polytheism vs monotheism

red g jacks

i come across a lot of people who suggest that monotheism is a logical improvement over polytheism. this is a thread for anyone on either side to present their ideas on why one makes sense over the other. this isn't a thread to discuss whether an existence with no creator makes more sense to some people. we already have enough threads like that. rather i'd like to assume for the purpose of argument that a creator/creators do exist, and delve into the logical arguments for why there can or cannot only be one.

the reason i bring this up is because i think i do understand the basic position of the monotheist - that god must be all powerful, all knowing, and all good. naturally for god to meet these criteria he cannot share his power with any other deities or gods. what i do not understand is why these criteria are necessary for whoever engineered our existence in the first place. how can one justify pinning god down to a monotheistic definition as an argument in favor of monotheism? i want to hear the whys behind these criteria.

naturally the problem of omnipotence coexisting with omni-benevolence in an autonomous creator has lead to problems with the god concept which atheists and skeptics have traditionally used to question it's validity. it occurs to me that these same arguments could be used to justify polytheism over monotheism. whence cometh evil? maybe from another deity. maybe there are many gods, each of which is responsible for the conflicting aspects of existence that would be hard to justify as coming from a single source.

The Dark Cloud

Then again, what if it is all made up

Mindship

Originally posted by red g jacks
i come across a lot of people who suggest that monotheism is a logical improvement over polytheism. this is a thread for anyone on either side to present their ideas on why one makes sense over the other. this isn't a thread to discuss whether an existence with no creator makes more sense to some people. we already have enough threads like that. rather i'd like to assume for the purpose of argument that a creator/creators do exist, and delve into the logical arguments for why there can or cannot only be one. My 2 cents...

One school of thought holds that polytheism preceded monotheism because ancient peoples could conceive of a limited god, or even a number of limited gods, more easily than conceiving a fully infinite god, especially one without form. The latter was later able to take hold as humanity's ability to think abstractly strengthened.

Another states that transcendent reality is "stratified," and that mystical exploration enables awareness of lower-level archetypal entites prior to becoming conscious of (or becoming "one with" wink

the Source archetype, this preceding awareness of the Source Void. Over time, as more advanced and able mystics (shaman, etc) communicated this to existing societies, religion evolved from poly to mono.

Still another might say that what some "Eastern" religions call multiple gods, the West simply relabled into "angels."

King Kandy

Its difficult to find a "true" polytheistic religion currently. Most religions we label as such, actually are monotheist when their teachings are examined. Haha, from what i've read, mormonism is actually the closest thing to true polytheism around.

red g jacks

Originally posted by King Kandy
Haha, from what i've read, mormonism is actually the closest thing to true polytheism around. that's interesting. how so?

Digi

Gods in polytheist systems were limited. Thus, they went out of style as out knowledge of the universe expanded and, say, making lightning was no longer sufficient to be defined as all-powerful. So in terms of a religion being worthwhile, I would think that monotheism has the advantage. The rewards of limited gods would be limited. The rewards of montheistic gods would be somewhat more infinite in their potential.

Now, in terms of theoretical gods, mono or poly, there's no advantage because either is potentially infinite. But in terms of the ones created by man, there's a reason poly is largely gone.

Poly systems could potentially answer the problem of evil, like you mentioned, but non-infinite gods also call into question the necessity of worship.

red g jacks

i guess that does make sense, assuming that people are only motivated to worship gods based on an awe of their power or an expected reward. i always sort of thought people were also dedicated to god/gods through the same sort of filial loyalty we have towards our parents. men of god often demonstrate their appreciation not only for the creator but also for his creation.

i've often wondered if maybe it is the natural love for life(i.e. god's creation) which ultimately drives peoples dedication to him more so than the prospect of an ultimate reward or a general respect for the power he wields(a power which we cannot properly conceive of anyway; there really is no conceptual difference between all-powerful and just very powerful as far as the human imagination is concerned). then again i might just be projecting my own thought process onto others since for me that prospect of eternal bliss and those limitless powers are non-existent, while the love of life remains very relevant for both the believer and the non-believer.

either way.. whether or not the poly gods would theoretically require our worship is, for me, a non-issue. if we're talking about god or gods in reference to the theoretical being(s) that engineered our existence, i do not think the need for worship really plays any vital role in that equation. i could see how it would cause problems for anyone trying to create a religion based on those gods, though.

Symmetric Chaos

I would guess that in most cases polytheism came from various cultures having their own guns and then meeting each other (all the Greek city states had their own patrons). Monotheism is certainly the next logical step if you consider either the hegemonizing effect of empires or the fear of marginalized groups.

TacDavey

I don't see evil as contradictory or damaging to a monotheistic view. I take it the supposed clash comes from wondering why an all good God would create evil. Evil is simply a necessary by product of free will. You can't have free will without the potential for evil. God wants us to have free will, and thus evil is an unfortunate necessity.

As for monotheism vs polytheism, I'd say there is no need for multiple gods. In sticking with Occam's Razor, why assign multiple gods to something that can be done by only one? Not to say that it's impossible for there to be multiple gods, but there is no reason for us to assume this is the case.

Symmetric Chaos

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The "problem of evil" however, usually includes general bad things that cannot be caused by free will.

Like natural disasters? Those aren't evil.

King Kandy

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why can you not have free will without the potential for evil?

Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you see the christian trinity as violating that principle?

No. The Trinity isn't three separate gods. It's still just one. Christianity is monotheistic.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.
But god creates the moral standards of the world, right? So he decided to make those things "evil" in the first place.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No. The Trinity isn't three separate gods. It's still just one. Christianity is monotheistic.
But wouldn't occam's razor favor one "divine person" of a god rather than three?

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see evil as contradictory or damaging to a monotheistic view. I take it the supposed clash comes from wondering why an all good God would create evil. Evil is simply a necessary by product of free will. You can't have free will without the potential for evil. God wants us to have free will, and thus evil is an unfortunate necessity.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

even considering that human evil as we understand it is only possible through free will, that's only because evil deeds are even an option. humans are not granted an unlimited amount of choices. god is in fact the one who decided what was and was not possible for humans in the first place. what we consider human 'good' was in fact made possible by god and thus is credited to his glory, therefore it only makes sense that evil is no less important a part of his creation.

so yes, that does create problems if you assert that he is both all-good and all-powerful. that would imply that his creation would perfectly reflect his benevolent will.

that's not even considering the natural limitations that the concept of human free will imposes on god's omnipotence. Originally posted by TacDavey
Like natural disasters? Those aren't evil. why not? does it seem likely to you that it is the will of an all-powerful all-good creator for innocent humans to die and suffer needlessly?

the godhead of christianity is certainly much more complicated than the traditional monotheistic god of judaism, while there is nothing the christian godhead achieves that any omnipotent entity could not.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like natural disasters? Those aren't evil.

By certain definitions, sure. Either way they pose an equally serious problem from exactly the same angle and thus are often included in discussions of the problem of evil.

ADSJ decided god kills people by the millions so the rest of us can get some laughs. I hope you can do better than that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because taking away someone's option to commit evil is denying them free will.

But we're already denied a lot of choices, even harmless ones. I cannot, for example, choose to turn my arms into wings and go flying into the sunset. I can attempt it but I'll always fail. Seems like applying this same system to evil would be effective.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
But god creates the moral standards of the world, right? So he decided to make those things "evil" in the first place.

Not everyone believes God simply dictates what is good and what is evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But wouldn't occam's razor favor one "divine person" of a god rather than three?

Yes, if both sides were equal in every other regard. But the Trinity is a specific part of a specific religion. So all the reasons that are involved with believing in that religion are also reasons for accepting the Trinity. At this point you are no longer talking about simply one god or multiple. Instead you are talking about religions.

Originally posted by red g jacks
even considering that human evil as we understand it is only possible through free will, that's only because evil deeds are even an option. humans are not granted an unlimited amount of choices. god is in fact the one who decided what was and was not possible for humans in the first place. what we consider human 'good' was in fact made possible by god and thus is credited to his glory, therefore it only makes sense that evil is no less important a part of his creation.

I don't know if I agree with that. Humans are allowed to make any choice they want. This should NOT, however, be confused with humans being able to perform every ACTION. These are two very different things.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so yes, that does create problems if you assert that he is both all-good and all-powerful. that would imply that his creation would perfectly reflect his benevolent will.

Like I said. His creation would be less grand if it did not have Free will, and free will demands the possibility for evil.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that's not even considering the natural limitations that the concept of human free will imposes on god's omnipotence. why not? does it seem likely to you that it is the will of an all-powerful all-good creator for innocent humans to die and suffer needlessly?

No. The needlessly part is where you have a problem, however. God wouldn't want humans to suffer for no other reason than for them to suffer. I see no examples of this happening, however, that are not caused by humans.

The problem faced with this argument is that, in the case of natural disasters, you would have to claim that God is allowing the suffering and death of innocent people for no reason whatsoever. But that isn't a claim you can logically make. At best, you can say that God is allowing the suffering and pain of innocent people for no reason that you can see. And it isn't hard to see the flaw in that line of reasoning.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the godhead of christianity is certainly much more complicated than the traditional monotheistic god of judaism, while there is nothing the christian godhead achieves that any omnipotent entity could not.

What's your point?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By certain definitions, sure. Either way they pose an equally serious problem from exactly the same angle and thus are often included in discussions of the problem of evil.

ADSJ decided god kills people by the millions so the rest of us can get some laughs. I hope you can do better than that.

I certainly don't think God kills people by the millions for laughs. I don't think God kills people by the millions at all. Again, if you want to make the claim that natural disasters are unnecessary "evil" or that God is evil for not stepping in, see my above points. The argument doesn't hold up logically.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But we're already denied a lot of choices, even harmless ones. I cannot, for example, choose to turn my arms into wings and go flying into the sunset. I can attempt it but I'll always fail. Seems like applying this same system to evil would be effective.

As I said. There is a difference between choices and actions. We are free to choose whatever path we want, but that does NOT mean we are able to perform any ACTION.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not everyone believes God simply dictates what is good and what is evil.
Then what does?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, if both sides were equal in every other regard. But the Trinity is a specific part of a specific religion. So all the reasons that are involved with believing in that religion are also reasons for accepting the Trinity. At this point you are no longer talking about simply one god or multiple. Instead you are talking about religions.
But polytheism is also tied to specific religions. You can't apply occams razor there and then say it just doesn't count when it comes to christianity. Occams razor favors judaism over christianity as the jewish conception of god is way more simple. I also see hindu polytheism as very similar in substance to the christian trinity, so where do these silly simplifications you use relate to real religions, at all?

Wouldn't occams razor favor 0 gods over 1 god, as well by that logic?

Quark_666

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wouldn't occams razor favor 0 gods over 1 god, as well by that logic? Unless you're posting in a thread titled "Monotheism vs. Polytheism" - then atheism is not an option!Originally posted by TacDavey
As for monotheism vs polytheism, I'd say there is no need for multiple gods. In sticking with Occam's Razor, why assign multiple gods to something that can be done by only one? Not to say that it's impossible for there to be multiple gods, but there is no reason for us to assume this is the case. But asking whether we "need" more gods to explain the universe admits that we're creating them to fill a gap in our understanding.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
Then what does?

God does, but it isn't as simple as saying "this is good" and "this is bad". There needs to be logic in place. If every action was moral, then morality would have no meaning. At the same time, if something is good, then the opposite of it needs to be bad by logical definition. A world in which every action is considered good isn't a logically viable world.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But polytheism is also tied to specific religions. You can't apply occams razor there and then say it just doesn't count when it comes to christianity. Occams razor favors judaism over christianity as the jewish conception of god is way more simple. I also see hindu polytheism as very similar in substance to the christian trinity, so where do these silly simplifications you use relate to real religions, at all?

Wouldn't occams razor favor 0 gods over 1 god, as well by that logic?

The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, though. It is simply asking one god or multiple. In that regard, they are on equal footing with the exception of one option being more complex.

If the thread starter had provided a polytheistic religion that he wanted to defend, that would be a different story. In that case, you would have a specific religion with specific evidence/reasons for believing it to be true, as you do with Christianity and the Trinity. So in that case, you no longer have two options that are on equal footing, and Occam's Razor no longer applies in that sense.

The same is true of asking if Occam's Razor denies the Trinity or even Christianity as a whole. You no longer have two options that are equal with the exception of one being more complex. Now you have specific religions that have specific reasons supporting them.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Quark_666
But asking whether we "need" more gods to explain the universe admits that we're creating them to fill a gap in our understanding.

No it doesn't. It simply answers a question about whether a being is one or multiple. There is no evidence from that view that we are creating anything.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
God does, but it isn't as simple as saying "this is good" and "this is bad". There needs to be logic in place. If every action was moral, then morality would have no meaning. At the same time, if something is good, then the opposite of it needs to be bad by logical definition. A world in which every action is considered good isn't a logically viable world.
Why not? You say "if every action was moral, then morality would have no meaning". OK. So? Why did god have to care about dividing up actions in that manner? No need for a dichotomy when there could only be one (hey, isn't that basically occam's razor thinking, again)?

Originally posted by TacDavey
The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, though. It is simply asking one god or multiple. In that regard, they are on equal footing with the exception of one option being more complex.

If the thread starter had provided a polytheistic religion that he wanted to defend, that would be a different story. In that case, you would have a specific religion with specific evidence/reasons for believing it to be true, as you do with Christianity and the Trinity. So in that case, you no longer have two options that are on equal footing, and Occam's Razor no longer applies in that sense.

The same is true of asking if Occam's Razor denies the Trinity or even Christianity as a whole. You no longer have two options that are equal with the exception of one being more complex. Now you have specific religions that have specific reasons supporting them.
But you are basically trying to discuss these systems by their 1-sentence descriptions. I think before you apply such simplistic divisions you should actually read about some polytheistic religions.

OK. So let's compare Judaic god to christian trinity. They share a whole testament so we are getting as much common ground as possible. What is it you feel makes the three-in-one seem more likely to you of these options, when it already has the whole occams razor strike against it?

Quark_666

Originally posted by TacDavey
No it doesn't. It simply answers a question about whether a being is one or multiple. There is no evidence from that view that we are creating anything. It uses our need for an explanation as the only criteria to judge its existence. It virtually surrenders to atheistic theories about the origins of theism.

King Kandy

I think if there is a god, it would obviously have to be far above what humans could understand, and could only be manifested in parts. This is a foundation of hindu polytheism and it seems to me like even christians follow this line of thinking as the trinity is substantially similar!

Quark_666

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think if there is a god, it would obviously have to be far above what humans could understand, and could only be manifested in parts. This is a foundation of hindu polytheism and it seems to me like even christians follow this line of thinking as the trinity is substantially similar! See now, that is what I call a logically sound form of theism. It scraps Occam's razor, but that seems like step 1 if you're theistic anyway.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why not? You say "if every action was moral, then morality would have no meaning". OK. So? Why did god have to care about dividing up actions in that manner? No need for a dichotomy when there could only be one (hey, isn't that basically occam's razor thinking, again)?

As I said before. It needs to be a logically working world. God can do anything within the realm of logic. A world where an action is "good" needs to logically have the opposite of that be "bad". And the world needs to have "good" and "bad" to , again, logically function. If you kill someone, at the very least you have something "bad" happening to that person. You cannot make a logically functional world without "good" and "bad" in some form or another.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you are basically trying to discuss these systems by their 1-sentence descriptions. I think before you apply such simplistic divisions you should actually read about some polytheistic religions.

The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, so which one am I suppose to be responding to?

Like I said, if there was a specific polytheistic religion that was being defended here, it would have it's own reasons and evidence behind it. There wasn't. It was simply: "One god or multiple?"

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK. So let's compare Judaic god to christian trinity. They share a whole testament so we are getting as much common ground as possible. What is it you feel makes the three-in-one seem more likely to you of these options, when it already has the whole occams razor strike against it?

There is no Occam's Razor strike against it because it isn't on completely equal footing with the Judaic god. There is a completely new Testament, historical evidence, and a whole debate that can take place between the two religions. Occam's Razor does not apply to this example. It also would not apply to any specific polytheistic religion vs a specific monotheistic religion, granted they both have some kind of support behind them.

Originally posted by Quark_666
It uses our need for an explanation as the only criteria to judge its existence. It virtually surrenders to atheistic theories about the origins of theism.

No it doesn't. We have never, at any point, been judging the possible existence of God. We have been, for the sake of argument, assuming that a god or gods exists and then asking the question of whether that being is one or many.

Quark_666

Originally posted by TacDavey
No it doesn't. We have never, at any point, been judging the possible existence of God. We have been, for the sake of argument, assuming that a god or gods exists and then asking the question of whether that being is one or many. That's like assuming the existence of Russel's Teapot and then asking the question of whether it's green or blue....

Can we at least agree that you're defining criteria for spiritual belief?

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said before. It needs to be a logically working world. God can do anything within the realm of logic. A world where an action is "good" needs to logically have the opposite of that be "bad". And the world needs to have "good" and "bad" to , again, logically function. If you kill someone, at the very least you have something "bad" happening to that person. You cannot make a logically functional world without "good" and "bad" in some form or another.
That's showing some intense lack of creativity on your part. Yes, if you have good, you need to have bad. OK. Why did we need to have either one?

This is like saying God had to create a "down" because there needed to be an "up". It sounds good but its hardly the only option. God could have created a two-dimensional world in which there was neither a down nor an up, but simply one uniform level of depth. Similarly, God could create a universe where all actions have exactly equal moral value, with neither good nor bad. In fact that would be much simpler than setting up a system of moral dichotomy.

Originally posted by TacDavey
The thread isn't about any specific polytheistic religion, so which one am I suppose to be responding to?

Like I said, if there was a specific polytheistic religion that was being defended here, it would have it's own reasons and evidence behind it. There wasn't. It was simply: "One god or multiple?"
So you admit that what you said has absolutely zero relevance to any real-world religion. What is the point of even talking about it?

Originally posted by TacDavey
There is no Occam's Razor strike against it because it isn't on completely equal footing with the Judaic god. There is a completely new Testament, historical evidence, and a whole debate that can take place between the two religions. Occam's Razor does not apply to this example. It also would not apply to any specific polytheistic religion vs a specific monotheistic religion, granted they both have some kind of support behind them.
So basically your occams razor was completely worthless and does not relate to religion as it functions in the real world. I might as well say invisible cauliflower is tastier than the polka-doted kind. Neither one exists or has any value to anything, much like your 'generic' religions.

inimalist

don't knock polka-dot cauliflower mad

Mindship

Doesn't the OP stipulate that for this thread we take as a given the existence of a god or gods?

King Kandy

Yes, it does.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Quark_666
That's like assuming the existence of Russel's Teapot and then asking the question of whether it's green or blue....

Can we at least agree that you're defining criteria for spiritual belief?

Yes, I suppose it is. Either way, that's what's happening. The existence of God is another debate, one that this thread is not targeting.

I suppose, in a sense. Though I don't consider it criteria for spiritual belief as much as I consider it criteria for logical thinking. The same line of reasoning can be applied to much more than spiritual beliefs.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's showing some intense lack of creativity on your part. Yes, if you have good, you need to have bad. OK. Why did we need to have either one?

This is like saying God had to create a "down" because there needed to be an "up". It sounds good but its hardly the only option. God could have created a two-dimensional world in which there was neither a down nor an up, but simply one uniform level of depth. Similarly, God could create a universe where all actions have exactly equal moral value, with neither good nor bad. In fact that would be much simpler than setting up a system of moral dichotomy.

I'm saying a world in which there are no good or bad is not a logically possible world. It makes no sense. If you were to kill a person who wanted to keep living, it would be "bad" for that person. No getting around it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you admit that what you said has absolutely zero relevance to any real-world religion. What is the point of even talking about it?

So basically your occams razor was completely worthless and does not relate to religion as it functions in the real world. I might as well say invisible cauliflower is tastier than the polka-doted kind. Neither one exists or has any value to anything, much like your 'generic' religions.

It does have significance. The question was aimed at monotheism and polytheism in general. And for that, it works fine. There was never any specific polytheistic religion that was suppose to be defended. The question was simply, "Is God one god or multiple?" And I answered that question. It was not, "which religion is correct between polytheistic religion A and monotheistic religion B."

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm saying a world in which there are no good or bad is not a logically possible world. It makes no sense. If you were to kill a person who wanted to keep living, it would be "bad" for that person. No getting around it.
I don't see why it makes no sense. Why would God create a world where anyone would desire that? Look at the bible. It's gaining knowledge of good and evil that is the original sin. So even the bible admits that is a very dangerous concept. I don't see why either one is necessary.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see why it makes no sense. Why would God create a world where anyone would desire that? Look at the bible. It's gaining knowledge of good and evil that is the original sin. So even the bible admits that is a very dangerous concept. I don't see why either one is necessary.

I already explained to you why they are necessary. A world where everything is good makes no logical sense. Because you would have to say that the opposite of good is good.

Furthermore, you cannot just make something not bad. Again, if you kill someone who wanted to keep living then, at the very least, it would be "bad" from that person's point of view.

It isn't logically possible to make the world you are suggesting.

ADarksideJedi

I think Polythemism is wrong in alot of ways.

Quark_666

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I think Polythemism is wrong in alot of ways. I appreciate your thoughtful perspective on the matter.....

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
I already explained to you why they are necessary. A world where everything is good makes no logical sense. Because you would have to say that the opposite of good is good.

Furthermore, you cannot just make something not bad. Again, if you kill someone who wanted to keep living then, at the very least, it would be "bad" from that person's point of view.

It isn't logically possible to make the world you are suggesting.
I never said everything would be good. I said everything would be neutral. That is a big difference because "neutral" doesn't have an opposite, and so nothing is needed to counteract it.

But why would god create a world where people would desire to do that?

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
I never said everything would be good. I said everything would be neutral. That is a big difference because "neutral" doesn't have an opposite, and so nothing is needed to counteract it.

But why would god create a world where people would desire to do that?

Again, there can't be "neutral". Killing someone who doesn't want to be killed isn't neutral at least to the person.

God doesn't make people desire to do that. We choose to do that because we aren't perfect beings.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Again, there can't be "neutral". Killing someone who doesn't want to be killed isn't neutral at least to the person.

God doesn't make people desire to do that. We choose to do that because we aren't perfect beings.
But why did would he make us imperfect beings?

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
But why did would he make us imperfect beings?

God did make us "perfect" in that we were sinless. But we still have free will, thus we still have the potential to do evil and we did. And still do.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
God did make us "perfect" in that we were sinless. But we still have free will, thus we still have the potential to do evil and we did. And still do.
But if we have desires to kill, obviously we aren't perfect.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
God did make us "perfect" in that we were sinless. But we still have free will, thus we still have the potential to do evil and we did. And still do.

but even you would have to admit that sinless AND not wanting to sin is more "perfect" than sinless alone.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
But if we have desires to kill, obviously we aren't perfect. Originally posted by leonheartmm
but even you would have to admit that sinless AND not wanting to sin is more "perfect" than sinless alone.

Of course, and people weren't made wanting to sin. But we still had the potential to sin and we did. After that, it just kept going down hill till we get to where we are today.

leonheartmm

i see what you did there,

so still ud have to admit that someone with the potential to sin is still less perfect than someeone who doesnt have the potential to sin?

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Of course, and people weren't made wanting to sin. But we still had the potential to sin and we did. After that, it just kept going down hill till we get to where we are today.
If we didn't want to sin, then why did we?

TacDavey

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i see what you did there,

so still ud have to admit that someone with the potential to sin is still less perfect than someeone who doesnt have the potential to sin?

That's where it get's tricky, and depends on what you consider "perfect". If you're talking about perfect in the sense that it is literally impossible for you to sin, even though you have the option, some would argue that God can't logically create something like that.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If we didn't want to sin, then why did we?

You'd have to ask the fist people who sinned. Temptation? We weren't made wanting to sin, but that doesn't mean, with our free will, it's impossible for us to sin. Just because something starts off one way doesn't mean it will stay that way. Especially when you're dealing with something like free will.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
That's where it get's tricky, and depends on what you consider "perfect". If you're talking about perfect in the sense that it is literally impossible for you to sin, even though you have the option, some would argue that God can't logically create something like that.

You'd have to ask the fist people who sinned. Temptation? We weren't made wanting to sin, but that doesn't mean, with our free will, it's impossible for us to sin. Just because something starts off one way doesn't mean it will stay that way. Especially when you're dealing with something like free will.

no, thats where it gets harder for you to answer. if he could create the world in which sin was a possible state of affairs out of thin air as well as people who had the ability to sin out of thin air, than he could have just as easily, you know, NOT created both those things. and had a more perfect creation.

so wait, we were created with temptation{aka, "wanting"} to sin but simultaneously we werent "created" wanting to sin? is a human being who reaches puberty ASKING or INTEDING to wanna have premarital sex or covet/desire riches and pleasures or are these things which are CREATED in him without his intent?

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
You'd have to ask the fist people who sinned. Temptation? We weren't made wanting to sin, but that doesn't mean, with our free will, it's impossible for us to sin. Just because something starts off one way doesn't mean it will stay that way. Especially when you're dealing with something like free will.
Why would anyone ever sin if everything was perfect? You're a christian, right? So you believe that the kingdom of god in the afterlife will be perfect. Do you think people will still be sinning then? If not, obviously a perfect creation is possible; so why not just start it off that way?

TacDavey

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no, thats where it gets harder for you to answer. if he could create the world in which sin was a possible state of affairs out of thin air as well as people who had the ability to sin out of thin air, than he could have just as easily, you know, NOT created both those things. and had a more perfect creation.

Not if He wanted free will. If a person has free will, he/she MUST have the possibility to commit evil. It isn't logically possible otherwise.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so wait, we were created with temptation{aka, "wanting"} to sin but simultaneously we werent "created" wanting to sin? is a human being who reaches puberty ASKING or INTEDING to wanna have premarital sex or covet/desire riches and pleasures or are these things which are CREATED in him without his intent?

We weren't made with temptation, but temptation exists in the world and it's something we have to deal with. Which, is owed in no small part, to satan.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would anyone ever sin if everything was perfect? You're a christian, right? So you believe that the kingdom of god in the afterlife will be perfect. Do you think people will still be sinning then? If not, obviously a perfect creation is possible; so why not just start it off that way?

We did in the fact that we were not made wanting to sin. But the difference between heaven and earth is that there will be no Lucifer, and there will be no temptation in heaven.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
We did in the fact that we were not made wanting to sin. But the difference between heaven and earth is that there will be no Lucifer, and there will be no temptation in heaven.
So why did God create that temptation, if it will inevitably lead to sin? That's hardly a perfect creation.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not if He wanted free will. If a person has free will, he/she MUST have the possibility to commit evil. It isn't logically possible otherwise.

We weren't made with temptation, but temptation exists in the world and it's something we have to deal with. Which, is owed in no small part, to satan.

We did in the fact that we were not made wanting to sin. But the difference between heaven and earth is that there will be no Lucifer, and there will be no temptation in heaven.

baloney. all you need for free will is agency to do something rather than it being predetermined for you. i.e. degrees if freedom. the logical necessity for free will being either good or evil is something god created out of thin air. he could have just as easily created good and nothing else in which case free will would consist of either doing good or doing nothing, or he could have just as easily created a contrast to good that was NOT evil, but some other unique concept altogether.

ofcourse we were, sexual desire, self agrandising, ego, selfishness, these are all things which are bilogically harwired into our dna. furthermore, even in the case that the above was not true, you still have god CREATING these things in the world around us which again puts the responsibility for imperfection squarely on GOD's shoulders.

p.s. your heaven sound a lot less like the christian heaven and a lot more like nirvana.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
So why did God create that temptation, if it will inevitably lead to sin? That's hardly a perfect creation.

Temptation is something that comes with the package. In the same way you need the possibility to perform evil, you also have that possibility... being made available to you. Thus, temptation. And let's not forget the devil too. He likes to play an active role in things as well.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
baloney. all you need for free will is agency to do something rather than it being predetermined for you. i.e. degrees if freedom. the logical necessity for free will being either good or evil is something god created out of thin air. he could have just as easily created good and nothing else in which case free will would consist of either doing good or doing nothing, or he could have just as easily created a contrast to good that was NOT evil, but some other unique concept altogether.

I have already responded to the question of "God creating a free will where all you can do is good." But for the sake of the argument I'll repeat it.

It is logically impossible to have only good and nothing else, since you would be saying that the opposite of good is also good. Which doesn't make sense. If you have good, you MUST have bad. One cannot exist without the other.

God cannot make something that is logically contradictory. It's the same as asking Him to make something that is standing and not standing at the same time. It has no place in the realm of logic.

The world you are describing is not logically possible.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ofcourse we were, sexual desire, self agrandising, ego, selfishness, these are all things which are bilogically harwired into our dna. furthermore, even in the case that the above was not true, you still have god CREATING these things in the world around us which again puts the responsibility for imperfection squarely on GOD's shoulders.

God did not create sexual desire, ego, or selfishness. These are simply actions/possibilities that are open to us because we have free will. Again, taking away someone's ability to choose to do such things would be infringing on their free will.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
p.s. your heaven sound a lot less like the christian heaven and a lot more like nirvana.

My heaven? I don't know what you mean.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Temptation is something that comes with the package. In the same way you need the possibility to perform evil, you also have that possibility... being made available to you. Thus, temptation. And let's not forget the devil too. He likes to play an active role in things as well.
Baloney. You're saying God has an obligation to provide temptation for humans? I thought he was our father in heaven. What, is good fathering tempting your children and then punishing them?

God created the devil. So that's a good point. Why would God create satan knowing what problems he would cause?

Do you think animals sin?

Symmetric Chaos

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey

I don't know if I agree with that. Humans are allowed to make any choice they want. This should NOT, however, be confused with humans being able to perform every ACTION. These are two very different things. the choices that they can make are naturally limited by the actions that they can choose. if they could not choose evil action then evil would not be a part of free will.

free will exists without limitless choice; hence free will could exist without the choice to commit evil deeds. why would a creation devoid of evil be less grand?

that argument seems to imply that i'm simply missing the real reason for these deaths. do you have any actual arguments as to why they happen or are you merely postulating that since i'm not god i can't know for sure that the deaths are meaningless?

that even tho christianity is monotheistic it is a more complex form of monotheism which occams razor could manage to diminish if we were operating under the rules of sheer logic.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
Baloney. You're saying God has an obligation to provide temptation for humans? I thought he was our father in heaven. What, is good fathering tempting your children and then punishing them?

When did I say that? Again, God does not temp us. The simple option of performing an evil deed can, in itself, be a temptation. And Satan contributes as well.

Originally posted by King Kandy
God created the devil. So that's a good point. Why would God create satan knowing what problems he would cause?

God did not create Satan to perform evil. Satan, like us, originally had free will. Thus, he had the ability to perform evil, and he did.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think animals sin?

No.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then there must be evil in Heaven...

Why? There would be the possibility of evil, perhaps.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it doesnt make sense because ou contrast good with evil. what you are basically saying is that god had no CHOICE but to create good and evil, which would mean that good and evil existed A-PRIORI to god's creation and hence a-priori to his authority. there are two degrees of freedom between doing nothing and doing good. why are you so sure that one can not exist withou the other? do you have a divine insight into fundamental metaphysical questions?

It's simple logic. If, using free will, I killed someone who did not want to die, I would be doing something bad to that person, at least from his point of view. You cannot have free will without good and bad. God did, in a sense, create good and evil when He gave us free will.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
god can not make something logically contradictory? really? he created the world out of nothing, and himself existed for ever, and is three in one {father/son/impregnater who is neither father nor son) and can make virgins give birth and at a whim violate the laws of physics.

And absolutely none of those things are logically contradictory. Super natural perhaps, but not logically contradictory.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
basically your saying that logic is superior to god.

Superior doesn't seem the right word, but, as I said, God cannot make something that cannot logically exist. He can't, for instance, create something that is standing and not standing at the same time.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ofcourse its logicaly possible. all you have to have is the lack of evil or a substitute for evil that isnt evil. your logic is severely lacking here.

I do not think so. I have already explained a number of times why a "lack of evil" is not logically possible. As for a substitute, this also makes no sense. Evil is just a word we invented to describe a very real thing. That thing, regardless of what we call it, is the same. And that thing, which we call evil, must logically exist with free will. There is no substitute. It must logically exist.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes he did, these things are hardwired into our dna. they are not social or learnt BEHAVIOURAL traits that we pick up in the world. we are born, designed to have them and this is NOT biologically or psychologically contraversial so id appreciate it if you didnt try to rationalise your baseless opposition to them. and one could argue that GIVING them such biases/prejudices/inherent desires is a violation of their free will because it makes free will conditional to and affected by such variables. furthermore, you can think up of an infinite number of potential things/feeling/desires/necessities that god could have made but didnt, that are unknown to us and argue that a lack of all such potential things is a violation of free will. why do you only consider the things which EXIST to be "rights"? sounds like a metaphysicial bias to me.

You seem to be confused as to what free will is. It is not the ability to feel every feeling/desire/necessity and it is not the ability to perform any action free of outside influence. It is simply the ability to make our own choices. We teach our children the values that we want them to hold as they grow up. This fact will undoubtedly influence their actions later in life. But it is not true to say we have taken away their free will.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
(e.g. would you say that god VIOLATED our free will by not allowing us to the rank of god ourselves? after all allowing such a thing doesnt inherently violate any laws of logic or reason, so much so that we can refere to it and talk about it in plain english. would you say that he violated our free will by not giving us the choice to bear children with members of the same sex? the list is endless}

Actually, there IS a logical problem with there being more than one God, but I don't think that was your point.

In response to the question. No. Free will is NOT the ability to do anything. So not having the ability to perform every single conceivable action does not, in any way shape or form, infringe on free will.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
finally, id like to mention that your HEAVEN without its desire and evil is (in your own argument), the closest you can get to VIOLATING FREE WILL.

I don't see how this is true at all. Explain the logic behind this to me.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the choices that they can make are naturally limited by the actions that they can choose. if they could not choose evil action then evil would not be a part of free will.

Evil does not only manifest itself in actions, however. Thoughts, interactions, etc can also be evil. To completely remove evil from the equation, you would have to remove the ability to even think.

Originally posted by red g jacks
free will exists without limitless choice; hence free will could exist without the choice to commit evil deeds. why would a creation devoid of evil be less grand?

Free will exists without limitless actions/abilities. We can make any choice we want.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that argument seems to imply that i'm simply missing the real reason for these deaths. do you have any actual arguments as to why they happen or are you merely postulating that since i'm not god i can't know for sure that the deaths are meaningless?

That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way things like natural disasters can be considered unnecessary evil is if they occur for absolutely no other reason except to cause the needless pain and suffering of innocent people. Which is a claim that you cannot back up.

Originally posted by red g jacks
that even tho christianity is monotheistic it is a more complex form of monotheism which occams razor could manage to diminish if we were operating under the rules of sheer logic.

More complex than what? It all depends on what you're comparing it to. Christianity is a specific religion, and as I explained before, does not fit into the Occam's Razor example I gave, which was aimed at polytheism and monotheism as ideas, not specific religions.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey

Evil does not only manifest itself in actions, however. Thoughts, interactions, etc can also be evil. To completely remove evil from the equation, you would have to remove the ability to even think. not true. you would only have to remove the ability for evil thoughts to arise. the thinker can still have the ability to think; evil thoughts simply wouldn't exist.

we can make any choice we are capable of making, based on which actions/thoughts are available to us.

well in all honesty i think we both know why there are natural disasters.. i just don't see why they would be necessary in a perfect creation since they cause death and suffering. it seems that whatever purpose they serve to the environment could have been achieved by god without causing death and suffering, and whatever hypothetical mystical purpose you are implying the deaths must serve could have likewise been achieved by god without causing death and suffering. that is why i labeled it as 'needless.'

i just don't understand why it doesn't apply to specific religions who's deity plays the same basic role.

ADarksideJedi

Originally posted by Quark_666
I appreciate your thoughtful perspective on the matter.....
But what? smile

Quark_666

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
But what? smile

But it appears to be based on absolutely nothing, which is a pet peeve of mine.

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
not true. you would only have to remove the ability for evil thoughts to arise. the thinker can still have the ability to think; evil thoughts simply wouldn't exist.

That wouldn't be true free will. We would basically be programmed robots. You might as well have God program in that we all believe in Him and Worship Him too. That isn't the creation He wanted.

Originally posted by red g jacks
we can make any choice we are capable of making, based on which actions/thoughts are available to us.

Yes.

Originally posted by red g jacks
well in all honesty i think we both know why there are natural disasters.. i just don't see why they would be necessary in a perfect creation since they cause death and suffering. it seems that whatever purpose they serve to the environment could have been achieved by god without causing death and suffering, and whatever hypothetical mystical purpose you are implying the deaths must serve could have likewise been achieved by god without causing death and suffering. that is why i labeled it as 'needless.'

But that's a label you have given it. You can say that "I see it as needless", but that's as far as you can logically go. Who knows what reasons might be behind God's actions? We can speculate about it with our limited understanding all we want, but we are far from being able to call it unnecessary evil.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i just don't understand why it doesn't apply to specific religions who's deity plays the same basic role.

Because specific religions may or may not hold specific support that out-ways Occams Razor. For example.

Say you have a broken window and are trying to figure out how many balls broke it. Between one or three. If all you know is that it is broken, and by a ball or balls, Occams Razor might favor the one ball theory, since there is no reason to suspect that any more than one ball did it.

Now say you have eye witness testimony from a kid across the street who just so happened to be the one who broke the window with the balls, telling you he did it with three balls. Does Occams Razor still tell you to hold to the one ball theory? No.

In the same way, specific religions such as Christianity are not on completely equal footing support wise with other religions. As such, Occams Razor no longer applies in that sense.

King Kandy

TacDavey

Originally posted by leonheartmm
without desires, you have no WILL that is unique to yourself. i.e. you do NOTHING because you have no personal oppinions or inclnations or passions or beleifs. and without evil you have{in your words not mine} taken away the only other conceveable thing that one CAN do in a world lacking all other conceiveable things. i.e. no free will. infact no will at all.

I don't know what you mean here. Okay, without desires you would be basically a robot. I suppose I would agree with that. I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion. The last bit of the paragraph is completely lost on me. If you take away evil you take away the only conceivable thing? What does that mean? Can you explain this a little better?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
heres a piece of advice. reply and COUNTERARGUE my points rather than denying them and stating your own contrary OPPINION. heres another piece of advice, use RELEVANT examples rather than going of on gradients and stating something that has no significance in counterarguing my point. finally, it would be in everyone's interest if you stopped saying "its simple logic" and rather, EXPLAINED the logic that you refer to. dont turn into a JIA is what im saying.

I believe I have been doing just that. When did I refuse to defend points? When did I bring in irrelevant information?

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
God is not actively tempting us. The temptation comes as a necessary result of free will. So I suppose in a weird way you could think of it as God tempting us, but it's really more of God granting us something great with some unfortunate side effects.
But temptation isn't necessary. You already said that in heaven, there would be no temptation. So obviously it isn't impossible.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Satan chose to allow temptation into the world using the free will God gave him. And no, I don't know more than God. I use what limited abilities I possess to attempt to learn as much as I can. Eden didn't last long, did it? Allow for the possibility of evil and someone somewhere at some time is going to do it. Just a matter of time. Like I said, we don't start off evil, but free will almost guarantees it's going to come up at one point or another.
So you are saying that free will guarantees that evil will occur? Then why would God give people free will knowing it will guarantee some end up in hell? That's really bad parenting.

Why doesn't God simply stop Satan from tempting, if his end goal is a heaven without any evil?

Originally posted by TacDavey
You cannot apply the same laws to animals that you do to humans. They aren't close to the same thing.
But God created the differences. So it is very relevant to ask why he would create them with different standards.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think that is true

df = N-1

but I don't think that between groups df is what you are looking for

no i was referring to the arity of the connectivity. i didnt want to put in ^ not(relegion^not relegion)

you can use ^Elim. basically all this talk of BASIC logic was annoying me, as if it were a self evident fact that good requires evil or watever.

inimalist

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no i was referring to the arity of the connectivity. i didnt want to put in ^ not(relegion^not relegion)

you can use ^Elim. basically all this talk of BASIC logic was annoying me, as if it were a self evident fact that good requires evil or watever.

df must work differently in logic than it does in statistics then

leonheartmm

taceydavy you didnt heed my advice. i told you to counterargue my points rather than RESTATE your own oppinions in different words. i have repeatedly pointed out the flaws and contradictions in your arguments that show that your not even serious about your own convictions seeing as you say one thing and then say another thing(both without evidence or rationalisation) each mutually exclusive to the the other to try and simply DISAGREE with me in every statement. i even showed you how assuming either limiting feasible phenomenon or not limitied pheasable phenomenon both leads o your conclusion being false and yet you havent replied.

infact you deconstructed statements and paragraphs that made sense as a whole and went on DISAGREEING with each component as if it were a refutation of my whole argument.

you say your being respectful and add in "confused" "misunderstood" etc at rapid intervals and reiterate "BASIC LOGIC" again and again as if it were sumthing that entirely eluded me. infact you go on to say that my assumptions about violation of free will are CLEARLY wrong{clear to whom?} while giving no evidence to the contrary and go on to say that YOU conclude that my conception of free will is obviously wrong{again no counterargument}, on top of claiming that the historical or philosophical justification for the trinity are adequate even if i dont think so(adequate by whos standard? just yours and the relegious communities?). are these RESPECTFUL tactics?

infact, one might ask, what are your qualifications in the subject of philosophy or logic? judging from the display of ignorance , id say none. i dont think your at a place to even try and argue such matters if your understading of the god debate or theological issues is this weak.

and just another point about your argument, do you understand the difference between basic validity and ontological validity? because ontologically god CAN make good without evil in the same world that he COULDNT make a man both sitting and standing up or a square circle.

i see the JIA phenomenon is still going strong here after all these years.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by inimalist
df must work differently in logic than it does in statistics then

im not sure. lemme try and explain. in tarski world atleast the degrees of freedom are two. however, if you take the non atomic disjunction as a WHOLE then yes your right, the df=1.

inimalist

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im not sure. lemme try and explain. in tarski world atleast the degrees of freedom are two. however, if you take the non atomic disjunction as a WHOLE then yes your right, the df=1.

I'm not a logician, that means nothing to me

leonheartmm

lol. ok here goes. lets substitute good by a and not good by b

"a v b" can only be true if a{is true}, or if b(is true) or if both.

now we take the BOTH being true and make it impossible (since in the world we are talking about, they can not both exist at the same time in relation to the same thing), so not(a ^ b). and we also say that
"not(A v B)" is false(since in this world you cant have a situation where you nither doing nothin nor doing good, it has to be one or the other).so the possible atomic truths that we are left with is.

a=1

b=2

i.e. two possibilities that are allowable in this world, i.e. two degrees of freedom.

inimalist

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol. ok here goes. lets substitute good by a and not good by b

"a v b" can only be true if a{is true}, or if b(is true) or if both.

now we take the BOTH being true and make it impossible (since in the world we are talking about, they can not both exist at the same time in relation to the same thing), so not(a ^ b). and we also say that
"not(A v B)" is false(since in this world you cant have a situation where you nither doing nothin nor doing good, it has to be one or the other).so the possible atomic truths that we are left with is.

a=1

b=2

i.e. two possibilities that are allowable in this world, i.e. two degrees of freedom.

ok, so it is kind of the same, however, it is applied in a different way when you analyze data

you have to remove 1 df from your total number of things (in this case two), based on how many comparisons there are, because, in theory, one part of the comparison is not allowed to vary, and must represent the mean you are comparing the other things to

EDIT: say I have 3 groups with 10 people in each, my N (number of things) is 30. if I want to compare individuals within the groups to eachother, I would have df = 30 - 3, because 3 of the things have to be represented as the means within each group that people are being compared to. to reference what you are saying above, we would have to set them as a value representing the average a, b or (in this case) c, so that we can say whether these other values are different. If I wanted to compare group to group, df = 3 - 1, because one of the groups has to be the mean.

you never change data scores, it is just the way you have to do things to analyze data properly. So, even though the within group df = 27, you are still comparing 30 scores.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
That wouldn't be true free will. We would basically be programmed robots. You might as well have God program in that we all believe in Him and Worship Him too. That isn't the creation He wanted.

the robot idea is funny cause when you consider a creator specifically designed our cognitive capabilities and bestowed us with the ability to 'make choices' in the first place, along with the natural inclination to prefer certain choices over others, i don't see how the robot analogy doesn't already apply.

so how exactly would we be any more like programmed robots than we already are? we would have the ability to make our own choices, evil just wouldn't ever occur to us because it wouldn't exist.

i find that last sentence particularly odd. why wouldn't benevolent god want a creation that was devoid of evil? is free will merely the ability to choose to do evil, and if so how is free will a good thing at all?

it doesn't matter what reasons he might have. anything that is accomplished through death and destruction could be achieved by god without that death and destruction, since he's.. ya know... GOD.

alright, thats fair enough. i wasn't thinking in terms of which one you'd be inclined to believe for any possible reason, but rather was pondering on why a perfect and all powerful entity would even need to split into 3 in the first place.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
But temptation isn't necessary. You already said that in heaven, there would be no temptation. So obviously it isn't impossible.

Hmmm. I suppose it isn't necessarily impossible to have a world with no temptation. But a combination of free will, satan etc provide our world with it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are saying that free will guarantees that evil will occur? Then why would God give people free will knowing it will guarantee some end up in hell? That's really bad parenting.

No it isn't. God understands that free will is the greatest gift you can give to a creation, even if some will use it poorly. He would much rather have us free, than mindless robots.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why doesn't God simply stop Satan from tempting, if his end goal is a heaven without any evil?

I think it comes down to the same reason He doesn't show up on earth and let everyone know He exists. He doesn't want to actively dictate how we live our lives or what choices we make.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But God created the differences. So it is very relevant to ask why he would create them with different standards.

Because they are not like us. They were made to support the ecosystem and provide a number of other ways to make the world a more interesting and enjoyable place to live. We were made specifically to have free will and the ability to choose good or evil.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
taceydavy you didnt heed my advice. i told you to counterargue my points rather than RESTATE your own oppinions in different words. i have repeatedly pointed out the flaws and contradictions in your arguments that show that your not even serious about your own convictions seeing as you say one thing and then say another thing(both without evidence or rationalisation) each mutually exclusive to the the other to try and simply DISAGREE with me in every statement. i even showed you how assuming either limiting feasible phenomenon or not limitied pheasable phenomenon both leads o your conclusion being false and yet you havent replied.

You are mistaken. I went through your post piece by piece pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. I suggest you quote my points specifically so that you can point out where I am making these mistakes and force me to acknowledge my error, if there was one, instead of simply claiming that I didn't respond to your points.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
infact you deconstructed statements and paragraphs that made sense as a whole and went on DISAGREEING with each component as if it were a refutation of my whole argument.

I quoted specific parts of your post that I was responding to so that it would be easier to see exactly what I was talking about. That way, you know what part of your post I was addressing, rather than quoting the whole thing and replying to it all at once. In that case, it may be difficult to know what I was replying to.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you say your being respectful and add in "confused" "misunderstood" etc at rapid intervals and reiterate "BASIC LOGIC" again and again as if it were sumthing that entirely eluded me. infact you go on to say that my assumptions about violation of free will are CLEARLY wrong{clear to whom?} while giving no evidence to the contrary and go on to say that YOU conclude that my conception of free will is obviously wrong{again no counterargument}, on top of claiming that the historical or philosophical justification for the trinity are adequate even if i dont think so(adequate by whos standard? just yours and the relegious communities?). are these RESPECTFUL tactics?

Yes, they are. I never once called you stupid, or insulted your intelligence in any way. You, on the other hand, have decided to put aside the debate topics and attack me personally.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
infact, one might ask, what are your qualifications in the subject of philosophy or logic? judging from the display of ignorance , id say none. i dont think your at a place to even try and argue such matters if your understading of the god debate or theological issues is this weak.

Qualifications? What does that have to do with anything? I suggest you stop focusing on attacking me, and stick to the debate topic. My arguments are logical or they aren't regardless of my "qualifications".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and just another point about your argument, do you understand the difference between basic validity and ontological validity? because ontologically god CAN make good without evil in the same world that he COULDNT make a man both sitting and standing up or a square circle.

Really? Back that up. Provide the argument that supports that statement. And then explain to me how it fits in with free will. How is killing children anything less than evil?

Originally posted by red g jacks
the robot idea is funny cause when you consider a creator specifically designed our cognitive capabilities and bestowed us with the ability to 'make choices' in the first place, along with the natural inclination to prefer certain choices over others, i don't see how the robot analogy doesn't already apply.

Really? I see a major difference between us and robots. We are creations, that's true. But that is far from being pre-programmed machines that cannot make decisions for themselves.

Originally posted by red g jacks
so how exactly would we be any more like programmed robots than we already are? we would have the ability to make our own choices, evil just wouldn't ever occur to us because it wouldn't exist.

"Evil" must exist logically when you have free will. With free will, I can choose to kill another person who does not want to die. Is this not evil? Yet denying me the ability to choose to do this would be denying me my free will. As long as free will exists, I MUST have the potential to kill another person who doesn't want to die. And I simply don't see how this action can be considered anything other than evil.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i find that last sentence particularly odd. why wouldn't benevolent god want a creation that was devoid of evil? is free will merely the ability to choose to do evil, and if so how is free will a good thing at all?

How is free will a good thing? Because it grants people the right to choose their own path. I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people, consider this to be the greatest gift someone can give to a creation. Evil is bad, but it is worth it for free will.

Originally posted by red g jacks
it doesn't matter what reasons he might have. anything that is accomplished through death and destruction could be achieved by god without that death and destruction, since he's.. ya know... GOD.

It might be possible, and it might not. There are untold amounts a variables that need to be considered that we are likely not able to comprehend. Even though it might be possible for one result to be obtained a different way, it might not be what God considers best. Again, you would have to make the claim that natural disasters are there for the sole purpose of causing pain and suffering to innocent people. Which is not a claim you can logically support.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? I see a major difference between us and robots. We are creations, that's true. But that is far from being pre-programmed machines that cannot make decisions for themselves.

"Evil" must exist logically when you have free will. With free will, I can choose to kill another person who does not want to die. Is this not evil? Yet denying me the ability to choose to do this would be denying me my free will. As long as free will exists, I MUST have the potential to kill another person who doesn't want to die. And I simply don't see how this action can be considered anything other than evil.

How is free will a good thing? Because it grants people the right to choose their own path. I, and I'm sure the vast majority of people, consider this to be the greatest gift someone can give to a creation. Evil is bad, but it is worth it for free will.
we could still make our own decisions in either scenario. the only difference would be which actions/thoughts are available for us to choose. it's really that simple. you could still 'choose your own path' so to speak, there simply wouldn't be a path that leads to evil. to say that this is an impossibility seems to impose limits on the creative prowess that god is supposed to possess. the very notion that there are negative side effects to the greatest gift in a perfect creation is a thoroughly ridiculous idea.

i don't have to make the claim that they're there for the sole purpose of hurting people, because that is not necessary for the death and pain they cause to be considered 'needless'. as i have pointed out, theres no limit to what god can do and so i can say with 100% certainty that there is nothing good that could come from the suffering and death that could not have been achieved by god without those side affects. the only claim that is left standing in your argument is that avoiding that pain and death while achieving the same goal might not be what god considers best, and in which case it becomes legitimate to consider those events 'evil.'

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
When did I say that? Again, God does not temp us. The simple option of performing an evil deed can, in itself, be a temptation. And Satan contributes as well.

God did not create Satan to perform evil. Satan, like us, originally had free will. Thus, he had the ability to perform evil, and he did.

No.

Why? There would be the possibility of evil, perhaps.

It's simple logic. If, using free will, I killed someone who did not want to die, I would be doing something bad to that person, at least from his point of view. You cannot have free will without good and bad. God did, in a sense, create good and evil when He gave us free will.

And absolutely none of those things are logically contradictory. Super natural perhaps, but not logically contradictory.

Superior doesn't seem the right word, but, as I said, God cannot make something that cannot logically exist. He can't, for instance, create something that is standing and not standing at the same time.

I do not think so. I have already explained a number of times why a "lack of evil" is not logically possible. As for a substitute, this also makes no sense. Evil is just a word we invented to describe a very real thing. That thing, regardless of what we call it, is the same. And that thing, which we call evil, must logically exist with free will. There is no substitute. It must logically exist.

You seem to be confused as to what free will is. It is not the ability to feel every feeling/desire/necessity and it is not the ability to perform any action free of outside influence. It is simply the ability to make our own choices. We teach our children the values that we want them to hold as they grow up. This fact will undoubtedly influence their actions later in life. But it is not true to say we have taken away their free will.

Actually, there IS a logical problem with there being more than one God, but I don't think that was your point.

In response to the question. No. Free will is NOT the ability to do anything. So not having the ability to perform every single conceivable action does not, in any way shape or form, infringe on free will.

I don't see how this is true at all. Explain the logic behind this to me.

Evil does not only manifest itself in actions, however. Thoughts, interactions, etc can also be evil. To completely remove evil from the equation, you would have to remove the ability to even think.

Free will exists without limitless actions/abilities. We can make any choice we want.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The only way things like natural disasters can be considered unnecessary evil is if they occur for absolutely no other reason except to cause the needless pain and suffering of innocent people. Which is a claim that you cannot back up.

More complex than what? It all depends on what you're comparing it to. Christianity is a specific religion, and as I explained before, does not fit into the Occam's Razor example I gave, which was aimed at polytheism and monotheism as ideas, not specific religions.

tacey davy i find it hilarious that you completely forgot to reply to the part where i showed you that assuming either truth about free will, you end up not only wrong but self contradictory.

your debating tactic seems to be to NOT debate but restate your oppinions Ad nauseam and then conveniently forget to quote essential parts of the counterargument, hoping it would be lost in the length of the nonsense you are spewing.

the REASON why i asked you about your qualification are because your argument is NOT logical for one. for another i asked you if you understood the difference between logically valid and ontologically valid arguments. to which you childishly replied

"Really? Back that up. Provide the argument that supports that statement. And then explain to me how it fits in with free will. How is killing children anything less than evil?"

demonstrating in the coarse that you havent a clue about the subject. infact i dont think you have much understanding at all concerning logic or the topic of it. for someone who is so adamant in stating and restating that their argument is logical, you would be expected to atleast understand the basic concepts in the subject of logic but you clearly dont. infact, your understanding of LOGIC seems to be that of the most basic layman whose mind has been filled with the lies of relegiosity.

if you really want me to show you {even though ive seen enough of your types on here to know that your too narrow minded to understand or care} then here goes.

standing is an identity claim that refers to one element in a set and one element alone. you therefore, ontologically can not make an identity claim about something that is refuted by another premise. your second premise is NOT standing. and standing=/=not standing. hence this isnt a well formed formula and hence invalid.

the question of (good or evil)and NOTboth(good and evil) is not an ontological claim at all simply because you can have a world in which you subtract evil from the equation and have good or neutrality. since the initial allowed premises in our world are either do good or do evil or do nothing but no combination of the three. which leaves three options. in the world i am describing there are two option, which still alow WILL two degrees of freedom, making it free.

and please dont take the moral highground. you have been overtly insulting my intelligence throughout or discussion.

now make up your mind does taking away potential option for will{i.e. same sex couples producing offspring, us becoming gods, etc} limiti our free will{in which case god already limits it by taking away the afformentioned and infinit other potential options, and heaven also ends up limiting free will}, or does it NOT limit free will{in which case you would have to concede that you can have a world without evil in which we still have free will}.

you cant have both.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Hmmm. I suppose it isn't necessarily impossible to have a world with no temptation. But a combination of free will, satan etc provide our world with it.
So you admit God could have created a perfect world. And you admit that he tried to create a perfect world. So you are admitting God is fallible as he has tried to eliminate sin and he has completely failed, in the biblical account.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No it isn't. God understands that free will is the greatest gift you can give to a creation, even if some will use it poorly. He would much rather have us free, than mindless robots.
Why is it the greatest gift if you admit it leads to evil? If he could create a world with no evil, how is it better to have evil? The free will side doesn't matter, because you just admitted he could have given us free will while creating a world with no temptation. In which case we would exercise our free will in a non-damaging way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I think it comes down to the same reason He doesn't show up on earth and let everyone know He exists. He doesn't want to actively dictate how we live our lives or what choices we make.
That sounds good, but he DOES dictate them. He once flooded the entire world trying to eliminate sin (which did not work at all, btw). So that theory actually goes against the account in the bible. You admitted recently that you have no idea why God doesn't intervene, so why on earth are you trying to use that in an argument?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Because they are not like us. They were made to support the ecosystem and provide a number of other ways to make the world a more interesting and enjoyable place to live. We were made specifically to have free will and the ability to choose good or evil.
That did not answer my question. I know they are different. WHY did God create humans to be held to higher standards? Animals don't sin, as you said, so it would have been incredibly simple to make a sinless world; just don't include the humans.

I asked you why God created animals different from man, and you said "because they are different". This is a basic failure in linear thinking.

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
we could still make our own decisions in either scenario. the only difference would be which actions/thoughts are available for us to choose. it's really that simple. you could still 'choose your own path' so to speak, there simply wouldn't be a path that leads to evil. to say that this is an impossibility seems to impose limits on the creative prowess that god is supposed to possess. the very notion that there are negative side effects to the greatest gift in a perfect creation is a thoroughly ridiculous idea.

That isn't true free will, though. Otherwise, He could have allowed us the choices between worshiping Him in a church and Worshiping Him outside and closed all other choices. We can still choose the choices that are given us, yet I would hardly consider that free will. True free will is allowing us the complete freedom to choose whatever wer want without any interference from Him.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i don't have to make the claim that they're there for the sole purpose of hurting people, because that is not necessary for the death and pain they cause to be considered 'needless'. as i have pointed out, theres no limit to what god can do and so i can say with 100% certainty that there is nothing good that could come from the suffering and death that could not have been achieved by god without those side affects. the only claim that is left standing in your argument is that avoiding that pain and death while achieving the same goal might not be what god considers best, and in which case it becomes legitimate to consider those events 'evil.'

Then we'll have to disagree. If you honestly believe that it is logically valid to make that claim then there isn't much I can say besides, with all do respect, you're wrong. The very best you can logically say is "I see no reason for God to allow natural disasters." Which is simply not enough to claim it is evil. You say that God could achieve the same effect He desired without natural disasters. This is also a claim you are in no position to make. We are dealing with your limited perception of the world vs an all powerful God. Is it really hard to think that there might be variables that God, who rules over the entire universe, has to consider that you might not know about or have thought of?

Again, "I see no reason for natural disasters" is as far as you can logically go.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
tacey davy i find it hilarious that you completely forgot to reply to the part where i showed you that assuming either truth about free will, you end up not only wrong but self contradictory.

your debating tactic seems to be to NOT debate but restate your oppinions Ad nauseam and then conveniently forget to quote essential parts of the counterargument, hoping it would be lost in the length of the nonsense you are spewing.

the REASON why i asked you about your qualification are because your argument is NOT logical for one. for another i asked you if you understood the difference between logically valid and ontologically valid arguments. to which you childishly replied

"Really? Back that up. Provide the argument that supports that statement. And then explain to me how it fits in with free will. How is killing children anything less than evil?"

demonstrating in the coarse that you havent a clue about the subject. infact i dont think you have much understanding at all concerning logic or the topic of it. for someone who is so adamant in stating and restating that their argument is logical, you would be expected to atleast understand the basic concepts in the subject of logic but you clearly dont. infact, your understanding of LOGIC seems to be that of the most basic layman whose mind has been filled with the lies of relegiosity.

Leonheart, this is getting out of hand. If you truly find this debate distasteful enough to the point where you are simply insulting me you should just end it. There is no need for this hostility. I have been respectful to you so far, if you cannot show me the same level of decency, then I see no reason to continue this conversation with you. I see no reason to try and have a rational debate with someone who's posts consist of petty jabs and insults. It's a waist of my time and yours, and it does absolutely nothing to further our knowledge of the current issue. If my points are not logical, then all you need do is show that they aren't. The rest is unnecessary. If you insist upon attacking me instead of my arguments then I will end this debate.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if you really want me to show you {even though ive seen enough of your types on here to know that your too narrow minded to understand or care} then here goes.

standing is an identity claim that refers to one element in a set and one element alone. you therefore, ontologically can not make an identity claim about something that is refuted by another premise. your second premise is NOT standing. and standing=/=not standing. hence this isnt a well formed formula and hence invalid.

the question of (good or evil)and NOTboth(good and evil) is not an ontological claim at all simply because you can have a world in which you subtract evil from the equation and have good or neutrality. since the initial allowed premises in our world are either do good or do evil or do nothing but no combination of the three. which leaves three options. in the world i am describing there are two option, which still alow WILL two degrees of freedom, making it free.

You're "good or neutral" world does not allow for true free will. In it, I would be unable to make a negative choice, isn't that right? And removing my ability to make that choice is infringing on my free will.

You seem to think that dictating what choices we have to make, and then letting us "freely" choose between the limited amount that has been made for us is free will. I do not consider this free will at all.

Either that, or you are saying that we can still make negative choices, only these choices would not be considered negative.

So which is it? Are you saying we should not be allowed to make negative choices? Or are you saying the "negative" choices would no longer be considered negative?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and please dont take the moral highground. you have been overtly insulting my intelligence throughout or discussion.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It was never my intent to insult your intelligence.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
now make up your mind does taking away potential option for will{i.e. same sex couples producing offspring, us becoming gods, etc} limiti our free will{in which case god already limits it by taking away the afformentioned and infinit other potential options, and heaven also ends up limiting free will}, or does it NOT limit free will{in which case you would have to concede that you can have a world without evil in which we still have free will}.

I don't know what you mean by "potential option for will." I consider actions and choices to be two separate things. You seem to be lumping both of them together, correct me if I'm wrong.

So I suppose that means I choose the second option. I just don't see why that means a world with free will and no potential for evil is possible. Explain to me why that logically follows given the second option. cont...

TacDavey

Continued...

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you admit God could have created a perfect world. And you admit that he tried to create a perfect world. So you are admitting God is fallible as he has tried to eliminate sin and he has completely failed, in the biblical account.

God cannot make a world where there is true free will and no potential for evil. I don't think Heaven will be a place in which there is no potential for evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why is it the greatest gift if you admit it leads to evil? If he could create a world with no evil, how is it better to have evil? The free will side doesn't matter, because you just admitted he could have given us free will while creating a world with no temptation. In which case we would exercise our free will in a non-damaging way.

Even if there were no temptation, that does not mean that there is no possibility for evil, and I would rather have free will and have evil than the alternative. Being able to have free will outweighs evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That sounds good, but he DOES dictate them. He once flooded the entire world trying to eliminate sin (which did not work at all, btw). So that theory actually goes against the account in the bible. You admitted recently that you have no idea why God doesn't intervene, so why on earth are you trying to use that in an argument?

What do you mean? God doesn't want to take away our free will, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for our actions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That did not answer my question. I know they are different. WHY did God create humans to be held to higher standards? Animals don't sin, as you said, so it would have been incredibly simple to make a sinless world; just don't include the humans.

because God wanted to create humans. Beings with free will "made in His image". Sure, creating them would mean that there would be some tough times, but the good outweighs the bad.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I asked you why God created animals different from man, and you said "because they are different". This is a basic failure in linear thinking.

I thought you were asking why God does not consider animals actions as "evil" or "sinful" like He does mans.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't true free will, though. Otherwise, He could have allowed us the choices between worshiping Him in a church and Worshiping Him outside and closed all other choices. We can still choose the choices that are given us, yet I would hardly consider that free will. True free will is allowing us the complete freedom to choose whatever wer want without any interference from Him.

Then we'll have to disagree. If you honestly believe that it is logically valid to make that claim then there isn't much I can say besides, with all do respect, you're wrong. The very best you can logically say is "I see no reason for God to allow natural disasters." Which is simply not enough to claim it is evil. You say that God could achieve the same effect He desired without natural disasters. This is also a claim you are in no position to make. We are dealing with your limited perception of the world vs an all powerful God. Is it really hard to think that there might be variables that God, who rules over the entire universe, has to consider that you might not know about or have thought of?

Again, "I see no reason for natural disasters" is as far as you can logically go.

Leonheart, this is getting out of hand. If you truly find this debate distasteful enough to the point where you are simply insulting me you should just end it. There is no need for this hostility. I have been respectful to you so far, if you cannot show me the same level of decency, then I see no reason to continue this conversation with you. I see no reason to try and have a rational debate with someone who's posts consist of petty jabs and insults. It's a waist of my time and yours, and it does absolutely nothing to further our knowledge of the current issue. If my points are not logical, then all you need do is show that they aren't. The rest is unnecessary. If you insist upon attacking me instead of my arguments then I will end this debate.

You're "good or neutral" world does not allow for true free will. In it, I would be unable to make a negative choice, isn't that right? And removing my ability to make that choice is infringing on my free will.

You seem to think that dictating what choices we have to make, and then letting us "freely" choose between the limited amount that has been made for us is free will. I do not consider this free will at all.

Either that, or you are saying that we can still make negative choices, only these choices would not be considered negative.

So which is it? Are you saying we should not be allowed to make negative choices? Or are you saying the "negative" choices would no longer be considered negative?

I'm sorry you feel that way. It was never my intent to insult your intelligence.

I don't know what you mean by "potential option for will." I consider actions and choices to be two separate things. You seem to be lumping both of them together, correct me if I'm wrong.

So I suppose that means I choose the second option. I just don't see why that means a world with free will and no potential for evil is possible. Explain to me why that logically follows given the second option. cont...

lol, faking moral outrage to not reply to the simple fact that you dont understand the difference between ontology and validity{and hence a significant portion of LOGIC}? my my. it wasnt an attack, just a question. do you, self proclaimed understander of logic and reason{enough to call out my "lack of understanding" of logic}, understand what the two concepts are or not?

here you reiterate what you expressedly denied before. that taking away POTENTIAL choices{like evil} DOES infringe on free will. in which case you concede that god not making the potential choices like same sex people having children, or giving us the ability to be immortal, or to be gods ourselves, or to be a third sex etc etc ALSO INFRINGES ON FREE WILL.

im saying you CANT make negetive choices in this world because they dont exist.

taceydavey lets stop wasting time. the most concrete argument between us boils down to this.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will.

conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or

2. you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free.

conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both. {please try to give a serious reply to this, or ill just conclude that you arent interested in a real debate)

TacDavey

Leonheart, I have been taking this debate seriously the whole time.

As I have explained before, I do not see the "potential choices" as choices at all. They are actions. Of course God does not infringe on free will if we can't perform every action. That would mean that free will would ONLY be made available to God Himself, as He is the only all powerful being that can logically exist. So in that sense NO ONE can have free will.

The second option/conclusion is also flawed, because evil isn't simply a physical action, like the other examples. If you want to take away evil completely, the only way to do it is to infringe on free will, because it is more than taking away physical actions. It would be forcing our will/mind to work a certain way. At that point, we are basically no better than puppets.

Like I said before. Free will is not dictating acceptable choices and then "freely" allowing us to choose between them.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Leonheart, I have been taking this debate seriously the whole time.

As I have explained before, I do not see the "potential choices" as choices at all. They are actions. Of course God does not infringe on free will if we can't perform every action. That would mean that free will would ONLY be made available to God Himself, as He is the only all powerful being that can logically exist. So in that sense NO ONE can have free will.

The second option/conclusion is also flawed, because evil isn't simply a physical action, like the other examples. If you want to take away evil completely, the only way to do it is to infringe on free will, because it is more than taking away physical actions. It would be forcing our will/mind to work a certain way. At that point, we are basically no better than puppets.

Like I said before. Free will is not dictating acceptable choices and then "freely" allowing us to choose between them.
But he's already doing that. If I want to make the choice between walking and flying, I can't. But God will dictate the latter as unacceptable, and then "freely" allow you to choose between walking north or south.

Do you think its possible to commit evil with no physical actions at all?

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
But he's already doing that. If I want to make the choice between walking and flying, I can't. But God will dictate the latter as unacceptable, and then "freely" allow you to choose between walking north or south.

Like I said. I do not consider that taking away a choice. I see it as limited the physical actions we can perform. Again, if you consider free will limited because you cannot perform an action then NO ONE has free will because the only way you could truly have free will, by that definition, is to be God Himself. And since it is logically impossible to have two Gods, it would be impossible for anyone to have free will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Do you think its possible to commit evil with no physical actions at all?

Yes.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Like I said. I do not consider that taking away a choice. I see it as limited the physical actions we can perform. Again, if you consider free will limited because you cannot perform an action then NO ONE has free will because the only way you could truly have free will, by that definition, is to be God Himself. And since it is logically impossible to have two Gods, it would be impossible for anyone to have free will.
That's why I consider God to be incompatible with free will.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes.
Can you give an example?

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's why I consider God to be incompatible with free will.

What do you mean?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Can you give an example?

Someone who genuinely wished to torture children I would consider evil, even with no physical actions taking place.

You can have evil thoughts, or attitudes etc etc. Evil can take place in just about any form. Depending on what you would consider "evil" of course.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
Someone who genuinely wished to torture children I would consider evil, even with no physical actions taking place.

You can have evil thoughts, or attitudes etc etc. Evil can take place in just about any form. Depending on what you would consider "evil" of course.

so, lets use the example of a pedophile...

if someone who naturally is attracted to children goes out of their way to not act those urges out, you would still consider them evil?

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
so, lets use the example of a pedophile...

if someone who naturally is attracted to children goes out of their way to not act those urges out, you would still consider them evil?

I never said pedophile, I said someone who genuinely wishes to torture children. I would consider that evil even without the action ever being carried out.

As for the pedophile, if he genuinely wanted to rape children, even though he was never able to carry out the action, that is still evil.

inimalist

Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said pedophile, I said someone who genuinely wishes to torture children. I would consider that evil even without the action ever being carried out.

As for the pedophile, if he genuinely wanted to rape children, even though he was never able to carry out the action, that is still evil.

if that is the case, there would be no reason for the pedophile not to rape children

if he is evil simply because of his desire, not because of his actions (which in this instance are actually to prevent those terrible acts), he should just give in. There is actually no benefit at all, to the pedophile, to restrain himself if he is already evil

EDIT: I don't know bible verse, but I do know there is something about resisting temptation....

EDIT2: which pedophiles (who actually act out their urges) aren't also rapists? you think a child can give consent to sexual acts?

Bardock42

Isn't there the thing about ripping out your own eye instead of lusting or something

And the ten commandments also have something about covetting stuff

inimalist

then I'd say the bible has pretty clear instructions for people who have terrible desires:

"you are evil, so do evil, because there is nothing you can do not to be evil"

Bardock42

Originally posted by inimalist
then I'd say the bible has pretty clear instructions for people who have terrible desires:

"you are evil, so do evil, because there is nothing you can do not to be evil"

Well. I guess the message they'd like to send is "stop having those desires", which I find ridiculous, I can't stop my desires, like I can't start believing in God, it's not me.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean?
If god cared about the sanctity of free will above all else, like you say, he would have created us with no limits in our physical capabilities. He decides the laws of physics, so why should I be unable to fly?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Someone who genuinely wished to torture children I would consider evil, even with no physical actions taking place.

You can have evil thoughts, or attitudes etc etc. Evil can take place in just about any form. Depending on what you would consider "evil" of course.
I don't see that as evil at all.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
Leonheart, I have been taking this debate seriously the whole time.

As I have explained before, I do not see the "potential choices" as choices at all. They are actions. Of course God does not infringe on free will if we can't perform every action. That would mean that free will would ONLY be made available to God Himself, as He is the only all powerful being that can logically exist. So in that sense NO ONE can have free will.

The second option/conclusion is also flawed, because evil isn't simply a physical action, like the other examples. If you want to take away evil completely, the only way to do it is to infringe on free will, because it is more than taking away physical actions. It would be forcing our will/mind to work a certain way. At that point, we are basically no better than puppets.

Like I said before. Free will is not dictating acceptable choices and then "freely" allowing us to choose between them.

so , you dont understand the difference between validity and ontology. got it. now

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
if that is the case, there would be no reason for the pedophile not to rape children

if he is evil simply because of his desire, not because of his actions (which in this instance are actually to prevent those terrible acts), he should just give in. There is actually no benefit at all, to the pedophile, to restrain himself if he is already evil

EDIT: I don't know bible verse, but I do know there is something about resisting temptation....

EDIT2: which pedophiles (who actually act out their urges) aren't also rapists? you think a child can give consent to sexual acts?

No, it's different if someone were to recognize that the urge to do something like that was wrong and they refrained. I'm talking about someone who doesn't care that it's wrong, and if he were to get his hands on a child he would rape and torture it. Even if he never gets his hands on a child and thus never carries this act out, I still consider him evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If god cared about the sanctity of free will above all else, like you say, he would have created us with no limits in our physical capabilities. He decides the laws of physics, so why should I be unable to fly?

I don't see that as contradicting free will... Again, by that definition of free will, it would literally be IMPOSSIBLE for more than one creature to have free will. Because only one creature can be an all powerful god.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see that as evil at all.

Indeed? You wouldn't consider someone who wants to kill and rape children evil?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so , you dont understand the difference between validity and ontology. got it. now

I believe I responded to that argument. If you think it was not a valid response, you may refute it. I find it odd that only a few posts ago it was you criticizing me for supposedly repeating my view in different words. Now you have just repeated yourself and didn't even go so far as to change the words.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see that as contradicting free will... Again, by that definition of free will, it would literally be IMPOSSIBLE for more than one creature to have free will. Because only one creature can be an all powerful god.
That's exactly what I was just saying. It is impossible to have a God who values free will. Because having a being placing limits upon humans already subverts that from the start. Like I said, I consider God anathema to free will.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Indeed? You wouldn't consider someone who wants to kill and rape children evil?
If they restrain themselves from acting upon those desires, what they are doing is actually admirable.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, it's different if someone were to recognize that the urge to do something like that was wrong and they refrained. I'm talking about someone who doesn't care that it's wrong, and if he were to get his hands on a child he would rape and torture it. Even if he never gets his hands on a child and thus never carries this act out, I still consider him evil.

I don't see that as contradicting free will... Again, by that definition of free will, it would literally be IMPOSSIBLE for more than one creature to have free will. Because only one creature can be an all powerful god.

Indeed? You wouldn't consider someone who wants to kill and rape children evil?

I believe I responded to that argument. If you think it was not a valid response, you may refute it. I find it odd that only a few posts ago it was you criticizing me for supposedly repeating my view in different words. Now you have just repeated yourself and didn't even go so far as to change the words.

it seems you beleive a lot of things that are neither justified nor true. you didnt RESPOND to anything because you dont know what the hell either ontology or validity mean in the sense of formal logic. i even gave you examples which im forced to conclude, you are incapable of understanding(but dont want to explicitly admit it).

seeing as you didnt respond or cant respond, ill restate the original argument simply to hold you to it, because you havent responded to it.

taceydavey lets stop wasting time.

the most concrete argument between us boils down to this.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both. {please try to give a serious reply to this, or ill just conclude that you arent interested in a real debate)

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
God cannot make a world where there is true free will and no potential for evil. I don't think Heaven will be a place in which there is no potential for evil.
Well then what's so special about Heaven? By your thinking it will just be another Eden, a paradise that only sticks around until the first person to screw it up. Why would this be any different?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Even if there were no temptation, that does not mean that there is no possibility for evil, and I would rather have free will and have evil than the alternative. Being able to have free will outweighs evil.
How would there be evil without temptation?

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean? God doesn't want to take away our free will, but that doesn't mean there are no consequences for our actions.
I don't consider it very "free" if the choice is between life or death. By that logic a dictatorship is a free country. Because the people are still free to defy, as long as they are OK with getting killed.

Originally posted by TacDavey
because God wanted to create humans. Beings with free will "made in His image". Sure, creating them would mean that there would be some tough times, but the good outweighs the bad.
What? But God is all good, no evil. So if we are made in his image, how does that add up at all? For that matter nowhere in the bible is it ever stated that free will is the way we were made in his image. So you are hardly following your own book. Of course this is what I would expect from someone who admits they don't actually know what happens in the old testament.

Good for who? Those tough times are tough times for the people! Its not like God is the one getting sent to hell. How is it "free will", when God didn't even give us a choice on whether to accept it? By your interpretation, God just decided that he thought people would be better off with free will, and hey, those people with infinite suffering are no skin off his lip. And you laud this as an example of somehow giving people freedom.

Third problem: if the good outweighs the bad, why didn't God give all life forms free will? After all, the more the merrier.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's exactly what I was just saying. It is impossible to have a God who values free will. Because having a being placing limits upon humans already subverts that from the start. Like I said, I consider God anathema to free will.

You have a being who cannot give humans everything He has. It's impossible. You cannot have more than one all powerful being. So it seems, that by your definition of free will, it simply doesn't exist.

I don't see it that way at all. I see free will as being in full control of our choices, not necessarily being able to perform every action.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If they restrain themselves from acting upon those desires, what they are doing is actually admirable.

Indeed, but the example I gave was not one where the person IS restraining themselves. Take a person who would certainly rape and kill a child if he got his hands on it. Even if he never got his hands on a child, and thus never carries out any physical action, I would still consider him evil.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it seems you beleive a lot of things that are neither justified nor true. you didnt RESPOND to anything because you dont know what the hell either ontology or validity mean in the sense of formal logic. i even gave you examples which im forced to conclude, you are incapable of understanding(but dont want to explicitly admit it).

seeing as you didnt respond or cant respond, ill restate the original argument simply to hold you to it, because you havent responded to it.

taceydavey lets stop wasting time.

the most concrete argument between us boils down to this.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both. {please try to give a serious reply to this, or ill just conclude that you arent interested in a real debate)

I'm amazed that you are performing the very same action that you adamantly criticized me for performing only a few posts ago. If you feel that my response to this post was inadequate, you might want to point out why it was so, instead of just repeating yourself.

But I'm not going to wait through your posts until you decide to continue. If you don't want to respond, then that's fine. If you're just going to repeat yourself, I'm going to have to stop responding to you. I shouldn't have to waist my time and yours on a debate you clearly aren't taking seriously. I'm giving you one last chance, if your next post is nothing more than insults and a copy and paste version of your previous argument, then you may consider this discussion closed.

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
You have a being who cannot give humans everything He has. It's impossible. You cannot have more than one all powerful being. So it seems, that by your definition of free will, it simply doesn't exist.

I don't see it that way at all. I see free will as being in full control of our choices, not necessarily being able to perform every action.

Indeed, but the example I gave was not one where the person IS restraining themselves. Take a person who would certainly rape and kill a child if he got his hands on it. Even if he never got his hands on a child, and thus never carries out any physical action, I would still consider him evil.

I'm amazed that you are performing the very same action that you adamantly criticized me for performing only a few posts ago. If you feel that my response to this post was inadequate, you might want to point out why it was so, instead of just repeating yourself.

But I'm not going to wait through your posts until you decide to continue. If you don't want to respond, then that's fine. If you're just going to repeat yourself, I'm going to have to stop responding to you. I shouldn't have to waist my time and yours on a debate you clearly aren't taking seriously. I'm giving you one last chance, if your next post is nothing more than insults and a copy and paste version of your previous argument, then you may consider this discussion closed.

ONTOLOGY do you understand what this term means?

LOGICAL VALIDITY do you understand what this term means?

i feal that you are hiding your ignorance of the subject of logic under the veil of self righteous ridicule.

now please respond, or concede{i will take you not directly replying as conceding}.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
You have a being who cannot give humans everything He has. It's impossible. You cannot have more than one all powerful being. So it seems, that by your definition of free will, it simply doesn't exist.
Well first off, you need to show that you can only have one all powerful being. In fact, this thread is polytheism vs monotheism. So if you can prove that, you solve the thread.

Secondly, even if he couldn't make an all-powerful being, he should at least make an effort to give beings the maximum capabilities he can. In fact, we actually have an example of this in the bible: Angels. Angels have free will according to you, so why are humans special at all?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't see it that way at all. I see free will as being in full control of our choices, not necessarily being able to perform every action.
But aren't these choices basically defined by what kind of actions we can perform? I can even go back to your example with the pedophile; that pedophile can't make the choice to rape a child, because apparently he does not have the capacity to do the job. So God could just have it be a situation like that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Indeed, but the example I gave was not one where the person IS restraining themselves. Take a person who would certainly rape and kill a child if he got his hands on it. Even if he never got his hands on a child, and thus never carries out any physical action, I would still consider him evil.
A mythic breed. If he isn't restraining himself and still doesn't do it, obviously he didn't want it that badly.

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well then what's so special about Heaven? By your thinking it will just be another Eden, a paradise that only sticks around until the first person to screw it up. Why would this be any different?

What's so special about Heaven is that we will be much more in tune with God than people on earth are. And that's a rather large deal. So it won't just be "another Eden".

Originally posted by King Kandy
How would there be evil without temptation?

It's still possible for evil to exist without temptation. I see no reason that evil requires temptation for it's existence.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't consider it very "free" if the choice is between life or death. By that logic a dictatorship is a free country. Because the people are still free to defy, as long as they are OK with getting killed.

That isn't a nice choice, but it's still a choice they are free to make. So yes, that is still free will. We threaten to throw people in prison if they decide to murder someone. Are we taking away their free will? I don't think so. It's still a choice they are free to make.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What? But God is all good, no evil. So if we are made in his image, how does that add up at all? For that matter nowhere in the bible is it ever stated that free will is the way we were made in his image. So you are hardly following your own book. Of course this is what I would expect from someone who admits they don't actually know what happens in the old testament.

That doesn't follow. It says made in His image. That doesn't mean we are made EXACTLY like Him.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Good for who? Those tough times are tough times for the people! Its not like God is the one getting sent to hell. How is it "free will", when God didn't even give us a choice on whether to accept it? By your interpretation, God just decided that he thought people would be better off with free will, and hey, those people with infinite suffering are no skin off his lip. And you laud this as an example of somehow giving people freedom.

Yes, good for us. I would rather have free will and have the possibility for hell than be a mindless drone that does whatever someone else tells me to do. God didn't want his creation to be slaves.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Third problem: if the good outweighs the bad, why didn't God give all life forms free will? After all, the more the merrier.

God is under no obligation to make any more beings with free will. Regardless of how many beings God makes with free will you can ALWAYS ask "why not one more?"

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, good for us. I would rather have free will and have the possibility for hell than be a mindless drone that does whatever someone else tells me to do. God didn't want his creation to be slaves.

I assume you don't think you're going to hell, thus you most be acting like a mindless drone, doing whatever someone else tells you to. The alternative is hell.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
What's so special about Heaven is that we will be much more in tune with God than people on earth are. And that's a rather large deal. So it won't just be "another Eden".
Why didn't God just create people to be that in tune to begin with?

Originally posted by TacDavey
It's still possible for evil to exist without temptation. I see no reason that evil requires temptation for it's existence.
Tell me a case where there was evil but no temptation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't a nice choice, but it's still a choice they are free to make. So yes, that is still free will. We threaten to throw people in prison if they decide to murder someone. Are we taking away their free will? I don't think so. It's still a choice they are free to make.
Yes, I think you are taking away their free will when you send them to prison. That's the whole point of a prison; that the people will be dangerous if they have freedom, so you need to take it away.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That doesn't follow. It says made in His image. That doesn't mean we are made EXACTLY like Him.
You said we were like him because we could choose between good and evil. This is actually not like him at all, because god is 100% good. So that comparison fails and this is just an effort to handwave it away.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, good for us. I would rather have free will and have the possibility for hell than be a mindless drone that does whatever someone else tells me to do. God didn't want his creation to be slaves.
But it seems to me like that is exactly what you are. You do whatever God tells you. So if you have free will, you certainly aren't exercising it much.

I don't like either of those options. How about free will, but no hell?

Originally posted by TacDavey
God is under no obligation to make any more beings with free will. Regardless of how many beings God makes with free will you can ALWAYS ask "why not one more?"
He's under no obligation to create free will for anyone. It is a totally valid question "why make two series of free beings, but no more?"

A question you are totally unable to answer, apparently.

TacDavey

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ONTOLOGY do you understand what this term means?

LOGICAL VALIDITY do you understand what this term means?

i feal that you are hiding your ignorance of the subject of logic under the veil of self righteous ridicule.

now please respond, or concede{i will take you not directly replying as conceding}.

either

1. you beleive that taking away potential options{like evil, same sex procreation, us becoming gods, etc) DOES infringe on free will. conclusion: god already infringes on free will by giving us limited options in this world. {and certainly infringes on it in heaven because theres no evil in heaven nor potential to do it}

or 2.

you DONT beleive that taking away potential options limits free. conclusion: god does not by default limit our free will. and he could, if he wanted take away another potential option{that of EVIL} and leave us with just good or neutrality WITHOUT infringing on our free will.

you cant have both.

You're still repeating yourself. If you think the definitions of those words refute my argument, then feel free to point that out.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well first off, you need to show that you can only have one all powerful being. In fact, this thread is polytheism vs monotheism. So if you can prove that, you solve the thread.

Not necessarily. First, polytheistic religions seldom have their gods as "all powerful". Usually they each have a set thing they hold power over. Such as the sea, earth etc etc.

As for why you can't have more than one, it's logically impossible. If something is as powerful as another then neither one is all powerful, since that would mean one holds power over everything including the other all powerful being, who happens to also hold powerful over the first. You can't have two at the same time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Secondly, even if he couldn't make an all-powerful being, he should at least make an effort to give beings the maximum capabilities he can. In fact, we actually have an example of this in the bible: Angels. Angels have free will according to you, so why are humans special at all?

When did I say Angels have free will?

Second, why is God obligated to give us the maximum amount of abilities? By the current definition of free will, it's already impossible for us to have it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But aren't these choices basically defined by what kind of actions we can perform? I can even go back to your example with the pedophile; that pedophile can't make the choice to rape a child, because apparently he does not have the capacity to do the job. So God could just have it be a situation like that.

I don't know what you mean here. The pedophile is still evil regardless of whether he actually rapes the child or not. If you're asking why God doesn't just have every person who wants to do evil have bad luck and never get to carry it out, it's because God does not want to force us to do anything. It's kinda the same thing as having Him come down on a chariot of fire.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A mythic breed. If he isn't restraining himself and still doesn't do it, obviously he didn't want it that badly.

That isn't necessarily true at all. Are you saying that anyone who wants something bad enough can always get it? That does not logically follow.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I assume you don't think you're going to hell, thus you most be acting like a mindless drone, doing whatever someone else tells you to. The alternative is hell.

...What? I don't understand what you mean here. I don't think I'm going to hell, thus I'm a drone? How does that logically follow?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why didn't God just create people to be that in tune to begin with?

It isn't a matter of simply being made "in tune". To be in Heaven, surrounded by God, automatically put's you more "in tune". But God doesn't want heaven filled with people who don't want to be there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Tell me a case where there was evil but no temptation.

Mmm. Depends on what you would consider "temptations". I don't know if I would consider racial hatred as something than came from a "temptation".

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, I think you are taking away their free will when you send them to prison. That's the whole point of a prison; that the people will be dangerous if they have freedom, so you need to take it away.

"freedom" in the sense you are talking about is not the same as "free will". They are still in complete control of their choices. They simply aren't able to perform every physical action.

Let me ask you. Do you think you or I have free will?

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said we were like him because we could choose between good and evil. This is actually not like him at all, because god is 100% good. So that comparison fails and this is just an effort to handwave it away.

...Alright. Maybe be aren't actually like Him in that sense. I forgot why this is important to what we're talking about.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But it seems to me like that is exactly what you are. You do whatever God tells you. So if you have free will, you certainly aren't exercising it much.

On the contrary. I'm using my free will to freely choose to follow God's law. Just as you are using your free will to freely choose to follow the laws set up by your government.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't like either of those options. How about free will, but no hell?

Not possible. God is also "all just". Meaning evil has to be punished.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He's under no obligation to create free will for anyone. It is a totally valid question "why make two series of free beings, but no more?"

And if He had made more, you could still be asking "why not three more?" And if He had made three more from that, you could ask "why not two more?" And so on and so forth.

It's a question that has no end. You can always ask why there isn't more.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A question you are totally unable to answer, apparently.

A question that can't be answered, as it has no end.

And I'm confused as to how this is relevant to the debate as well.

King Kandy

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not necessarily. First, polytheistic religions seldom have their gods as "all powerful". Usually they each have a set thing they hold power over. Such as the sea, earth etc etc.

As for why you can't have more than one, it's logically impossible. If something is as powerful as another then neither one is all powerful, since that would mean one holds power over everything including the other all powerful being, who happens to also hold powerful over the first. You can't have two at the same time.
Let's focus on the ones that do, then.

I'd settle for "all-powerful except for the original god". Why can't I be that?

Originally posted by TacDavey
When did I say Angels have free will?

Second, why is God obligated to give us the maximum amount of abilities? By the current definition of free will, it's already impossible for us to have it.
You said that Satan used his free will to rebel:

Originally posted by TacDavey
Satan, like us, originally had free will. Thus, he had the ability to perform evil, and he did.

I assume you believe Satan is a fallen angel?

He's not obligated to do anything, but if his goal is to provide maximum free will, then he is clearly not doing all he can.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't know what you mean here. The pedophile is still evil regardless of whether he actually rapes the child or not. If you're asking why God doesn't just have every person who wants to do evil have bad luck and never get to carry it out, it's because God does not want to force us to do anything. It's kinda the same thing as having Him come down on a chariot of fire.
So you are telling me, God is not interested in preventing evil deeds, but only in punishing them? He can create a whole universe of suffering for their pain, but he will not even create a banana peel to stop a would-be killer? This is the worst father ever. What a corrupt system.

Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't necessarily true at all. Are you saying that anyone who wants something bad enough can always get it? That does not logically follow.
Unless the guy is literally too stupid to do the deed (in which case, God has already done exactly what you said he wouldn't), then I think he would be able to do it. I am interested in real people here. Not bogus hypotheticals.

Originally posted by TacDavey
It isn't a matter of simply being made "in tune". To be in Heaven, surrounded by God, automatically put's you more "in tune". But God doesn't want heaven filled with people who don't want to be there.
Why doesn't he just start everyone off there, and then let them leave if they want?

BTW, Satan lived with God. So obviously being surrounded by God does not stop evil!

Originally posted by TacDavey
Mmm. Depends on what you would consider "temptations". I don't know if I would consider racial hatred as something than came from a "temptation".
Try and find a real world case. I'm not interested in what you think someone would do. Find me a real life person who committed a crime without a temptation.

Originally posted by TacDavey
"freedom" in the sense you are talking about is not the same as "free will". They are still in complete control of their choices. They simply aren't able to perform every physical action.

Let me ask you. Do you think you or I have free will?
I don't see those as being a division. Their choices are limited by their actions. I see them as completely the same.

I think we have limited freedom. I believe it increases when your actual capabilities increase.

Originally posted by TacDavey
...Alright. Maybe be aren't actually like Him in that sense. I forgot why this is important to what we're talking about.
I asked you why God allowed humans to do good and evil, but not animals. You said we were the only ones made in his image. And this does not add up at all, because as you just noted, god can't do evil.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not possible. God is also "all just". Meaning evil has to be punished.
Baloney. No father would even contemplate giving their son infinite suffering.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And if He had made more, you could still be asking "why not three more?" And if He had made three more from that, you could ask "why not two more?" And so on and so forth.

It's a question that has no end. You can always ask why there isn't more.

A question that can't be answered, as it has no end.

And I'm confused as to how this is relevant to the debate as well.
Um, that's precisely my question. I see no reason why God would not simply gift all life forms with good-evil. Since you hold that it is far more of a gain than any bad that would result.

leonheartmm

King Kandy

This is where I see the chief difference in our debating styles. If somebody posed that question to me, and I didn't know what those words meant, I would look them up before replying. Not just kinda shrug my soldiers and say "guess you got me there".

TacDavey

Originally posted by King Kandy
Let's focus on the ones that do, then.

What do you mean? I don't know of any polytheistic religions that have a full set of all powerful gods. And if there are any, they are not logically possible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'd settle for "all-powerful except for the original god". Why can't I be that?

What good does that question do? Why aren't we green? Why didn't God give us four arms? These questions do nothing to help us understand the question of evil and free will. I don't understand the relevance.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said that Satan used his free will to rebel:

I assume you believe Satan is a fallen angel?

Indeed. Angels did have free will at one point, but don't any longer.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He's not obligated to do anything, but if his goal is to provide maximum free will, then he is clearly not doing all he can.

That would only be true going by your definition of free will. Not mine. Your definition says that free will is only possible if the subject can literally perform every action. I disagree. By that definition, free will is an impossibility.

Instead, I consider free will as the ability to freely make our own choices. I consider "physical actions" as different from choices. At the very least, it is a different kind of choice than the one's I consider important for free will, such as morals etc. By that definition of free will, God is doing just fine.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So you are telling me, God is not interested in preventing evil deeds, but only in punishing them? He can create a whole universe of suffering for their pain, but he will not even create a banana peel to stop a would-be killer? This is the worst father ever. What a corrupt system.

I'm telling you God does not want to interfere in our choices if at all possible. We are free to do whatever we want.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Unless the guy is literally too stupid to do the deed (in which case, God has already done exactly what you said he wouldn't), then I think he would be able to do it. I am interested in real people here. Not bogus hypotheticals.

These "bogus hypothesizes" have just shown that it is possible for evil to exist without physical actions. Which was the original question.

Your assertion that people can do whatever they want as long as they want it enough is not logically sound.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why doesn't he just start everyone off there, and then let them leave if they want?

Again, for the same reason He doesn't just come down on a chariot of fire and prove He exists to everyone.

Originally posted by King Kandy
BTW, Satan lived with God. So obviously being surrounded by God does not stop evil!

I never said it would be impossible for evil to take place. I'm not too worried though.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Try and find a real world case. I'm not interested in what you think someone would do. Find me a real life person who committed a crime without a temptation.

I see no reason to do that. Do you expect me to be familiar with every criminal case that has ever existed? I gave you a circumstance in which evil can take place without temptation. Whether there is documentation of this possible situation is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see those as being a division. Their choices are limited by their actions. I see them as completely the same.

And I do not. Technically you could say that they cannot choose to perform a physical action, but at the very least you could label those as "physical action choices" which do not infringe on free will one way or another, I would say. Again, that definition does not allow for anything to truly have free will.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I think we have limited freedom. I believe it increases when your actual capabilities increase.

Yet we cannot ever fully obtain free will by your definition.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I asked you why God allowed humans to do good and evil, but not animals. You said we were the only ones made in his image. And this does not add up at all, because as you just noted, god can't do evil.

At the very best, that would mean that my definition of "made in His image" was incorrect. Which is completely mine, by the way. There are some people who think it really means we look like God.

It isn't hard to see the difference between man and animal. While my "made in His image" definition may not have been 100% accurate, the point still remains that God made man and animal different. I don't think they truly have free will for one thing. Nor do they understand the concept of good or evil.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Baloney. No father would even contemplate giving their son infinite suffering.

Baloney? That isn't a valid refutation. God, by definition, is all just. That's just how it is. That means that He cannot perform an unjust action. Evil must be punished.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Um, that's precisely my question. I see no reason why God would not simply gift all life forms with good-evil. Since you hold that it is far more of a gain than any bad that would result.

And I see no reason God needs to give everything good-evil. Like I said, that question can be made regardless of how many things God made with free will. You can ALWAYS ask "why not just one more?" I see no reason there needs to be one more. We are enough. The free will we have already creates a practically infinite amount of diverse, free thinking creatures. What would the difference be if cats had it the same? They wouldn't be any different from us except for their physical make up. So in the end the question boils down to "why did God limit His free will creations to one body type?" Which is an irrelevant question entirely.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this is getting pathetic. you neither undertsand the meaning of those terms, nor concede that by accepting so, you can not then DEBATE against something you dont understand. the second argument stands reguardless. i love it when beleivers have nothing but fuzzy language and repition as well as non sequiters to reply to the critique of their faith with.

just shows you how incredibly weak your beleifs are.

Very well. I'll be here should you ever wish to continue the debate.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This is where I see the chief difference in our debating styles. If somebody posed that question to me, and I didn't know what those words meant, I would look them up before replying. Not just kinda shrug my soldiers and say "guess you got me there".

I never meant to imply I was saying "guess you got me there." If he brings a point to the table that is suppose to refute my stance, it is up to him to give reason why. You don't plop your evidence on the table and tell your opponent to figure out how it refutes his argument.

inimalist

leonheartmm

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean? I don't know of any polytheistic religions that have a full set of all powerful gods. And if there are any, they are not logically possible.

What good does that question do? Why aren't we green? Why didn't God give us four arms? These questions do nothing to help us understand the question of evil and free will. I don't understand the relevance.

Indeed. Angels did have free will at one point, but don't any longer.

That would only be true going by your definition of free will. Not mine. Your definition says that free will is only possible if the subject can literally perform every action. I disagree. By that definition, free will is an impossibility.

Instead, I consider free will as the ability to freely make our own choices. I consider "physical actions" as different from choices. At the very least, it is a different kind of choice than the one's I consider important for free will, such as morals etc. By that definition of free will, God is doing just fine.

I'm telling you God does not want to interfere in our choices if at all possible. We are free to do whatever we want.

These "bogus hypothesizes" have just shown that it is possible for evil to exist without physical actions. Which was the original question.

Your assertion that people can do whatever they want as long as they want it enough is not logically sound.

Again, for the same reason He doesn't just come down on a chariot of fire and prove He exists to everyone.

I never said it would be impossible for evil to take place. I'm not too worried though.

I see no reason to do that. Do you expect me to be familiar with every criminal case that has ever existed? I gave you a circumstance in which evil can take place without temptation. Whether there is documentation of this possible situation is completely irrelevant.

And I do not. Technically you could say that they cannot choose to perform a physical action, but at the very least you could label those as "physical action choices" which do not infringe on free will one way or another, I would say. Again, that definition does not allow for anything to truly have free will.

Yet we cannot ever fully obtain free will by your definition.

At the very best, that would mean that my definition of "made in His image" was incorrect. Which is completely mine, by the way. There are some people who think it really means we look like God.

It isn't hard to see the difference between man and animal. While my "made in His image" definition may not have been 100% accurate, the point still remains that God made man and animal different. I don't think they truly have free will for one thing. Nor do they understand the concept of good or evil.

Baloney? That isn't a valid refutation. God, by definition, is all just. That's just how it is. That means that He cannot perform an unjust action. Evil must be punished.

And I see no reason God needs to give everything good-evil. Like I said, that question can be made regardless of how many things God made with free will. You can ALWAYS ask "why not just one more?" I see no reason there needs to be one more. We are enough. The free will we have already creates a practically infinite amount of diverse, free thinking creatures. What would the difference be if cats had it the same? They wouldn't be any different from us except for their physical make up. So in the end the question boils down to "why did God limit His free will creations to one body type?" Which is an irrelevant question entirely.

Very well. I'll be here should you ever wish to continue the debate.

I never meant to imply I was saying "guess you got me there." If he brings a point to the table that is suppose to refute my stance, it is up to him to give reason why. You don't plop your evidence on the table and tell your opponent to figure out how it refutes his argument.

what debate? you lost already.

btw, its obvious that your not here to debate.

TacDavey

Originally posted by inimalist
wouldn't you define that as something closer to intent rather than simply entertaining a thought?

more like, intending to rape children is evil, or seeing no harm in the act is evil even, but simply having the thought in your head isn't?

No, I don't think simply having the thought pop into your head would be evil.

Quiero Mota

Humanity's shift from poly to mono has always intrigued me. Now, polytheism still hasn't nor has ever been completely replaced. It can still be found among certain Hindu denominations, Chinese folk religions, and here in the US some Native American circles still worship their traditional gods (not to mention all those 'Neo-Pagans' in modern Western countries). But for the most part, monotheism rules the world (both literally and figuratively). And the one thing that I've always noticed is the change in the appearance and/or images of gods to god. Or should I say: lack thereof in the case of the Abrahamic religions. With the exception of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there are no images of god in the 3 great monotheisms. Walk into a synagogue, mosque or Baptist church, and you won't see any paintings or images of what god may or may not look like. But walk into any kind of polytheistic temple, and pictures of their gods are plastered all over the place. Throw a rock over your shoulder, and you'll probably hit one. Whether its a modern Hindu temple with all those blue-skinned four-armed characters, or the chisel-chested Olympians of ancient Greece. Polytheistic gods always looked a certain way. But once monotheism entered the picture, so did the concept of a god that could not possibly be conceived by the simple eyes of mere mortals. Furthermore, it was deemed unlawful and distasteful to try and put a face to the concept of god.

And that's what always interested me, and I also think its pretty cool. Polytheistic religions have a pantheon similar to a sports-team roster; you can look, select and worship who you please. But with one god; what he may look like is beyond the grasp of the feeble human mind. If the universe did have a creator, then we would never know what it/that entity may have looked like. ...as opposed to paintings of Zeus holding a lightning bolt.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
With the exception of Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, there are no images of god in the 3 great monotheisms.
So the vast majority of christians DO have images of god. Judaism is tiny and hardly one of the great religions of the world, except for the legacy it lends. So i'd say it seems like the monotheism = no images is a false equivocation.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by King Kandy
So the vast majority of christians DO have images of god. Judaism is tiny and hardly one of the great religions of the world, except for the legacy it lends. So i'd say it seems like the monotheism = no images is a false equivocation.

They're obviously ignoring the Commandment about graven images and idols. Protestant churches and NDC churches don't have paintings of Mary or any saints. Neither does any mosque, Shi'ite or Sunni. So for a religion with 1.5 billion members, Islam is pretty uniform in that respect.

Judaism IS great for its legacy, and place in human history. There are more Sikhs and Shenists in the world, but they're mostly confined to one out-of-the-way corner of the world. Here in Phoenix I can easily find a synagogue. But a temple for Chinese folk religions? Not so much.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They're obviously ignoring the Commandment about graven images and idols. Protestant churches and NDC churches don't have paintings of Mary or any saints. Neither does any mosque, Shi'ite or Sunni. So for a religion with 1.5 billion members, Islam is pretty uniform in that respect.

Judaism IS great for its legacy, and place in human history. There are more Sikhs and Shenists in the world, but they're mostly confined to one out-of-the-way corner of the world. Here in Phoenix I can easily find a synagogue. But a temple for Chinese folk religions? Not so much.
The two you mentioned are more than twice as big as all other christians and jews combined. I don't see any reason why protestants should set the standard when they are a minority on that issue. Islam is super-strict not just about not depicting god, but throughout history on depicting humans at all.

By that logic we should include Zoroastrianism as a great monotheist religion as well. It historically was way bigger than Judaism and had a huge influence on culture in many parts of the world. And they did make images of God. Or look, there are 7 million Bahai in the world. half as many as judaism. I can go to temples in the US for Bahai, but I would not call them a "great" monotheistic religion.

inimalist

certain sects of Islam...

other traditions have no such prohibitions. iirc, the tradition in Turkey, one of the largest and most important Muslim nations, has for a long time depicted not only humans, but Mohammed, with no real controversy

King Kandy

Originally posted by inimalist
certain sects of Islam...

other traditions have no such prohibitions. iirc, the tradition in Turkey, one of the largest and most important Muslim nations, has for a long time depicted not only humans, but Mohammed, with no real controversy
That's what I was trying to say. I meant that the law was practiced that way during some parts of history, but not always.

inimalist

oh, my mistake smile

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by King Kandy
The two you mentioned are more than twice as big as all other christians and jews combined. I don't see any reason why protestants should set the standard when they are a minority on that issue. Islam is super-strict not just about not depicting god, but throughout history on depicting humans at all.

By that logic we should include Zoroastrianism as a great monotheist religion as well. It historically was way bigger than Judaism and had a huge influence on culture in many parts of the world. And they did make images of God. Or look, there are 7 million Bahai in the world. half as many as judaism. I can go to temples in the US for Bahai, but I would not call them a "great" monotheistic religion.

The term "Three Great Monotheisms" is understood to mean Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Zoroaster...whatever, has been dead for a long time. It's just like the Greek and Egyptian religions: confined to history books.

The numbers of Catholics doesn't change the fact that they're breaking the Commandments. The rule against images of god exists, even though not everyone follows it.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The term "Three Great Monotheisms" is understood to mean Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Zoroaster...whatever, has been dead for a long time. It's just like the Greek and Egyptian religions: confined to history books.

The numbers of Catholics doesn't change the fact that they're breaking the Commandments. The rule against images of god exists, even though not everyone follows it.
Zoroastrianism still exists today.

You said christians don't make images of God. You are provably wrong. Yeesh, just back off already. You lost this one.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by King Kandy
Zoroastrianism still exists today.

You said christians don't make images of God. You are provably wrong. Yeesh, just back off already. You lost this one.

Anybody can draw anything. But the rule exists.

There are ancient Persian paintings of Mohammed and Gabriel. Some modern Muslims would say thats a sin, and they'd be right. Any person can draw Mary or Jesus; big deal. But the fact remains that they're ignoring their own religious laws. As opposed to Hinduism, which has no qualms about drawing all those four-armed characters.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Anybody can draw anything. But the rule exists.

There are ancient Persian paintings of Mohammed and Gabriel. Some modern Muslims would say thats a sin, and they'd be right. Any person can draw Mary or Jesus; big deal. But the fact remains that they're ignoring their own religious laws. As opposed to Hinduism, which has no qualms about drawing all those four-armed characters.
I don't care about bogus hypotheticals. The bible also says 'don't wear mixed fibers", and nobody practices that either. The way a religion is practiced = way more important than the written texts alone.

Quiero Mota

So then, objectively speaking; Protestants are more accurate in their practice because their churches don't have any images.

Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So then, objectively speaking; Protestants are more accurate in their practice because their churches don't have any images.

Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.
Wow, one law. I just brought up "don't mix fibers", there are lots of rules that people do not observe much. Again the catholic church is the oldest church. christianity historically never banned images. Yet you would select a much later movement as "more accurate". That rule does not apply to the bulk of christians.

My foundation is how it is practiced by most believers. Meanwhile, you said this:

"But once monotheism entered the picture, so did the concept of a god that could not possibly be conceived by the simple eyes of mere mortals."

Well, obviously that's not the case. Like I mentioned, tons of monotheists have drawn God. So that "concept", obviously is hardly a dominant trait in monotheism.

TacDavey

Ahem. I might point out that the "don't mix fibers" law was confined to a specific people at a specific time in the Bible and is no longer expected to be carried out today. Just tossing that out there.

I've never heard the law about not drawing God, though. Is that in the Bible somewhere?

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

You can't ignore it no, but he's awfully quick to ignore that it's possible to interpret a text at all. Many religions have specific texts regarding their reading of the foundational ones.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Ahem. I might point out that the "don't mix fibers" law was confined to a specific people at a specific time in the Bible and is no longer expected to be carried out today. Just tossing that out there.

Romans 6 says that The Law (the whole thing, not any particular sections) no long applies. Are you sure you're comfortable getting rid of "Thou shalt not kill"?

Originally posted by TacDavey
I've never heard the law about not drawing God, though. Is that in the Bible somewhere?

Dude, no graven images.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Romans 6 says that The Law (the whole thing, not any particular sections) no long applies. Are you sure you're comfortable getting rid of "Thou shalt not kill"?

Honestly, I have not done a whole lot of research on this particular subject, but I don't think that was intended to remove every law. I don't think the Bible tells us that we can now just do whatever we want.

As for the "mix fibers" part. I think that was intended to pertain to a very specific people. Not meant to be a law that covers everyone. Something about setting themselves apart.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Dude, no graven images.

eek

Ah, that's what graven images means....

inimalist

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Also, Christopher Hitchens points out that when criticizing a given religion, you can't ignore what the foundational texts say. Because then, what's the point? You have to have a starting point or a base to go off of.

true

but the problem with looking solely at those texts, or putting more weight in their literal translation over interpretation is that you essentially are saying that only the most extreme and literal versions of a religion are the ones that are following the word of the religious code, when in many cases, it is a minority of those who identify with the religion or academics who interpret the texts that feel the literal interpretation is the most accurate.

For instance, few people would argue that there are no provisions for holy war in the Qu'ran, and in many ways, Muslim extremists can point to those passages, and it is sort of undeniable as to what they say. That is relevant, sure, but how relevant is it when conferences of the most accredited Qu'ranic scholars come together to say the extremist interpretation of holy war is not in accordance with the tradition?

I tend to feel common practice and interpretation can trump literal "word of the book" type theories of what religions are.

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by King Kandy
Wow, one law. I just brought up "don't mix fibers", there are lots of rules that people do not observe much. Again the catholic church is the oldest church. christianity historically never banned images. Yet you would select a much later movement as "more accurate". That rule does not apply to the bulk of christians.

My foundation is how it is practiced by most believers. Meanwhile, you said this:

"But once monotheism entered the picture, so did the concept of a god that could not possibly be conceived by the simple eyes of mere mortals."

Well, obviously that's not the case. Like I mentioned, tons of monotheists have drawn God. So that "concept", obviously is hardly a dominant trait in monotheism.

Forget the believers, look at what the book says. In fact, Catholicism is arguably barely even a monotheistic religion. At speaking engagements, Richard Dawkins will often half-jokingly list off some polytheist religions, like the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, and then throw the Catholics in there, which always draws applause and laughter from the crowd. But the man has a point. You see, when Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, it wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the majority pagan populace. The church leaders had a dilemma; so they reconciled it by incorporating age-old polytheist practices such as the act of worshipping saints (ie: different gods), which is quite literally a pantheon. By doing all of this, they blatantly ignored the teachings of Jesus and the Books of Moses. They had to appeal to the pagan masses, and all the while keep up the appearance of monotheism.

At the end of the day; those practices (along with self-proclaimed Christians who still worship saints to this day) are violating the Ten Commandments. Prostrating before the icon of a Rennaissance-style painting, and praying to that obvious idol is about as un-Christian as it possibly gets. The founders of the Roman Catholic Church =/= the core teachings of Jesus.

Originally posted by TacDavey

eek

Ah, that's what graven images means....

What the f**k?

^Wow. Fail of the century.

inimalist

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Forget the believers, look at what the book says. In fact, Catholicism is arguably barely even a monotheistic religion. At speaking engagements, Richard Dawkins will often half-jokingly list off some polytheist religions, like the Greek gods, Egyptian gods, and then throw the Catholics in there, which always draws applause and laughter from the crowd. But the man has a point. You see, when Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire, it wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the majority pagan populace. The church leaders had a dilemma; so they reconciled it by incorporating age-old polytheist practices such as the act of worshipping saints (ie: different gods), which is quite literally a pantheon. By doing all of this, they blatantly ignored the teachings of Jesus and the Books of Moses. They had to appeal to the pagan masses, and all the while keep up the appearance of monotheism.

At the end of the day; those practices (along with self-proclaimed Christians who still worship saints to this day) are violating the Ten Commandments. Prostrating before the icon of a Rennaissance-style painting, and praying to that obvious idol is about as un-Christian as it possibly gets. The founders of the Roman Catholic Church =/= the core teachings of Jesus.

don't you think it is odd that Dawkins feels he has the right to claim what a specific religion means to the 1b+ people who follow it, even if that is not how they, themselves, see it, especially considering it is a religion he, himself, is not a part of?

wouldn't you see even the most half-hearted follower of catholocism as an infinitely more qualified source on how to interpret catholic dogma than Dawkins, or anyone who isn't a catholic for that matter?

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by inimalist
don't you think it is odd that Dawkins feels he has the right to claim what a specific religion means to the 1b+ people who follow it, even if that is not how they, themselves, see it, especially considering it is a religion he, himself, is not a part of?

wouldn't you see even the most half-hearted follower of catholocism as an infinitely more qualified source on how to interpret catholic dogma than Dawkins, or anyone who isn't a catholic for that matter?

It's not odd if he's correct. If a church has an entire wall adorned with paintings of saints, and hoards of people are prostrating before them, how can you then call that a monotheistic institution? I was raised Roman Catholic (I'm now an NDC) and I agree; he hit the nail right on the head. Even when I was a Catholic, I still didn't pray to the various selection of pick-a-card-any-card saints. I prayed to God and God alone. Even as a pre-pubescent child, I still noticed the dirscrepancy between the Ten Commandments and all the saint-worship.

King Kandy

I see the catholic church as "polytheist" to the extent that hinduism is. In fact, i'd say the trinity puts all christianity on that same level.

Quiero Mota

Hinduism is an interesting one. Many Hindus today say that there's ultimately only one god in their religion. All those familiar gods, like Vishnu, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali and so on, are all merely avatars or "manifestations" of the one god. However, many ademics claim that this is a relatively recent belief in Hindu history. When India was conquered by Muslims, they went on a serious campaign to stamp out all pagan temples and idols of the Hindu gods. So to escape the persecution, the Hindu leaders at the time "explained" (ie: lied) to their Muslim masters that they actually only worshipped one god, and that all their colorful four-armed characters were actually just attributes of god, similar to the 99 names of Allah, in Islam.

So that's where that comes from. In fact, the world's 900 million Hindus aren't on the same page when it comes to that issue. Some say Hinduism is polytheistic, others say its monotheistic, and there's even atheist branches of Hinduism. But they more resemble Buddhism and Jainism (both of which are non-theistic religions) as opposed to mainstream forms of Hinduism.

King Kandy

Baloney. It says in the bhagavad gita that there is only one god, who has many names. So that was demonstrably not a correct theory. You are the one who says the scripture has more authority than the practice, so that is major league hypocrisy.

Quiero Mota

And other Vedic scriptures indicate otherwise, including the Upthanishads. So which one should trump the other?

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And other Vedic scriptures indicate otherwise, including the Upthanishads. So which one should trump the other?
The more recent one, just like new vs old testament.

EDIT: As well, this is where sects divide. So really, this is a point to stop generalizing.

And where is the evidence for this "covering it up" theory? Why would that even matter? (It would be in some ways analogous to the protestant reformation). That's a difference in practice and you're already telling me, practice means nothing to you, but only scripture. Unless its convenient for you to change that position. Meanwhile when I present scripture, you handwave it away. So evidence means nothing to you, either. Lord knows, you never provided any on any of your claims.

Quark_666

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And other Vedic scriptures indicate otherwise, including the Upthanishads. So which one should trump the other? You just summed up a major issue with trusting scripture at all and turned to trusting scripture lol. Imagine if people did that with their shopping options!

Quiero Mota

Originally posted by King Kandy
The more recent one, just like new vs old testament.

EDIT: As well, this is where sects divide. So really, this is a point to stop generalizing.

And where is the evidence for this "covering it up" theory? Why would that even matter? (It would be in some ways analogous to the protestant reformation). That's a difference in practice and you're already telling me, practice means nothing to you, but only scripture. Unless its convenient for you to change that position. Meanwhile when I present scripture, you handwave it away. So evidence means nothing to you, either. Lord knows, you never provided any on any of your claims.

I'm not handwaving the Bhagavad Gita. I own that book and I know exactly what it says regarding the matter. But what about all the discrepant Vedic scriptures? Are they to be ignored?

You made a valid point about sects. The term "Hindusim" is about as broad and complex (more, actually) than "Christianity". Hinduism has so many differing, hopelessly divided sects, that its impossible to keep up with them all.

King Kandy

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not handwaving the Bhagavad Gita. I own that book and I know exactly what it says regarding the matter. But what about all the discrepant Vedic scriptures? Are they to be ignored?

You made a valid point about sects. The term "Hindusim" is about as broad and complex (more, actually) than "Christianity". Hinduism has so many differing, hopelessly divided sects, that its impossible to keep up with them all.
What are the specific Vedic scriptures that you feel contradict that?

Right... this is why I feel practice is important. And why I feel the catholic church is the most representative of christianity. They have a large unified front that resolves these questions while "scripture only" christians are hopelessly fragmented.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What the f**k?

^Wow. Fail of the century.

No U!

smokin'

red g jacks

TacDavey

Originally posted by red g jacks
what im getting from this is that free will is all about the choice between good and evil. anything less is unsatisfactory. so basically god's greatest gift to humanity is the ability to commit evil.

God's greatest gift is our ability to choose to do good. To freely choose our own moral path.

Originally posted by red g jacks
see you say i'm not in the position to make such a claim but i assert that i am and that every human is through the mild task of critical thinking. when you stipulate that the creator is all powerful, it's pretty easy to conclude that he could accomplish any goal he wants without any side effects.

No, that is not necessarily true at all. For example, God cannot give us free will over our moral decisions without the possibility of evil. It isn't logically possible. In this example, there is something God wants for us with a necessary side effect that cannot be removed.

I find it odd that you, a normal human, claim to be able to see all possibilities/variables better than an all powerful God. That's like a new born trying to tell cosmologists that their concept of the universe is wrong. The logical stance is to simply admit that an all powerful God knows more about it than you do.

Korto Vos

The idea of free will becomes much more complicated once you add karma to the picture. That is, if you choose to and you believe in it.

Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by TacDavey
I find it odd that you, a normal human, claim to be able to see all possibilities/variables better than an all powerful God. That's like a new born trying to tell cosmologists that their concept of the universe is wrong. The logical stance is to simply admit that an all powerful God knows more about it than you do.

It's not logical to believe that a person is all knowing, just based on him saying so.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, that is not necessarily true at all. For example, God cannot give us free will over our moral decisions without the possibility of evil. It isn't logically possible. In this example, there is something God wants for us with a necessary side effect that cannot be removed.

I find it odd that you, a normal human, claim to be able to see all possibilities/variables better than an all powerful God. That's like a new born trying to tell cosmologists that their concept of the universe is wrong. The logical stance is to simply admit that an all powerful God knows more about it than you do. i claimed no such thing. i'm simply drawing conclusions from the implications of omnipotence. if god is all-powerful then i suspect that you must be wrong when you say that there are things he cannot do, regardless of whether or not you, a normal human, find them to be logically possible or not.

edit: i'd also note that in this case you haven't shown how the deaths are a logical necessity for whatever it is god is trying to accomplish, but have simply tried to assert that this must be the case for some unknown mystical reason that we humans cannot comprehend.

TacDavey

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not logical to believe that a person is all knowing, just based on him saying so.

I completely agree.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i claimed no such thing. i'm simply drawing conclusions from the implications of omnipotence. if god is all-powerful then i suspect that you must be wrong when you say that there are things he cannot do, regardless of whether or not you, a normal human, find them to be logically possible or not.

edit: i'd also note that in this case you haven't shown how the deaths are a logical necessity for whatever it is god is trying to accomplish, but have simply tried to assert that this must be the case for some unknown mystical reason that we humans cannot comprehend.

I fully accept that there are things God cannot do. God is all powerful, but He still has to operate within the realm of logic. For example. God cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it. God cannot make a creature stand and not stand at the same time. These requests don't make logical sense.

red g jacks

Originally posted by TacDavey
I completely agree.

I fully accept that there are things God cannot do. God is all powerful, but He still has to operate within the realm of logic. For example. God cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it. God cannot make a creature stand and not stand at the same time. These requests don't make logical sense. those are logical riddles that are inherent with the concept of omnipotence, but i don't think the solution is in simply saying that an all-powerful god can do anything so long as it makes logical sense. there are a couple problems with this solution.

the most obvious problem with this rational is that placing a limit on what god can do, even ones based on 'logic' (human logic, mind you), negates the claim that he is all powerful. there are limits to what he can do, and so that god is not all powerful.

another problem, somewhat similar to the first, is that it implies that there is an over riding source of logical coherence that even god cannot violate. if god is the source of all existence then any scheme of logic that we can derive from how things in the universe unfold should be derived from him and if that is the case then there should not be any reason why his own inherent powers should be restricted by this logic. if that is not the case then one must ask where this logical order comes from in the first place.

and once again, i think you are jumping the gun in trying to present the problem of avoiding the innocent deaths caused by natural disasters as being akin to creating a stone that you cannot lift. in the first scenario, the goal (which you haven't specified) has not been shown to be inherently contradictory to the secondary goal of avoiding negative side effects (death and suffering). this secondary goal flows naturally from the idea of a benevolent force being the agent at work in this scenario.

there is no apparent logical paradox in the idea that god can achieve a goal without unwanted side effects. the only way we run into a logical dilemma is if the death and suffering is actually part of the goal. then it would be illogical to assert that god could achieve his goal without the side effects; but those side effects would also cease to be side effects since they are part of the goal. in that case, the idea that the goal is an evil one gains some legitimacy.