polytheism vs monotheism

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.

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 "[B]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... [/B]

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)

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.

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 [B]not dictating acceptable choices and then "freely" allowing us to choose between them. [/B]

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

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"

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.

Originally posted by TacDavey
What do you mean?

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.

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 [B]not dictating acceptable choices and then "freely" allowing us to choose between them. [/B]

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.