If you were God?

Originally posted by Darfius
Since the topic is called "If you were God" and the previous posts have spoken about how God could have made the universe better...I thought perhaps you'd be capable of keeping up. My mistake. Uh, UTD isn't even a seminary, so why did you say "fringe theology"? Haha, you just got caught using loaded words for cheap psychological effect, chump.

I'm not tell when a miracle occurred? Good thing you're not God. You'd f*** everything up.

Wow. This is pointless. Not only are you wasting my time, but you are harming your own walk with Christ. Low brow insults do not make you look any more clever, and I'm sure Christ isn't laughing with you.

My point was simply that you have demonstrably failed to communicate your ideas, evidenced by your continual need to correct your posts after the fact with "what I really meant was . . ."
I suspect that the low quality of the institution you attend has reinforced this weakness.

Now let's try to get you to take a stand on something.
This whole time you've implied that physical laws have limited your god's ability to create this 100% obedient free will world we've been describing. You've claimed that earthquakes, mudslides, floods, fires are all potential culprits because they can cause misfortune and misfortune sometimes leads to rebellion*.

When it has been pointed out to you that your god could have made different physical laws such that these factors did not exist, you chose to dodge rather than address.

Is it your contention now that god could have made the physical world behave differently than it does now or is it your position that your god could not have made any other system of physical laws than the ones that govern our universe today (that is he had to accept the existence of floods, fires, earthquakes, and mudslides in order to create)?

It seems to me that the only thing you have shown us so far is that you are confused about the difference between nomological impossibility and logical impossibility.

* - of course, sometimes misfortune does not, so even if these events were taken as givens (rather than your god's choices) you have failed to show that misfortune through natural disasters makes the 100% obedient free will agent world a logical impossibility.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are relying on something or someone holding out truth to you
are you not? If not truth, than 'less falsehood' than others, at some
point you are resting on a foundation of something to understand
the universe as you see it are you not? If you tell me there isn't
any truth or reality out there I'd accept that is how you see it I
guess, but if you do ...[text shortened]... u form your
views of reality and truth as being the most right or correct there
is?
Kelly

You really need to study up on epistemology.

Originally posted by telerion
Wow. This is pointless. Not only are you wasting my time, but you are harming your own walk with Christ. Low brow insults do not make you look any more clever. My point was simply that you have demonstrably failed to communicate your ideas, evidenced by your continual need to correct your posts with "what I really meant was . . ."
I suspect that the lo ...[text shortened]... natural disasters makes the 100% obedient free will agent world a logical impossibility.

Heck, that it is a practical impossibility is sufficient. Which is why you and your skeptic buddies can't describe a plausible world wherein 100% of beings freely choose God.

The onus is on you to describe how it's possible. You've failed to do so, your best example so far being angels, some of whom rebelled.

I grow weary of your posturing. Either give an example showing it's possible, or admit that you're reserving the 'possibility' because you can't even hope to display an actuality. Ya know, being a dishonest coward.

By the way, how does insulting YOU affect MY walk with Christ?

Originally posted by rwingett
You really need to study up on epistemology.

I more than likely do, but that being said you are still using some
source or sources to validate your world view of the universe and
are rejecting others.
Kelly

Originally posted by Darfius
Heck, that it is a practical impossibility is sufficient. Which is why you and your skeptic buddies can't describe a plausible world wherein 100% of beings freely choose God.

The onus is on you to describe how it's possible. You've failed to do so, your best example so far being angels, some of whom rebelled.

I grow weary of your posturing. Either ...[text shortened]... ng a dishonest coward.

By the way, how does insulting YOU affect MY walk with Christ?

First, we have shown over and over that an omnipotent, omniscient creator could make such a world. We even described how, several times. You have raised objections, but now have conceded that not one of them implies a logical contradiction. This is sufficient.
Your appeal to "practical impossibility" is a non-starter; no such thing exists for an omniscient, omnipotent being. The reason being that the mechanisms which make an action a practical impossibility are also subject to the whims of your god. Oddly, you seem reluctant to admit the power of the deity you worship. The way you describe things one would think your god is merely a man, subject to the whims of nature and the blurry foresight of probabilistic expectations. Personally, I think you've thrown the baby out with the bath water on this one.

Originally posted by Darfius
'Sin nature' in those verses means "the flesh" or earthly man without divine influence. A man whose mind is on temporal pleasures rather than God. It in no way has a connotation of a tendency to sin 'passed down' to us.

As far as what I meant by sentence, I meant in legal terms. What Adam did, in effect, is analogous to what the first carjackers did. ruly be grateful that the Lord has deemed to provide us with an atoning sacrifice.

'Sin nature' in those verses means "the flesh" or earthly man without divine influence.
Your implication is that an earthly man with divine influence is somehow acceptable by God, a direct contradiction of so much Scripture, it would take several posts to list them. "The flesh," is not in reference to anything physical; it is in reference to the pervasive sin nature, the "old man" of Ephesians 4:22 (in addition to other references already listed).

It in no way has a connotation of a tendency to sin 'passed down' to us.
This characterization is yours, not from anything I have said up to this point. Sin is not passed onto us; the sin nature, however, is. We are born spiritually dead, thanks to being the offspring of a spiritually dead Adam.

So we are not guilty because of Adam, we are dealt with in the same way Adam was (spiritual and physical death).
Again, guilt isn't the issue: spiritual death is the issue. Of Adam--- and Adam only--- was spiritual death a choice to be reckoned with. As he was told in the Garden, "dying (physically), you will die (spiritually)" something that only he and the woman were able to make a decision about, as they were created trichotomous--- body, soul and spirit.

Anyone born since that time has been given a choice from the other side of the table: dying (physically), you must be born again (spiritually). Everyone (save One) born since that time has been born dichotomous--- body and soul.

We are guilty because of our own sins, but suffer the same 'penalty' that Adam did.
Adam died spiritually as a result of his sin of cognizance, but he certainly did not receive the penalty for the same, as we shall see in a few minutes here.

We are punished for OUR sins, and thus should truly be grateful that the Lord has deemed to provide us with an atoning sacrifice.
We are most definitely not punished for our sins. No one ever goes to hell for sin, nor has anyone ever received the just reward for sin. While all since Adam have been born spiritually dead and imputed with Adam's sin, the payment for that sin was dealt with at the cross. Our sins were imputed to the righteous One; He paid the penalty. It is blasphemous to consider any physical act of spiritually dead man as acceptable to pay for sin--- what could spiritual death possibly offer perfect God as payment?

Originally posted by Darfius
Still waiting for your explanation. THAT would prove me wrong. You grabbing your crotch and flexing does not.

The fact that you can see me grabbing my crotch and "flexing" from where you are - wherever that is - is interesting.

Originally posted by whodey
If you were God, what would the universe look like?

There would be no American beers like Miller and Budweiser, no cheap Chinese crap at Walmart, and Ray Kroc would have died before he opened his first "restaurant".

Originally posted by telerion
First, we have shown over and over that an omnipotent, omniscient creator could make such a world. We even described how, several times. You have raised objections, but now have conceded that not one of them implies a logical contradiction. This is sufficient.
Your appeal to "practical impossibility" is a non-starter; no such thing exists for an omnis ...[text shortened]... xpectations. Personally, I think you've thrown the baby out with the bath water on this one.

He made it to where everyone could have lived together as they
should have, the will of those that turned away belonged to them.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
He made it to where everyone could have lived together as they
should have, the will of those that turned away belonged to them.
Kelly

Not to be rude, but I know the story. However, that's not the world that we've been talking about. It has to do with ex ante information and the ability to create only those that will use their free will to choose your god.

Originally posted by telerion
Not to be rude, but I know the story. However, that's not the world that we've been talking about. It has to do with ex ante information and the ability to create only those that will use their free will to choose your god.

If you put in a regulator so that some are forced to accept and others
are forced not to accept, it isn't a choice. You either have a choice or
you do not.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you put in a regulator so that some are forced to accept and others
are forced not to accept, it isn't a choice. You either have a choice or
you do not.
Kelly

There isn't a regulator. Each person freely chooses. It's just that the only ones that are ever created to make the choice are the ones your god knows ahead of time will make the right one.

It's interesting that you bring up this objection though because, if you stand by it, it necessitates that omniscience trumps free will. As dottewell wrote a long while back in this thread, even in the actual world, god has always known what our choices would be. In the actual world, he chose to create the people he knew he would have to send to Hell. In our alternative world, he does not create those people.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
There would be no American beers like Miller and Budweiser, no cheap Chinese crap at Walmart, and Ray Kroc would have died before he opened his first "restaurant".

And I don't even know who Ray Kroc is! I just agree with the first part. Mind you, if there really was an omnibenevolent God, would Wal-Mart exist?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And I don't even know who Ray Kroc is! I just agree with the first part. Mind you, if there really was an omnibenevolent God, would Wal-Mart exist?

Sure. Where else would the transient, obese white trash park there trailer overnight?


Actually the Wal-Mart in my city has a sign expressly prohibiting overnight trailer parking in their lot. Man am I glad I don't need to shop there.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And I don't even know who Ray Kroc is!

http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/kroc.html