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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Then there must be evil in Heaven...
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.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.
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.
My heaven? I don't know what you mean.
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?
good v ¬good (arity=2)
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. basically your saying that logic is superior to god.
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.
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.
(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}
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.
Originally posted by TacDaveythe 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.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.
Like I said. His creation would be less grand if it did not have Free will, and free will demands the possibility for evil.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?
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.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?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 [B]you
can see. And it isn't hard to see the flaw in that line of reasoning. [/b]
What's your point?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.
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.
Originally posted by TacDaveynot 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.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.we can make any choice we are capable of making, based on which actions/thoughts are available to us.
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.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.'
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.i just don't understand why it doesn't apply to specific religions who's deity plays the same basic role.