God cannot know everything. Carnal love, reproduction or sex.

arauca said:
I see you are a disguised disciple of bishop Dawkins . So you are preaching and serving Dawkins religion .
Click to expand...

Just another religion like yours except that it has a logic trail.

All yours has is fantasy, miracles, magic and a genocidal son murdering fool of a God.

Hmm. Which has better morals?

Better no God than your God if morals are to be the measure of a good theology.

Regards
DL
 
wellwisher said:
Free will allows choices, which do not have to be optimized in any rational sense. Even if you created a perfect world based on logic, human free will allows the option to choose subjectivity and imperfection.

As an example, say Dawkins is teaching about evolution and he knows all about it almost to perfection. He tells his audience, "you don't have to be sheep and blindly follow what I say. Instead everyone can choose to beleive what they wish since I want all to have free will.

Because he allows free will, some might choose to believe in the opposite of what he just taught. This may mess up the harmony of the Dawkins world view in that lecture hall. But it does not take away from Dawkins since his knowledge of evolution did not change. Allowing choice instead of marketing conformity puts perfection in the hands of the imperfect.

The same is true with God, free will is very expansive and even allows options that are imperfect causing imperfection and conflict within the creation. But this does not change knowledge of perfection. It only makes it harder to obtain. In the above example, would it be Dawkins fault? Maybe, because it didn't require robots who memorize, but allowed free will.
Click to expand...

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.




Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, we should see that what we have, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL
 
wellwisher said:
Free will allows choices, which do not have to be optimized in any rational sense. Even if you created a perfect world based on logic, human free will allows the option to choose subjectivity and imperfection.

As an example, say Dawkins is teaching about evolution and he knows all about it almost to perfection. He tells his audience, "you don't have to be sheep and blindly follow what I say. Instead everyone can choose to beleive what they wish since I want all to have free will.

Because he allows free will, some might choose to believe in the opposite of what he just taught. This may mess up the harmony of the Dawkins world view in that lecture hall. But it does not take away from Dawkins since his knowledge of evolution did not change. Allowing choice instead of marketing conformity puts perfection in the hands of the imperfect.

The same is true with God, free will is very expansive and even allows options that are imperfect causing imperfection and conflict within the creation. But this does not change knowledge of perfection. It only makes it harder to obtain. In the above example, would it be Dawkins fault? Maybe, because it didn't require robots who memorize, but allowed free will.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not a religion, and Richard Dawkins is not a religious figure. He is a scientist. And he does not ask or hope that anyone believes him blindly; he is teaching what is observable and knowable.
 
Greatest I am said:
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.




Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, we should see that what we have, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.
Click to expand...

How many times are you going to make this almost identical post? Repetition doesn't lend credence, and I've already fully explained the logic of free will to you.
 
Greatest I am said:
Just another religion like yours except that it has a logic trail.

All yours has is fantasy, miracles, magic and a genocidal son murdering fool of a God.

Hmm. Which has better morals?

Better no God than your God if morals are to be the measure of a good theology.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

When did man learned morals ? Is it just in the 20 century ?
Morality is a product of religious evolution . I am certain the Bolshevick or tha Maoist did not establish morality . You and your lieder Dawkins are product of christian evolution, and now you pretend you have invented morality.
 
arauca said:
When did man learned morals ? Is it just in the 20 century ?
Morality is a product of religious evolution . I am certain the Bolshevick or tha Maoist did not establish morality . You and your lieder Dawkins are product of christian evolution, and now you pretend you have invented morality.
Click to expand...

Check the book of the dead for the source of your morality.

It is what ended up in the bible.

Check almost anything in your bible and you will note how it is made up of a bunch of older religions and myths.

You might also check and see just who is more moral? Countries of believers or those with more atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL
 
spidergoat said:
We could have no idea how life came about or how cells work, it doesn't make the God hypothesis any more reasonable.
Click to expand...

I believe to drive a reaction forward there have to be some negative Free energy, or work to be done some energy have ri be behind to drive the reaction forward
 
Greatest I am said:
Have at it. Name your game.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...



Don't give me check out this ir that . Don't you realize that you don't haqve your own mind but use a collection of the past .
Let me give you an example . How long or how many generation does take to domesticate a wolf or fox into a dog ?
So you are or your bishop suddenly become so intellectual after how many generation since the primitive man , You are saying you have 4 kids . If you would have trained them and you lived in the wilderness they would be like animals so would you.
I don't look at a bible as a religion , the bible is a way of life that have been for over 3000 years. I believe you have learned a lot from the bible. Same as your bishop Dawkins a son of a former missionary in Africa ?
 
Free will is a wild card variable, with respect to creation, since it allows one to choose among alternatives. The result of free will and choice can be perfection, or chaos added to order and imperfection added to perfection.

As an example, we will start with a machine that operates at 90% efficiency. Next, we will add free will to all the parts of this machine. By this I mean each gear and electronic component no longer has to follow its original design cause and effect but can act randomly or chose to behave differently in terms of material properties. Metals can turn to rubber, due to free will and choice, etc. The machine will be made more inefficient, since more can do wrong than right. It is not the original design that is flawed but the free will flawing the design.

To get back to 90% efficiency, we will need our free will gears to choose the proper parameters needed for the overall machine. Say 50% of the gears and electronics do this, the machine will still not work at 90%, since they are still 50% rubber gears. As long as even one gear stays rubber, it can bog down the entire machine. We can know this will occur (omniscience) but since we wish to protect the free will of even this one gear, we allow this loss of efficiency.

Why protect free will, if it can screw up the machine and make the machine maker look less competent to the atheist layman? Within free will is not just the potential for a negative outcome, but also the potential for a progressive outcome.

The gear cannot only chose to remain/become the original metal or rubber, but it can also chose to improve the original design by becoming a titanium alloy. Nature waits for this improvement to the natural design. But first the rubber gears of free will need to become conscious of how they mess up the basic design. As along as the free will child blames someone else, creation waits for the future.
 
arauca said:
Don't give me check out this ir that . Don't you realize that you don't haqve your own mind but use a collection of the past .
Let me give you an example . How long or how many generation does take to domesticate a wolf or fox into a dog ?
So you are or your bishop suddenly become so intellectual after how many generation since the primitive man , You are saying you have 4 kids . If you would have trained them and you lived in the wilderness they would be like animals so would you.
I don't look at a bible as a religion , the bible is a way of life that have been for over 3000 years. I believe you have learned a lot from the bible. Same as your bishop Dawkins a son of a former missionary in Africa ?
Click to expand...

Was there an issue here?

Regards
DL
 
GASHOLE said:
God ≠ Logic
Click to expand...

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther


“Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ.”
Martin Luther

Regards
DL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top