Originally posted by whodeyIn some sense he is ultimately responsible that your post was posted. Whether it is a rebuttal to himself however is another matter entirely errr . . . I meen intirelee.
Through this line of reasoning God is more responsible for this post of yours that I am responding to than you are. Likewise, my response was ordained by God as well and is his rebutal to himself.
Originally posted by ngeisler88
"God's plan is ingenious! He created a world without a guarantee of
perfection, knowing that it would fall. He permitted evil, allowing his
creatures to freely choose Him and His sinless home, while promising
evil's defeat."
Unnecessary grandstanding from your omniscient, omnipotent god. The would only be 'ingenious' if your god were a glorified human. He could have quite simply cut to the chase without all this hooplah. We skeptics has come up with a few better plans in the "If you were God" thread.
What was the purpose for Him creating mankind? The answer is simply free worship and free fellowship. In order to not be loved by robots, freedom had to be inserted into the equation, which then further allowed for imperfection to arise.
From an omniscient beings point of view our free will actions are quite similar to those of robots. To think otherwise is bald conceit. Your everyday choices are not 'surprising' anyone. This god knows exactly under what circumstances you will choose freely to worship him and under which ones you will not. He designed you after all. Now once again, from a human's perspective, free will is quite a mystery, and it seems to distinguish us from a simple program; however, god is not a human no matter how much you anthropomorphize him.
To follow your logic then Henry Ford is responsible for the car accidents of today. . . .
I already explained why my reasoning cannot be applied to humans and so your longwinded examples are moot. Next time read what I say before rebutting it. Anyway the fact that you can't understand how an omniscient creator is responsible for his creation displays a willfull ignorance on your part.
It should have been obvious to me though from the start given your handle. Your OP is dull, filled with logical holes, anthropomorphisms, and arbitrary fictions. Devoting more of my time to it (without charging you) would be a waste to myself, this community, and, quite frankly, the world.
Originally posted by telerionTo say that it is another matter just proves your inability to decifer your own terminology and that of others. First of all, God can't be ultimately responsible for something in some area, and only not at all or partially ultimately responsible in "another matter" as a a rebuttal to himself is plain ludicrous. Your lack of coherence seems to be the result of not fully reading my original post on page 1, or not fully reading my refutation of your objections with omniscience. I'm sorry to be harsh to a fellow brother in Christ, but I beg you, before you post something or try to defend something that is already totally refuted, please use some analytical methods so your statements and questions can be more sound. You pose a few interesting questions on other threads I have read. But as far as I am concerned this discussion on omniscience is over....although if you would like to continue, then I will read your concise objection and explain the best I can. Thank you.
In some sense he is ultimately responsible that your post was posted. Whether it is a rebuttal to himself however is another matter entirely errr . . . I meen intirelee.
Originally posted by telerionVery nice. I didn't see this before I posted my last comment, so I slightly retract my objections because this seems to be more thought through than others you have posted, at least of what I could reap from the 3 seconds I scanned it. But once I fully read it, I will answer your objections.
Originally posted by ngeisler88
[b]
"God's plan is ingenious! He created a world without a guarantee of
perfection, knowing that it would fall. He permitted evil, allowing his
creatures to freely choose Him and His sinless home, while promising
evil's defeat."
Unnecessary grandstanding from your omniscient, omnipotent god. The would ...[text shortened]... ging you) would be a waste to myself, this community, and, quite frankly, the world.[/b]
Originally posted by dottewellBecause if a being were to have free will, then that being would be free to choose whatever he wanted in any situation. Speaking in terms of morality, if there is no "bad" to choose from, which means then there really is no "good," because things are defined by their oposites. (It would all be the same.) A person who has free will but can't sin, really doesnt have a free choice, because he's not free to choose whatever he wanted in any situation.
How so? If it is conceivable, and is not logically impossible, how can it not be achievable (for god)?
Originally posted by ngeisler88Not "can't" sin - chooses not to sin.
Because if a being were to have free will, then that being would be free to choose whatever he wanted in any situation. Speaking in terms of morality, if there is no "bad" to choose from, which means then there really is no "good," because things are defined by their oposites. (It would all be the same.) A person who has free will but can't sin, really do ...[text shortened]... t have a free choice, because he's not free to choose whatever he wanted in any situation.
To simplify:
1) God creates beings with free will
2) God knows, at the point of creation, all the moral choices each being will make
3) Some (free) beings choose to sin; some (free) beings choose not to sin; free will entails both are possibilities
4) God could choose to create fewer free beings he knows will go on to sin
5) God could choose to create more free beings he knows will go on NOT to sin
Which of these premises do you reject?
Originally posted by NemesioYea, I'd say all the natural disasters are a result of the earth being
So it is your contention that the Fall of Adam is responsible for
earthquakes and that this is in concord with a just and loving God?
Nemesio
cursed for the sin of man since we were in charge of it at the time.
Kelly
Originally posted by ngeisler88Don't be sorry. I'm not your brother.
To say that it is another matter just proves your inability to decifer your own terminology and that of others. First of all, God can't be ultimately responsible for something in some area, and only not at all or partially ultimately responsible in "another matter" as a a rebuttal to himself is plain ludicrous. Your lack of coherence seems to be the resul ...[text shortened]... to continue, then I will read your concise objection and explain the best I can. Thank you.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by NemesioIt is my contention that evil entered the world when man disobeyed God, and that mankind bears the consequences of this choice.
So it is your contention that the Fall of Adam is responsible for
earthquakes and that this is in concord with a just and loving God?
Nemesio
