If you were God?

Originally posted by telerion
You've already conceded that it's possible. Your fighting so hard that you're confusing yourself.

Oh, the one person example? I thought it was understood that I was being facetious. Yes, it's "possible" to have a world where one person is created and saved, but if you wish to claim that that is a better world than this one, then my guess is you would also like to be the one person in that scenario.

You know, now that I think of it, how would it be possible? How would that one person have a concept of anything, let alone a divine figure? I think interaction with others is necessary to understand what 'love' is, which is critical to understanding what 'God' is. So I suppose I retract my statement that it is 'possible'.

Originally posted by Darfius
Because the free will beings would INTERACT with each other. And they will also interact with the world. Also considering the fact that God has chosen to remain distant (physically), the skeptic would be hardpressed to explain how everyone would freely choose to make the right decision when it is simple to: blame God for misfortune, lose focus on God to te could happen" is not sufficient to claim that this world is less than the best possible one.

It's just a matter of odds. The more complex the scenario, the higher the odds; but unless it is IMPOSSIBLE, then for an omnipotent and omniscient god, it's as easy as clicking your fingers.

How could it be logically impossible? That's not the same as unimaginably unlikely.

Originally posted by Darfius
Oh, the one person example? I thought it was understood that I was being facetious. Yes, it's "possible" to have a world where one person is created and saved, but if you wish to claim that that is a better world than this one, then my guess is you would also like to be the one person in that scenario.

You know, now that I think of it, how would it be p ...[text shortened]... nderstanding what 'God' is. So I suppose I retract my statement that it is 'possible'.

So was creation lacking something when it only contained god? Was it imperfect?

Originally posted by Darfius
Because the free will beings would INTERACT with each other. And they will also interact with the world. Also considering the fact that God has chosen to remain distant (physically), the skeptic would be hardpressed to explain how everyone would freely choose to make the right decision when it is simple to: blame God for misfortune, lose focus on God to te ...[text shortened]... could happen" is not sufficient to claim that this world is less than the best possible one.

Actually yes it is. It seems that you are boxing your god in his own creation.

Anyway, you've already ruined your point. "[C]onsidering the fact that God has chosen to remain distant . . ." is a choice (at least you suggest it is) that governs the kind of worlds possible. You can't argue that your god was limited in his choices of creation because of a choice that he made about his creation.

That's like arguing that it is impossible for me to drink a glass of wine because I've chosen to only drink soda.

Originally posted by dottewell
It's just a matter of odds. The more complex the scenario, the higher the odds; but unless it is IMPOSSIBLE, then for an omniscient god, it's as easy as clicking your fingers.

How could it be logically impossible? That's not the same as unimaginably unlikely.

I gave reasons why it could be logically impossible. Misfortune at least is bound to happen in a world where there is free will and natural forces (weather, earthquakes, etc.)

Originally posted by Darfius
Oh, the one person example? I thought it was understood that I was being facetious. Yes, it's "possible" to have a world where one person is created and saved, but if you wish to claim that that is a better world than this one, then my guess is you would also like to be the one person in that scenario.

You know, now that I think of it, how would it be p ...[text shortened]... nderstanding what 'God' is. So I suppose I retract my statement that it is 'possible'.

Why don't you save us this childish game and lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent to understand what 'true love' is.

Originally posted by dottewell
So was creation lacking something when it only contained god? Was it imperfect?

When did creation ever contain only God? When Christians speak of 'creation', they mean the universe. God existed before the universe did.

Originally posted by Darfius
I gave reasons why it could be logically impossible. Misfortune at least is bound to happen in a world where there is free will and natural forces (weather, earthquakes, etc.)

Misfortune does not necessarily imply rebellion. Therefore it is possible for a misfortune to exist and all agents obey god freely. Besides, isn't all the suffering and pain in the world linked back to the Fall anyway?

Originally posted by telerion
Actually yes it is. It seems that you are boxing your god in his own creation.

Anyway, you've already ruined your point. "[C]onsidering the fact that God has chosen to remain distant . . ." is a choice (at least you suggest it is) that governs the kind of worlds possible. You can't argue that your god was limited in his choices of creation [i]becaus ...[text shortened]... t it is impossible for me to drink a glass of wine because I've chosen to only drink soda.

If Him remaining distant makes the world better than Him not doing so (as I said, makes true love possible), then it does not ruin my point. Essentially, He 'restricted' Himself to the best worlds possible.

Originally posted by telerion
Why don't you save us this childish game and lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for an agent to understand what 'true love' is.

Because it would require a treatise too lengthy for anything I have time to spare. What I am doing is sufficient for those sincerely interested.

Originally posted by Darfius
Are you not paying attention? When Christians say that God is not subject to death, we mean He cannot cease to exist. Ceasing to breathe on the cross did not cause Him to cease to exist.

We believe the spirit lives on after bodily function ceases. Better?

When Christians say that God is not subject to death, we mean He cannot cease to exist.

If you'd just say that in the first place you'd be far less confusing. Saying one thing while meaning another does not help communication.

Originally posted by Darfius
If Him remaining distant makes the world better than Him not doing so (as I said, makes true love possible), then it does not ruin my point. Essentially, He 'restricted' Himself to the best worlds possible.

Again please save us the "Unknown Purposes Defense" via "true love" by simply laying out the necessary and sufficient conditions for free will agents to understand 'true love.' You seem to know it all anyway, and that way you don't come off as if make it up on the spot.

Originally posted by telerion
Misfortune does not necessarily imply rebellion. Therefore it is possible for a misfortune to exist and all agents obey god freely. Besides, isn't all the suffering and pain in the world linked back to the Fall anyway?

It does not necessarily imply it, but it is one of the many contributing factors. And you must consider all of them.

No, all pain and suffering in the world is linked to the sins of mankind as a whole.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Excuse my delay; out paying the bills and whatnot.

Some minor points may have appeared to have been overlooked in my absence.

To Darfius: we are born into sin, via the sin nature inherited from Adam. Passed on by every male in copulation, the sin nature is the inside agent in every one of us, present in the cell structure.

To my apparent ...[text shortened]... e used by Him to serve His purposes. Remember, even the wrath of man will serve to praise Him.

the sin nature is the inside agent in every one of us, present in the cell structure

Really? Which part of the cell would that be? The DNA?

Originally posted by Darfius
Because it would require a treatise too lengthy for anything I have time to spare. What I am doing is sufficient for those sincerely interested.

No it's not. You're making it all up as you go because you don't know the necessary and sufficient conditions. Everytime you run into a sticky situation you discover another necessary condition.

So let's have it or desist with this ad hoc charade.