Burden of Proof

[Katazia]

Jcarl,

Free will is in and of itself good.

Why? If I am free to do anything I choose then I am free to murder. If I am genetically disposed to be a murderous psychopath and free will allows me to vent those design features then where is the real origin of the evil? If God is both the designer and the giver of free will then God appears to be the true cause of the evil twofold and I would be merely the instrument of his whims. Or will you argue the absurdity that the devil engineered all the bad genetic mutations and God engineered all the good genes? But it seems to me that free will is neither good nor bad but entirely neutral. What makes us choose one action over another seems more due to our intelligence and knowledge base.

W/o free will, there is no love.

Why? If we were designed to love then why wouldn’t we love?

Now, since we consider that God made us so that He may love us, and we may love Him,

You mean in much the same way that we own and love pets? If God is so desperate to be loved why doesn’t he go and find a she-God as would any lonely healthy adult?

then it seems obvious that he must also give us free will to either reject Him or accept Him.

Why? If he wanted us to love him why give us the choice to reject him. If I design a device for a specific purpose I would not include features that do not fulfill the purpose of the device.

He is still all-powerful, but He isn't going to shove His love down your throat, as that would be forced-love.

Only if we knew we had a choice, without free will we wouldn’t experience the emotion of being forced to do anything.

Now the only way to destroy evil would be to destroy free will.

Which is the same thing as not giving us free will in the first place; the provision of which you have yet to provide a rational explanation

That however would be in and of itself evil.

Why? Without giving us the choice to commit evil we of course would not commit evil. Sounds like a poor design choice.

Furthermore, the more capabilities you give something, the more of a two sided coin we can be: thus with our free will we can be much better, but we can also become much worse.

This doesn’t say anything other than indicate that we were given a gift that had no instructions on how to use it. You seem to be compounding God’s errors even further – we see that free will can lead to evil acts, and now we see he was incompetent for not giving us instructions, and he also appears to have been incompetent for building us with features he didn’t really want.

"To be bad he[the Devil] must also exist, have intelligence, and have free will.

Or as I have also indicated God is incompetent, which seems far more likely. And of course if he didn’t want evil then why allow the devil to exist? Unless he isn’t all-powerful.

But existence, intelligence, and free will are in and of themselves good.

Why? The police around the world have many files on unsolved crimes. It would appear there are some very intelligent criminals in existence. Again, existence, intelligence, and free will must be neutral of good or bad.

Kat

 

[Godless]

Free will is a contradiction to god's omnipotence. I.E. If a beign knows what the future lies ahead and cannot change it, then we have no free will, cause everything has been determined before hand, no choice equals no free will. If god can't change an event because it was suppose to happen then "he" is not omnipotent, and he has no free will.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_has_no_free_will.html

Godless.

 

[VitalOne]

It depends upon what you mean by reality. Typically our experiences are not considered to be reality; they are our world-view, our subjective perception of reality. Necessarily, we operate from this world-view but it is only a model of reality. The problem then becomes one of congruence with reality, how closely our model reflects it.

No. Facts are not subjective. The fact that it is 19 degrees Fahrenheit outside my window right now is a fact; it is not open to interpretation, discussion, or subjective differences (excluding possible arguments to the accuracy of my thermometer). Whether 19 degrees is warm or cold or possible theories as to why it is 19 degrees is open to subjective interpretation. Even the double-slit experiment is not subjective. If the experiment is configured one way you will get a certain result, if it is configured another way you will get a different result. What you are really questioning here is the interpretation of the facts, subjective or relative opinions regarding the facts, or hypothetical / theoretical explanations of the facts. Facts are resolute or they are not facts.

Well, science never stated that only gays could get aids, the notion of a virus that is selective in this manner is absurd to any biologist, yet one's behavior can affect the probability of contracting any particular disease. Still with all of these notions you are questioning the interpretation of the facts; theories that were based upon inconclusive evidence or were simply incorrect. Science does not lie but it is forced to posit theories that are most often based upon incomplete data. This is why they are called hypotheses and theories and not facts. Unfortunately, people often refer to hypotheses and theories as facts even though they are not.

No, they do not. Classical physics simply cannot explain the behavior of objects at the quantum level and vice versa. Each paradigm is extraordinarily good at predicting the world at its level of focus. Once again we are working with models not facts. We have the classical model which explains the macroscopic world and the quantum model that explains the microscopic world. What we are working on is a model that can explain both.

And that's definitely a motto I agree with. The key that I think most people are missing is a real understanding of how science works. The best analogy I can find is that scientists are model makers. Just like any model maker the goal is to duplicate the exact relationships that exist in the real world except on a different scale.

~Raithere

No, in the 80s it was stated on the cover a popular science magazine that only homosexuals could get aids. Do some research. A lie is what is not the truth. Science states things which aren't true, or lies.

No, a fact is a subjective interpretation. For instance, I may observe the thermometer reading 19.5 degrees while you observe it reading 19 degrees. It's all subjective. Different observers observe different things. Someone with "bad" vision may look at something and say there's nothing there, then someone with "good" vision may look at the samething and see something. Facts are proved by showing other observers what was observed. For reality to exist, you need an observer. Reality only exists within the observers mind. There is no outside reality which we interpret things. The brain sends signals and then we interpret them. So when you "prove" something you are just proving that your brain or a groups of brains interpret things in a certain way. If I die, you may observe me being dead, and I may be observing something totally different. By your definition of a fact, there are no facts. None.

Here are some failures of Classical Physics -
Photoelectric effect
Blackbody radiation
Line spectra
Physiological effects of radiation
Wave properties of electron (electron microscope)

In these experiments, the outcome is not what classical physics says it will be.

 

[Raithere]

No, in the 80s it was stated on the cover a popular science magazine that only homosexuals could get aids. Do some research.

Covers of popular science magazines are not peer reviewed scientific publications. Popular science magazine articles are typically written by journalists, not the scientists who have performed the experiments and magazine covers are designed to grab people's attention often twisting the truth a bit. Additionally, there are many popular magazines that depict themselves as science oriented but have very little to do with science at all. Omni, comes to mind. My bet is that the research behind that cover article concluded that AIDS was not easily transmitted through vaginal intercourse and that the risk during anal intercourse was much higher. The result was then mistranslated in the broad and generalized cover statement by journalists and editors, not scientists.

A lie is what is not the truth. Science states things which aren't true, or lies.

No. A falsehood is a statement that is not true. A lie is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" (MW online). Lies are deliberate falsehoods and while there are some scientists who have lied, the intent of science as a practice has never been to deceive.

No, a fact is a subjective interpretation. For instance, I may observe the thermometer reading 19.5 degrees while you observe it reading 19 degrees.

It's a digital thermometer and is not prone to erroneous readings due to the angle of observation. Even on a standard thermometer however, the fact remains. Any difference in observation can be attributed to objective physical principles (such as the angle of observation).

It's all subjective. Different observers observe different things. Someone with "bad" vision may look at something and say there's nothing there, then someone with "good" vision may look at the samething and see something.

Just because two people have different perspectives of something (due to their location or quality of eyesight for instance) does not mean that there are two different things. You're confusing the perception of things with the things themselves. Again, methodology comes into play. There are various ways of identifying and eliminating such biases.

Facts are proved by showing other observers what was observed. For reality to exist, you need an observer. Reality only exists within the observers mind. There is no outside reality which we interpret things.

No, perception and knowledge exist within the mind.

The mind exists within reality; reality does not exist only within the mind. This is basic. If this is not true you are reduced to futile absurdities. The consequence of this condition is that you are god, the only real being, and reality is nothing but a dream over which you have almost no control or understanding. You are also faced with creation ex nihlo for before you were conscious there was nothing existent to cause your creation.

This is not to say that I can disprove this might be true... but it is rather futile and absurd. Ultimately you really have no choice except to behave as if reality existed independently of your mind.

And by the way, you're not dreaming me, I'm dreaming you.

So when you "prove" something you are just proving that your brain or a groups of brains interpret things in a certain way.

Not if you prove it properly.

If I die, you may observe me being dead, and I may be observing something totally different.

There is no reason to suspect you will observe anything at all as your organs of perception and consciousness will be non-functional.

By your definition of a fact, there are no facts. None.

There are lots of facts, they just have to be carefully qualified.

In these experiments, the outcome is not what classical physics says it will be.

Except for the 'physiological effects of radiation' (which is biology not physics) I already stated this. Classical physics cannot predict quantum phenomena. These effects are covered by quantum mechanics. The two do not disagree they just fail to predict certain phenomena accurately.

~Raithere

 

[Godless]

Raithere..

VitalOne has it pinned on his mind that life is nothing but an illusion. He perceives and you and I perceive via a subjective mind, though I don't accept that what I perceive is just illusory, however to argue his point, is kind of futile, I tell him that the only way to explain existence to him is by non-existence. Which is an imposibility.

And I've found that I'm not very knowledgeable in physics to explain existence, I am HighSchool drop out, education was never my cup of tea. If you catch my drift!. I had the opportunity to earn a living when very young so I went the route of high wage labor. I worked in the Oil fields.

Anyhow back on topic. My favorite philosopher Ayn Rand, has spoken about this topic, though I might of grabed borrowed some senteces out of context and yet confused Vital some what. So I try again with her topic in Skepticism.

Skepticism: "We know that we know nothingm," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge--"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute--"You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious," they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. Ayn Rand.

Godless.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Godless,

I'm back!

I had heard life was an illusion, I didn't believe that crap!!

What do you think is meant by the term; Life is an illusion?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Godless]

Promise no more personal attacks?...

How can I explain life is not an illusion?. How can I explain I exist when someone is trying to tell me that life is an illusion?, that may be the way you perceive life to be, I just been through another thread and all I get from VitalOne is an attack that "I'm an idiot" cause I think life is real?"

Existence exists, and that is an axiom, if you are to refute that existence is not real you would have to debate from a non-existence stance. Which is imposible.

An illusion is something that is not real. A way to decieve the audience, per instance magicians use illusions to do their tricks, we are "fooled" to believe his magic, if life were to be just an "llusion"who is the magician? God!! LOL..

God is an illusion, some entity that has no identity, no physical manifestation, yet perceived to be real!! that is what an illusion is!. If you read my words, and comprehend what I'm trying to say, hence you should understand that I have a consciousness, that I have a physical body, that I in essence exist, and that you exists since you are to be looking and reading this message and have a physical body, and a consciousness that perceives these words. You are not an illusion.

http://www.plusroot.com/dbook/09Illusion.html

Definition of Illusion:
Illusion, as plus defined, refers to propositions or sets of propositions people judge to be true that in actually are false. From this point of view, illusions are always intellectual and inadvertent. People do not deliberately seek illusions. To the contrary, they think the illusion is true.

Undetected error is the substance of illusion. An illusion presents an error, often a cluster of errors, as if the mistakes were not mistakes. Being blind to the inaccuracy, we unwittingly give illusions the status of truth and bestow on the illusion all the respect and honor due to truth and honesty. It is hard to unravel an illusion because the illusion is assumed to be true.

The above website is interesting and speaks of this matter. also look here if you care to have an objective view with your subjective mind!.

http://www.inteco.cl/biology/ontology/index.htm

Godless.

 

[VitalOne]

Covers of popular science magazines are not peer reviewed scientific publications. Popular science magazine articles are typically written by journalists, not the scientists who have performed the experiments and magazine covers are designed to grab people's attention often twisting the truth a bit. Additionally, there are many popular magazines that depict themselves as science oriented but have very little to do with science at all. Omni, comes to mind. My bet is that the research behind that cover article concluded that AIDS was not easily transmitted through vaginal intercourse and that the risk during anal intercourse was much higher. The result was then mistranslated in the broad and generalized cover statement by journalists and editors, not scientists.

The journalist get there information from scientists and universities, they don't just make it up.

No. A falsehood is a statement that is not true. A lie is "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive" (MW online). Lies are deliberate falsehoods and while there are some scientists who have lied, the intent of science as a practice has never been to deceive.

NO, a lie as a noun (I did not mean to lie, I meant a lie), is "A false statement deliberately presented as being true". Science presents information as being true, when it is not.

It's a digital thermometer and is not prone to erroneous readings due to the angle of observation. Even on a standard thermometer however, the fact remains. Any difference in observation can be attributed to objective physical principles (such as the angle of observation).

Just because two people have different perspectives of something (due to their location or quality of eyesight for instance) does not mean that there are two different things. You're confusing the perception of things with the things themselves. Again, methodology comes into play. There are various ways of identifying and eliminating such biases.

Ok, but the only reason it's a "fact" is because the two people (or however amount) observe the samethings because of their similar senses. Ask a blind man what the digital thermometer says. The only reason you'd say he's wrong is because more people observe something else. The perception of things creates the thing.

No, perception and knowledge exist within the mind.

So reality exist within the mind. "Perception" of reality, is reality.

The mind exists within reality; reality does not exist only within the mind. This is basic. If this is not true you are reduced to futile absurdities. The consequence of this condition is that you are god, the only real being, and reality is nothing but a dream over which you have almost no control or understanding. You are also faced with creation ex nihlo for before you were conscious there was nothing existent to cause your creation.

This is not to say that I can disprove this might be true... but it is rather futile and absurd. Ultimately you really have no choice except to behave as if reality existed independently of your mind.

And by the way, you're not dreaming me, I'm dreaming you.

This is basic...because? Think about it. My reality can't exist without me observing it. Your reality can't exist without you observing it. So that either means that reality is dependant on the mind (which it is most likely) or that the mind is dependant on an outside reality. The mind clearly at least influences our "perception" of reality, experiences, etc... How can you prove that their is a reality outside our perceptions? You can't. Why is it absurd? Because you can't accept it?

The bottom line remains that you cannot prove there is a reality beyond our perceptions. Everyone's reality depends on their mind. Evidence pointing toward reality being dependant on the mind include the observer affect (yes I know about the different interpretations), delay affect, and more. Without our minds, reality no longer exist.

Not if you prove it properly.

That way is...?

There is no reason to suspect you will observe anything at all as your organs of perception and consciousness will be non-functional.

Try explaining a feeling like anger to someone who has never experienced it. You can't. Try explaining color to a blind man. You can't. You can't explain something you've never experienced. Just as you can't explain an experience to someone who has never experienced it (or anything relating to it).

There are lots of facts, they just have to be carefully qualified.

Again the "fact" is the idea agreed upon by those who observe similar things.

Except for the 'physiological effects of radiation' (which is biology not physics) I already stated this. Classical physics cannot predict quantum phenomena. These effects are covered by quantum mechanics. The two do not disagree they just fail to predict certain phenomena accurately.

~Raithere

They have concepts that contradict each other by predicting different things for similar situations, making their ideas disagree.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Godless,

How can I explain I exist when someone is trying to tell me that life is an illusion?

Existense is also experienced in a dream which we mutualy accept is an illusion.

Existence exists, and that is an axiom, if you are to refute that existence is not real you would have to debate from a non-existence stance. Which is imposible.

See above.

An illusion is something that is not real.

Partly, yes. I would define it as "that which is not".

A way to decieve the audience, per instance magicians use illusions to do their tricks, we are "fooled" to believe his magic, if life were to be just an "llusion"who is the magician? God!! LOL..

When we see the act of a magician, what we see is real. The rabbit does come out of the hat. Does it not?

I have never stated that life "is" an illusion, only that life "may be" an illusion.

God is an illusion, some entity that has no identity, no physical manifestation, yet perceived to be real!! that is what an illusion is!.

1) Before you jump to that conclusion we should first understand the nature of an illusion.

2) You maintain that i said life was an illusion, when in fact i said no such thing. If you can force such obvious errors, why should your assertion that "God is an illusion" be anything else than yet another error?

hence you should understand that I have a consciousness,

But you also have consciousness in a dream, in which you are also alive and kicking, yet we regard dreams and fantasies as illusions.

that I have a physical body, that I in essence exist,

Read above.

You are not an illusion.

But i am not life. I live life under any circumstance whether real or illusory. How i live my life is up to me, so life can be illusory or not as the case may be.

Thanks for the url's, they are very interesting. I shall look more deeply into them.

Jan Ardena.

 

[okinrus]

Why? If I am free to do anything I choose then I am free to murder. If I am genetically disposed to be a murderous psychopath and free will allows me to vent those design features then where is the real origin of the evil?

You are not have free will to do anything. While some people may be predisposed to be murderous psychopath, it is clear that environment and most especially how the person deals with their environment plays a great deal. If you subject choice to nothing, then no one deserves punishment.

If God is both the designer and the giver of free will then God appears to be the true cause of the evil twofold and I would be merely the instrument of his whims. Or will you argue the absurdity that the devil engineered all the bad genetic mutations and God engineered all the good genes? But it seems to me that free will is neither good nor bad but entirely neutral. What makes us choose one action over another seems more due to our intelligence and knowledge base.

You are assuming by false premise that genes forcefully cause someone to act. Free will is the supernatural. You cannot believe in the existance of free will without believing in the soul, for it is clear that matter follows the laws of nature. While knowledge does indeed effect the God's punishment of an action -- what is wrong is wrong. If God has a will, then the opposite of his will is evil. Thus, God creates the possibility of good and evil for his creatures as soon as he gives his creature free will. If he did not give them free will, his creatures would never be able to do good of their own will. This much be said of knowledge. The persuit of knowledge that should not be known will leed the soul to disaster much the same way as Adam and Eve. This knowlege, however, is not innate and must be learned by concience choice. But although there is knowlege that is not from God, there is also knowledge from God.

Or as I have also indicated God is incompetent, which seems far more likely. And of course if he didn’t want evil then why allow the devil to exist? Unless he isn’t all-powerful.

Satan was God's most powerful angel; however, inquity was found in him by Satan's free choice. He was banished from heaven and has created his hell of sorts. God does not make souls disappear because that would be against his goodness. The only way that God could overcome evil was to allow evil to show all of it's power, and then overcome it. If he made all of the forces of evil just disappear, evil was never truely overcome by goodness. Rather, the act of making his creation disappear would have been an evil act by power but not goodness, for it was the persuit of power that made Satan fall.

Why? If we were designed to love then why wouldn’t we love?

Love is always an expresion of a choice freely made.

Only if we knew we had a choice, without free will we wouldn’t experience the emotion of being forced to do anything.

We, as an independant creature would not exist, nor for that matter experience anything.

 

[okinrus]

Free will is a contradiction to god's omnipotence. I.E. If a beign knows what the future lies ahead and cannot change it, then we have no free will, cause everything has been determined before hand, no choice equals no free will. If god can't change an event because it was suppose to happen then "he" is not omnipotent, and he has no free will.

Agreed, somewhat at least. The open view theology takes a different view where God does not know the full future. Nevertheless, I don't think knowing what God knows is essential Christian doctrine, and seems to be more of mystery. Moreover, there quite a few passages that would suggest that God does not know the full future but is still all-knowing. It is possible that God knows every choice and the consequence of every choice, but allows some choices to be made freely by us. Thus, the choices that God allows to be made freely are not predestined. God still could be outside of time and know any event in the future by restricting the number of free choices.

 

[Raithere]

I tell him that the only way to explain existence to him is by non-existence. Which is an imposibility.

Essentially, I agree.

Re Ayn Rand: Epistemology is a bit more complex and difficult to resolve than what she presents here but I agree with her that nihilistic reduction invalidates itself.

~Raithere

The journalist get there information from scientists and universities, they don't just make it up.

You're telling me you trust journalists to report accurately and not to exaggerate? This is simple VitalOne, just find me a scientific article from a peer reviewed journal. Otherwise, I highly doubt that any scientists would make such a bold claim that even I as a layperson find ridiculous.

Science presents information as being true, when it is not.

No, it really doesn't. Theories are sometimes given a large amount of support but science rarely states that any theory is unequivocally true. Technically they only state that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports a theory (at which point we call it a Law). But all scientists recognize that even a single provable exception to any theory or law invalidates the theory. The problem is that this extreme skepticism is not often remarked upon. If you actually read peer reviewed articles it would be self-evident however journalists tend not to report things in this manner because most people would find it nit-picky and boring.

Here are some brief outlines of what goes into a scientific publication:
http://bioclox.bot.biologie.uni-tuebingen.de/Html_we/english/Books/ren96/ren96/node20.html

http://bioweb.wku.edu/courses/Biol398/Paper/paperText.html

And here's a piece on scientific truth:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node9.html#SECTION02124000000000000000

Ok, but the only reason it's a "fact" is because the two people (or however amount) observe the samethings because of their similar senses. Ask a blind man what the digital thermometer says. The only reason you'd say he's wrong is because more people observe something else. The perception of things creates the thing.

No, the only reason I would say he's wrong is because he'd be lying if he answered. If, however, my thermometer had a brail or audio output he would confirm the fact.

So reality exist within the mind. "Perception" of reality, is reality.

What is it that are you perceiving if existence is entirely within the mind?

This is basic...because? Think about it. My reality can't exist without me observing it. Your reality can't exist without you observing it.

Who are you and I? If reality exists within your mind then I do not exist independently of your mind; there is no me. You are only talking to yourself. Interesting that you are disagreeing with yourself, isn't it?

The bottom line remains that you cannot prove there is a reality beyond our perceptions.

I already stated that. Of course, you cannot prove that it doesn't. The problem is that your assumption means that noting exists except yourself.

They have concepts that contradict each other by predicting different things for similar situations, making their ideas disagree.

No. Classical physics does not predict anything about quantum mechanics. In order to even attempt this one must rely upon certain assumptions about quantum events that are false. Since the assumptions have been demonstrated to be false they are invalid. Thus Classical physics is wholly inapplicable to Quantum events. It's like trying to use the rules of football rules to score a baseball game. You can't.

~Raithere

 

[jcarl]

Jcarl,

Why? If I am free to do anything I choose then I am free to murder. If I am genetically disposed to be a murderous psychopath and free will allows me to vent those design features then where is the real origin of the evil?[/b]

As humans we have a nature to sin/cause evil. Now, we can choose to act upon those impulses, or we can choose to not use them. This is once again, choice.

If God is both the designer and the giver of free will then God appears to be the true cause of the evil

He gives us the choice to do what we please. Now when we mess up, why do you put the blame on Him?

twofold and I would be merely the instrument of his whims.

If you were the instruments of his whims, then you wouldn't know it or have the capacity to. Furthermore, God did NOT make us as little robots to simply do his will. As I've said before, we were created to love Him, and vice versa; and to give us no choice is to simply back us into a corner and leave us no option but to love Him. That is not love. To love means that you have a choice to show affection and have fellowship with someone.

Or will you argue the absurdity that the devil engineered all the bad genetic mutations and God engineered all the good genes?

No, just that our sin nature, inherited by Adam, has caused us to become corrupt people.

But it seems to me that free will is neither good nor bad but entirely neutral. What makes us choose one action over another seems more due to our intelligence and knowledge base.

"...free will, although it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having."Mere Christianity-by C.S. Lewis.

Why? If we were designed to love then why wouldn’t we love?

Again to love is to have options to reject or accept.

You mean in much the same way that we own and love pets? If God is so desperate to be loved why doesn’t he go and find a she-God as would any lonely healthy adult?

To compare God's love for us to our love for our pets is a gross underestimate. There is no human analogy that perfectly portrays God's love for us. His love is agape love, true, unconditional love.

Why? If he wanted us to love him why give us the choice to reject him. If I design a device for a specific purpose I would not include features that do not fulfill the purpose of the device.

Again, you seem to want God to have made us as all little robots. Then we can't love or have any "love" worth having.(See CS Lewis quote)
Secondly, love is a unique purpose. To allow something to love you, you must give it the option to not love you.

without free will we wouldn’t experience the emotion of being forced to do anything.

Yes because that would be all of your knowledge, all your experience, could tell you. But then we would also have no knowledge of true love, or joy, or happiness, etc.

Which is the same thing as not giving us free will in the first place; the provision of which you have yet to provide a rational explanation

So what you're asking for is ,"why did God give us free will at all?" Again so we could have a fellowship with Him, and vice versa.

Why? Without giving us the choice to commit evil we of course would not commit evil. Sounds like a poor design choice.

We would also not have the choice to do good. We have a sinful nature, that's what it boils down to. We can choose to embrace that nature or we can crucify it and kill it. The choice is ours.

This doesn’t say anything other than indicate that we were given a gift that had no instructions on how to use it.

We are given the Bible as our instruction guide. When you disregard the instructions, don't then turn around and claim that there are no instructions.

You seem to be compounding God’s errors even further – we see that free will can lead to evil acts,

Look at both sides: it can also lead to good things.

and now we see he was incompetent for not giving us instructions

He gave us instructions; you simply choose to not accept them.

and he also appears to have been incompetent for building us with features he didn’t really want.

See most of the above.

Or as I have also indicated God is incompetent, which seems far more likely. And of course if he didn’t want evil then why allow the devil to exist? Unless he isn’t all-powerful.

The devil is the alternative. Now we have a choice. What then shall we choose?

Why? The police around the world have many files on unsolved crimes. It would appear there are some very intelligent criminals in existence. Again, existence, intelligence, and free will must be neutral of good or bad.

Why intelligence, existence, and free will are good
-intelligence--allows us to think for ourselves
-existence--it is better to exist than not exist(if you disagree, then why haven't you killed yourself?)
-free will--makes true emotions, esp. love, possible.

 

[Godless]

Hello J! how you been?.

"God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom."

To compare God's love for us to our love for our pets is a gross underestimate. There is no human analogy that perfectly portrays God's love for us. His love is agape love, true, unconditional love.

G! you think this is what they believe over there in Iran were 40thousand died with only one earthquake?.

So what you're asking for is ,"why did God give us free will at all?" Again so we could have a fellowship with Him, and vice versa.

Dellussional! this can lead to skytzophrenia, talking in tongues, believe that god made you kill, blame it on god!. type of argument.

We are given the Bible as our instruction guide. When you disregard the instructions, don't then turn around and claim that there are no instructions.

There are many "guides" how can any one of them claim absolute?.

Love is a human emotion, to those who bring value to a relationship, what value can we get from something we have to have faith that exists without knowledge of it's existence. Because I'm an atheist, does not deny me the affection of love, or love of another family member, or that they love me, love is not god, if it were then god is only an emotion, a human one at that!.

Godless.

 

[Godless]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Carl Sagan

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Hello J! how you been?.

Very very busy

G! you think this is what they believe over there in Iran were 40thousand died with only one earthquake?.

What you're trying to do here is say that God's love, or even God for that matter, isn't shown because of disasters such as this. Look at the world around you; how many are actually living a semi-moral life?(how many have even searched to see if the Bible, etc are true?) The point is that this world is a corrupt place. There is a punishment for such things.

Dellussional!

How so?

this can lead to schizophrenia, talking in tongues, believe that god made you kill, blame it on god!. type of argument.

If anyone blames something they did wrong on God, then they are sadly mistaken. Although I know you were kidding with your first statement, for anyone to place all blame on God is foolish.

There are many "guides" how can any one of them claim absolute?.

The only way they can not be absolute is for them to be proven otherwise. Now the big question: what do you use to show that the Bible is not absolute?

Love is a human emotion, to those who bring value to a relationship, what value can we get from something we have to have faith that exists without knowledge of it's existence.

To have an outsider judge the value of a relationship oftentimes results in a skewed observation. You can't see the value of a relationship w/ God b/c you lack that relationship yourself. Furthermore, who are we to put values on other people's relationships.

Because I'm an atheist, does not deny me the affection of love, or love of another family member, or that they love me,

Never said that it did, but I ask you this: from where does that feeling come.

{B]love is not god, if it were then god is only an emotion, a human one at that!.

Love is not God, but God is love. God isn't an aspect of love, but love is an aspect of God. Secondly, from where do you believe that this emotion came from?

 

[Godless]

From the same place that all emotions come from J. Hate,love,fear,intuition,joy, etc.. They are an evolutionary part of being human.

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Interesting. Tell me how is it that we all evolved from the same stuff, and yet we all react differently(take babies for instance, since they are least likely to become hardened to certain situations.) Why do some display so much emotion that you almost want to slap them, while their siblings might be moving statues?

Oops forgot this one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Carl Sagan

What constitutes extraordinary evidence? A voice from the Heaven? A bolt of lightining? If you were given this, would you then believe?

 

[Godless]

We all evolved differently no two are the same, not even if they are twins.

A bolt of lightning I see every time it rains, a voice from heavens if it's not audible, and sounds like a roar, is only thunder, I think I've already experienced both of these phenomenon, and I'm still an athiest.

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

We all evolved differently no two are the same, not even if they are twins.[/B]

So if two identical specimens are subjected to the same things, then something different else comes out for each one? Or am I missing something.

A bolt of lightning I see every time it rains, a voice from heavens if it's not audible, and sounds like a roar, is only thunder, I think I've already experienced both of these phenomenon, and I'm still an athiest.

I think I got you off the question: what would constitute extraordinary evidence?