviously by 'immortal', I meant 'existing forever'.
I thought you meant "not subject to death" which is the definition of "immortal". What makes you think it was obvious that you used the word to mean something other than what it means in English?
By the way; are you saying Jesus does not now possess life? Of course you aren't. You prefer to believe two entirely opposite incompatible things.
Originally posted by ckoh1965I'm not trying to nit pick small points with you, I could even agree
Kelly, believing in (the existence of) God doesn't necessarily mean believing in religion.
with you too if I knew what you meant by 'religion.' Mainly because I
believe it has more to do with our relationships and being authentic
than I do a rigid set of 'rules to live by.'
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay'Religion', as I understand it, means the belief of the existence of God, AND the activities that are connected with the worship of Him. It's that latter part relating to worshiping Him that I question.
I'm not trying to nit pick small points with you, I could even agree
with you too if I knew what you meant by 'religion.' Mainly because I
believe it has more to do with our relationships and being authentic
than I do a rigid set of 'rules to live by.'
Kelly
And then there are also so many religions, each claiming that it's the only true one. Of course each has it's own 'holy' books or scriptures or whatever they'd like to call it. In these holy books, you'd find mind-boggling verses, parables, much the same as listening to politicians talk. They never seem to be specific. It's basically up to you to interprete what God actually wants to tell you. Why? Why not be simple and straight-forward? Why allow the possibility of wrong interpretations - there are so many 'branches' of Christianity, each referring to the Bible, but slightly different interpretations.
Never mind that I can't bring myself to believe that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus, but why should we worship God? If there is indeed heaven and hell, then why can't I still qualify for heaven if I've been a kind-hearted person throughout my life? What happens to the cannibals in the deep jungles who never had the opportunity to even hear about the bible, let alone trying to fathom God's cryptic messages therein?
Originally posted by telerionExplain how your point about angels is relevant. It's unclear why you do not understand my point about 'true love'. This is basic Christian apologetics, man. One of the main things that differentiates us from angels is the fact that we can freely choose to obey God without His direct presence to affect our decisions. So since the topic deals with how you would change things if you were God, are you saying that if you were God, you would never be interested in seeing if you were worthy of worship for who you were? Never be interested in sharing your endless joy with other rational, emotional beings who could enjoy that to its fullest? Why or why not? At any rate, that's what the Biblical God has done, and that's why you cannot compare angels and humans. He could not have created us like angels since the point was to create us differently from angels.
...
By the way, it isn't fiction. Read some C.S. Lewis for goodness sake.
Fine, since as usual you skeptics harp on insignificant points the risk of the saved sinning in heaven is 0. After we have made our choice, God changes our nature to match His, and thus we will never even desire to do evil. Put that in your pipe.
Please define 'perfect' as you mean it and explain why the existence of evil detracts from perfection. Have fun.
Your "technical jargon" (BS) aside, it is not difficult to understand which is preferable for a God who delights in the saved, but grieves for the unsaned in these examples:
World A 5 bil saved - 15 bil unsaved
World B 50 bil saved - 500 bil unsaved
World C 1 saved - 0 unsaved
World D 20 saved - 5 unsaved
World E 5 bil saved - 200 bil unsaved
If you cannot understand why World A is the optimal choice of those choices, then you are being intentionally obtuse.
It IS as though He made the choice to create and then considered His options. Isn't that how everyone thinks? Or are you saying God never formulates plans? Why or why not?
I'm not arrogant. Just not prepared to deal with the BS you skeptics never get tired of spewing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat exactly is the difference between 'not being subject to death' and 'existing forever'? Thanks for trying to pretend like you DON'T harp on insignificant points while doing exactly that. I love it when skeptics prove my points for me.
You're saying I have no integrity because you are unable to communicate what you mean in correct English? My integrity is in no way tied to your ignorance, buddy.
[b]Obviously by 'immortal', I meant 'existing forever'.
I thought you meant "not subject to death" which is the definition of "immortal". What makes you think it was obvious that y ...[text shortened]... Of course you aren't. You prefer to believe two entirely opposite incompatible things.[/b]
Where the heck did I say Jesus no longer possesses life (presumably you mean existence)? I said He died (ceased bodily brain function, heart function, breathing, etc). I never said He stopped existing.
Here's a clue, Thousand. Christians do not believe that 'dying' and 'ceasing to exist' are synonymous.
My point about angels is relevant because it demonstrates that it is possible to create a large number of agents who have free will and who use it only to obey your god. Again the construct is the following: only create the angels that will choose your god by their own free will.
It's about looking into the future. Since you are found of saying that your god is outside of time, it should be no task to him to do this.
Come on, Darfius. I understand your 'true love' excuse. I have have understood it from the moment I first read it. All I said was that it was typical, arbitrary, ad hoc sort of reasoning. Why should we think that this 'true love' condition exists, especially since you clearly came up with it on the spot to worm out of the angel problem. I told you there was no sense in arguing against make believe and I still think that. By the way, C.S. Lewis is fiction.
After we have made our choice, God changes our nature to match His, and thus we will never even desire to do evil. Put that in your pipe.
Gosh, does this mean he takes our free will away? How aweful right?
It seems free will must not be such a great thing after all. Anyway more ad hoc excuses.
I'm defining perfect to mean "without blemish or vice." Evil is vice and therefore it cannot be part of perfection. Perhaps you think evil is part of perfection. In this case, your god is either not perfect or your god is evil. Which is the case?
World A 5 bil saved - 15 bil unsaved
World B 50 bil saved - 500 bil unsaved
World C 1 saved - 0 unsaved
World D 20 saved - 5 unsaved
World E 5 bil saved - 200 bil unsaved
If you cannot understand why World A is the optimal choice of those choices, then you are being intentionally obtuse.
This is pure laziness, and a fine example of why you are at the sort of institution you attend. It is certainly not clear why A is "optimal." The only choice that we can be sure of is that he prefers A to E. World A has as many saved but fewer unsaved than World E. Since your god values saved and disvalues unsaved, A must be preferred to E.
I will give two examples of preferences in terms of benefits and costs such that A is not preferred to either B, C, or D. Note these are not special cases but rather are chosen for simplicity. There are an infinite number of other examples that are just as simple, and so I arbitrarily selected these ones. To ensure that there is no confusion I will explain my notation before I use it. The marginal benefit of gaining a saved person will be denoted 'ben', and the marginal cost of punishing an unsaved person will be labeled 'cost.' The symbol '>' will be used to denote "is preferred to." For example, H > K means "H is preferred to K."
Ex 1.
ben = 20 cost = 1
World A yields 100bil - 15bil = 85bil
World B yields 1000bil - 500bil = 500bil
B > A
Ex 2.
ben =5 cost = 6
World A yields 25bil - 95bil = -70bil
World C yields 5 - 0 = 5
World D yields 100 - 30 = 70
C>A
and
D>A
Edit: Let me add that since you included a choice where no one is unsaved and then said that your god prefers A, you have conceded that your god wills that some be unsaved. [/edit]
Darfius, you should really try to learn what you are talking about before strutting your stuff. Otherwise you look like a fool. Just like when you assumed that ATY knew your unorthodox definition of "immortal," you are assuming that we all know the preference structure of your god. You need to explain yourself better. You are lucky, at a real school you would be penalized for such poor scholarship.
Finally, it is silly to think that your god first decided to create without knowing the possible creations from which he could choose. First, it violates omniscience, so your argument falls flat immediately. Second, your god would need to know the utility gained from each of his possible creations in order to decide if it was worth it to him to create at all. If for example, saved = 0 unsaved = 340923809384 were the only possible creation, then clearly (I hope!) your god would choose not to create at all. Third, even if for some unknown reason (e.g., Muffy commanded it so) your god had to take a gamble (the sure utility from not creating vs. the uncertain utility from creating (since he doesn't know the possible creations)), your god could still choose not to create after viewing the set of possible creations.
It's ridiculous that you keep trying to decribe your god's choice as if it were one made under uncertainty (in the face of probabilities if you will). Your god by omniscience does not face uncertainty.
Originally posted by DarfiusWhat exactly is the difference between 'not being subject to death' and 'existing forever'?
What exactly is the difference between 'not being subject to death' and 'existing forever'? Thanks for trying to pretend like you DON'T harp on insignificant points while doing exactly that. I love it when skeptics prove my points for me.
Where the heck did I say Jesus no longer possesses life (presumably you mean existence)? I said He died (ceased bod ...[text shortened]... ousand. Christians do not believe that 'dying' and 'ceasing to exist' are synonymous.
Christians do not believe that 'dying' and 'ceasing to exist' are synonymous.
You don't see the inconsistency in your position here?
If God is not subject to death, then how did he die on the cross?
Originally posted by telerionWow, further discussion with you will prove fruitless, I see.
My point about angels is relevant because it demonstrates that it is possible to create a large number of agents who have free will and who use it only to obey your god. Again the construct is the following: only create the angels that will choose your god by their own free will.
It's about looking into the future. Since you are found of saying that ...[text shortened]... ities if you will). Your god by omniscience does not face uncertainty.
Just to show I'm not scared, but rather bored, I'll correct you on your most glaring error/deception.
You said you defined perfection as "without blemish or vice" and then define evil as a vice. This is a clear equivocation, as vice can mean EITHER defect OR moral failing/evil. The definition of perfect includes nothing about 'evil'. Nice try.
Oh, and by the way, "Mere Christianity" isn't fiction, Einstein.
But hey, you did LOOK bright with all the technical jargon. 😉