God's parenting skills.. or lack thereof

[LaoTzu]

Yeah

Jaxom said it all for me. Just take this as a "ditto."

 

[Xelios]

He is, but He chooses not to be.

Excellent logic TruthSeeker, he is all powerful, but he chooses not to be all powerful, which means he isn't all powerful, which contradicts the original statement.

How can you define something as "good" if there is no "evil"? You can only define something for its own opposite. What is emptyness without fullness?

My point exactly. If evil does not exist we wouldn't need to choose between it or good, everything we can do is good. This is a more limited form of free will, but nevertheless it is free will. And personally, I would rather live in a world of only good and know that my free will was mildly impaired because of it.

How can yo ask Him something if you don't even believe He exists!?!? You can only ask Him something and receive it is you not only believe He exists, but also know it 100% sure. Only in this situation you can receive what you ask. This is what Faith is, the knowledge of God.

How can God help you if He doesn't exist (for you)? If you say: "God doesn't exist", then how can He help you? If you don't believe He exists and still ask Him, then you are pretty foolish, aren't you!?!?

Not foolish at all, if really does exist and I just don't believe he does he can still help me. If I don't believe air to exist does this mean the air can no longer supply oxygen to my blood?

I find this very amusing. Theists often engage in this type of reasoning, in one reply they state that God cannot be limited by the laws of science, or by logic, or any other Earthly thing, then in the next post they say God is limited by our choices. When argueing for God it's easy to have the best of both worlds because you can assign whatever attribute you want to him. If you need him to be omniscient for one arguement, great! He's omniscient. If you need him to be limited by our choices in the next arguement then awesome! He's limited by our choices!

This is the difficulty in argueing against God, you are dealing with an idea that can be molded to fit any arguement while you yourself are limited to using facts and must instead mold your arguements around your ideas. In short, in theism you can mold your idea around your arguements, in atheism you have to mold your arguements around your idea.

 

[LaoTzu]

Wherein An Atheist Defends Theism

Originally posted by Xelios
Excellent logic TruthSeeker, he is all powerful, but he chooses not to be all powerful, which means he isn't all powerful, which contradicts the original statement.

My point exactly. If evil does not exist we wouldn't need to choose between it or good, everything we can do is good. This is a more limited form of free will, but nevertheless it is free will. And personally, I would rather live in a world of only good and know that my free will was mildly impaired because of it.

This is one part where I actually agree with TruthSeeker (as far as the logic goes, not the premises). If all you had was "good," then "good" would be a meaningless buzzword. There cannot be "good" without "bad," and presumably, God would know this. If God strives for good, He has to allow for bad. Refusing to eliminate all badness does not indicate His impotence, it shows that He actually wants the badness to be there so that there can be more goodness. God's not a Taoist, but it makes sense (from that perspective).

 

[stray dog]

yin and yang, good and bad, night and day, correct and incorrect..

Is there a God? yes or no...

Once upon a time the Earth was flat. To think otherwise would have been considered to be foolish.

It is to our advantage to consider all the possibilities with an open mind.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jaxom,

I'm probably going to be sorry for jumping back into this...I think wes is right in saying you're so into deep that you can't see any other options. And yes, I'm sure you'd say the same of anyone disagreeing with you, but anyone who redefines terms to make their argument work is fooling themselves.

Who is really redefining terms? I got it very clearly from the Bible. How can a scientist comprehend what is written in the Bible!? Is that not arrogant, for a scientist to think that he is intelligent and wise enough to define something that he cannot comprehend? Isn't that stupid? Why do you use dictionary to define it? My definition has ground on the Bible itself. Take the definitions from the Bible, instead of from those who doesn't even know what they are talking about. It is like asking a bricklayer to make a brain surgery, it is foolish!

Either He exists or not. Whether He exists is not determinant on the believer. The atheist doesn't disbelieve something, he looks and sees no signs of the existance. So the atheist concludes there's no evidence. Period.

You don't exist, so I won't even respond this message.

Even the best science theories aren't 100%. They are in probability close, but to say you're sure 100% is to delude yourself. And you're 100% in something you yourself admit you cannot see. Faith indeed. 100%.

The best science theories is like baby talk to God. I though we were comparing ourselves to God... Can you see gravity? Can you see radio waves? I don't think so... but they still exist. All the laws of the universe are invisible. Why do you think the Bible say that what we see is not made out of things which cannot be seen? The laws of physics? Think about it...:bugeye:

You use knowledge here in the definition of faith. With faith, you don't know for sure. I know you believe in this "supraconsciousness" thing...but can you back up your idea with something? Or is it untestable, conveniently?

Listen. Please compare those two equations:
y=sinx
y=3sinx
What does happen there? The second one is an expansion of the first one, a vertical expansion. Now tell me how do you know that. I tell you. You get the first equation and expand it vertically by a factor of 3. What I'm desperatly trying to say is that I gave you the basic equation, and this equation is flexible enough for you to change it. The equation is:
amount of varied conscioussness= awareness X concious
awareness in a scale between -infinity to +infinity
conscious=1 (in the middle of the scale)

Let's say...
Sleep= -100 X 1
therefore: Amount of consciousness during sleep= -100
Reading= 50 X 1
therefore: Amount of conscioussness during reading= 50
God= +infinity X 1
therefore: Amount of God's consciousness= +infinity
Me= 1 X 1
therefore: Amount of my consciousness= 1
You= 1 X 1
therefore: AMount of your consciousness= 1

Maybe you can understand that... hopefully...

Note the only mention of proof or evidence in in the negative. If there's proof, it's not faith anymore, it's a more logical argument. Faith in religion is used as a good word, but in any other setting having faith in something means that you have nothing to go on, and your belief of it being true rests solely on your hopes. You hope it's true.

That's not the right definition. That how scientists defined it by their own perspective. Way different than the real definition...

 

[wesmorris]

Xelios, nice post. Great point at the end there.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Jaxom,

Excellent logic TruthSeeker, he is all powerful, but he chooses not to be all powerful, which means he isn't all powerful, which contradicts the original statement.

Only because He choses not to interfere it doesn't mean He can't. You can get a gun and kill yourself right now, You have power to do so, you just need to choose. If you a cake, you can do it also (do you know how to...?), so you have the power to do so. Can you do both at the same time? No. But that doesn't mean you are unable to do them. God has the potential to do whatever He chooses, but first He must decide to do so.

My point exactly. If evil does not exist we wouldn't need to choose between it or good, everything we can do is good. This is a more limited form of free will, but nevertheless it is free will. And personally, I would rather live in a world of only good and know that my free will was mildly impaired because of it.

"LaoTzu" answered that...

Not foolish at all, if really does exist and I just don't believe he does he can still help me. If I don't believe air to exist does this mean the air can no longer supply oxygen to my blood?

I'm not answering because I don't believe you exist...

I find this very amusing. Theists often engage in this type of reasoning, in one reply they state that God cannot be limited by the laws of science, or by logic, or any other Earthly thing, then in the next post they say God is limited by our choices. When argueing for God it's easy to have the best of both worlds because you can assign whatever attribute you want to him. If you need him to be omniscient for one arguement, great! He's omniscient. If you need him to be limited by our choices in the next arguement then awesome! He's limited by our choices!

... Really...
We don't change God's attributes. God has no limits, but He has choices. He has all the potential but that doesn't mean He will do everything at the same time. Imagine if God would create a giant wave and at the same time not create it. That's simply stupid. Just because He can do both things, it doesn't mean that He will do it.

This is the difficulty in argueing against God, you are dealing with an idea that can be molded to fit any arguement while you yourself are limited to using facts and must instead mold your arguements around your ideas. In short, in theism you can mold your idea around your arguements, in atheism you have to mold your arguements around your idea.

Not really. I stated clearly how God is. The problem is that you put your own view of God mixed with mine and then say that I'm modeling my ideas around my arguments. *sight....

 

[Xelios]

Only because He choses not to interfere it doesn't mean He can't. You can get a gun and kill yourself right now, You have power to do so, you just need to choose. If you a cake, you can do it also (do you know how to...?), so you have the power to do so. Can you do both at the same time? No. But that doesn't mean you are unable to do them. God has the potential to do whatever He chooses, but first He must decide to do so.

That makes more sense than your original statement. God cannot be all powerful and choose not to be all powerful, it's logically impossible. If he chose not to be all power, then he would not be all powerful, he can't be both all powerful and not all powerful.

Not really. I stated clearly how God is. The problem is that you put your own view of God mixed with mine and then say that I'm modeling my ideas around my arguments.

I wasn't talking specifically about you Truthseeker, but theists in general. But would you agree that God and the issues surrounding him can be molded to fit whatever arguement a theist needs supported? After all, no one knows what God is like, how he operates and so forth, so almost every position one takes with respect to God is as valid as the next.

This is one part where I actually agree with TruthSeeker (as far as the logic goes, not the premises). If all you had was "good," then "good" would be a meaningless buzzword. There cannot be "good" without "bad," and presumably, God would know this. If God strives for good, He has to allow for bad. Refusing to eliminate all badness does not indicate His impotence, it shows that He actually wants the badness to be there so that there can be more goodness. God's not a Taoist, but it makes sense (from that perspective).

In a way, yes. But that is not the issue here (unless I've missed something). The issue is will our free will remain intact if we could no longer choose between good or bad? I say that it would. Simply because our choices have been limited doesn't mean our free will no longer exists. If evil did not exist, we would not know about it. We could not choose it because we wouldn't know it exists (because, theoretically, it doesn't). We would still have the free will to choose whatever else we want.

Though I can see how TruthSeeker's arguement would make sense from a Christian's point of view. For a Christian, we are here for one purpose, to follow God; to choose good over evil. If this one choice is made for us, we no longer have a purpose here. So I suppose at this point we should define free will. Does free will depend solely on whether or not we can choose between good or evil? Or is the choice between good or evil just that, another simple choice of millions we could make?

 

[TruthSeeker]

Xelios,

That makes more sense than your original statement. God cannot be all powerful and choose not to be all powerful, it's logically impossible. If he chose not to be all power, then he would not be all powerful, he can't be both all powerful and not all powerful.

God cannot be logically defined.

I wasn't talking specifically about you Truthseeker, but theists in general. But would you agree that God and the issues surrounding him can be molded to fit whatever arguement a theist needs supported? After all, no one knows what God is like, how he operates and so forth, so almost every position one takes with respect to God is as valid as the next.

God cannot be logically defined.

In a way, yes. But that is not the issue here (unless I've missed something). The issue is will our free will remain intact if we could no longer choose between good or bad? I say that it would. Simply because our choices have been limited doesn't mean our free will no longer exists. If evil did not exist, we would not know about it. We could not choose it because we wouldn't know it exists (because, theoretically, it doesn't). We would still have the free will to choose whatever else we want.

And what I'm trying to say, and that "LaoTzu" said it already, is that "good" is defined by its opposite "bad". You cannot have one without the other. If I have "good", but I don't have "bad", then what could be defined by "good"? If whatever I do is "good", then everything is "good", and by this the definition of "good" becomes simply meaningless.

If you would say to someone that know no bad "That's good.", they would call you crazy, since they don't know nothing else. "Good" and "evil" are co-creative and co-destructive, and in the same way is all the opposites.

Though I can see how TruthSeeker's arguement would make sense from a Christian's point of view. For a Christian, we are here for one purpose, to follow God; to choose good over evil. If this one choice is made for us, we no longer have a purpose here. So I suppose at this point we should define free will. Does free will depend solely on whether or not we can choose between good or evil? Or is the choice between good or evil just that, another simple choice of millions we could make?

All possible choices.

 

[Xelios]

God cannot be logically defined.

Why not, because he exists outside of our universe? He has to adopt the properties of our universe in order to interact with it.

And what I'm trying to say, and that "LaoTzu" said it already, is that "good" is defined by its opposite "bad". You cannot have one without the other. If I have "good", but I don't have "bad", then what could be defined by "good"? If whatever I do is "good", then everything is "good", and by this the definition of "good" becomes simply meaningless.

I understand this, what alternative word to 'good' would you have me use to describe the circumstances I mentioned?

All possible choices.

So the eradication of evil would have almost no effect on our free will, because we would still have a plethora of choices to make.

 

[Pammy]

You say that God should make people stop killing one another. So what should God do? Kill those people? Suppose those people are taking care of their sons who are innocent, wouldn't killing those people also harm the innocent as well?
Now you'll say why not possess them so they won't kill people. As the saying goes, nobody's perfect. If God possess everyone who is not perfect, then this world will be a zombie world. Now you might say why not make everybody perfect in the first place? I think if everyone is perfect, then human's will not have survived to today because we will all be eaten by predators if we can't defend ourselves because everyone will be sacrificing ourselves to save someone else. It is through selffishness and self preservation that the fittest survive and not the weakest.

 

[Xelios]

You say that God should make people stop killing one another. So what should God do? Kill those people?

Putting aside the fact that he's done that before (according to the Bible), no, I am saying God should simply do away with evil. Eradicate it. Get rid of Satan and get rid of the human tendancy to evil.

It is through selffishness and self preservation that the fittest survive and not the weakest.

That is a trait of evolution, something most theists do not accept. Is killing in self defense truely evil?

 

[Pammy]

"God should simply do away with evil. Eradicate it. Get rid of Satan and get rid of the human tendancy to evil. "

This is just the way the world is. Up and down, left and right, cause and effect, past and future, good and evil. Nobody could change that because there would not be one without the other. If you take away 'left', what would 'right' be?

"It is through selffishness and self preservation that the fittest survive and not the weakest. That is a trait of evolution, something most theists do not accept"

Well I accept that even if theists don't. If theists can't accept that, then I'm not a theist after all. To a certain extent, I believe in evolution ie how elephants with tusks may evolve to elephants without tusks. However, I do not believe humans evolved from monkeys also I believe monkeys evolved into human-like monkeys. I don't believe how animals without a soul (or consciousness if you prefer) could evolve into a being with one. Ie I do not believe a cockroach would evolve into something like human in an infinity years into the future. (by the way according to scientists, cockroach-like animals crawl out from the sea and evolved all the way to you and me today. So its not too irrelevant to say that a roach you see today will become human in the long future by that theory)

"Is killing in self defense truely evil?"
Killing in self defense is not wrong if that is the only thing you can do to protect yourself (ie no other alternatives).
However I think I didn't explain clearly my previous post, causing you to misinterprete it.

By "I think if everyone is perfect, then human's will not have survived to today because we will all be eaten by predators "
I mean a situation like" Man A sees a sick man attacked by a tiger". If man is perfect, he would surely try to save the sick man. Maybe he succeed, maybe he don't. However because he gets into such situations often, it is likely he will be killed. If man has a bit of selfishness, he may reason with himself and come to the conclusion that if he fights the tiger, both he and the sick man will be killed so he escapes.

 

[Xelios]

Nobody could change that because there would not be one without the other. If you take away 'left', what would 'right' be?

If you take away evil, good would still exist, it would just encompass all our actions instead of just some of them. If you take one away, the concept of the other one is also taken away, but that doesn't mean we can no longer perform any kind of action. By taking away evil, anything we do cannot be evil, but it can't be classified as good. Just as if there was no such thing as 'left' everything would be 'right' even though the word 'right' wouldn't exist.

I don't believe how animals without a soul (or consciousness if you prefer) could evolve into a being with one.

What is consciousness? To answer that, I must first understand your definition of consciousness.

man has a bit of selfishness, he may reason with himself and come to the conclusion that if he fights the tiger, both he and the sick man will be killed so he escapes.

What you call selfishness in this instance I would call intelligence. Using intelligence, man would be able to discern that fighting a tiger will result in two deaths rather than one. Man has evolved past survival instincts, to a point where it is no longer a priority. Most evolutionary instincts can now be overruled by man by use of intelligence and conciousness. If man was not at the level of consciousness we are at, we would do nothing, just like antelope. For this reason, I don't see leaving the sick man as evil any more than it is evil for an antelope to preserve itself by running from a lion.

My point is good and evil play no part in evolution, an animal cannot discerne good from evil, so if evil did not exist it would not change anything. Humans would still evolve, and once we reached the point of consciousness we would be able to decide for ourselves whether to obey our instincts and leave the man or use our concsiousness and try to save him. I don't see either choice as evil.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Xelios,

Why not, because he exists outside of our universe? He has to adopt the properties of our universe in order to interact with it.

The universe is within God, not God is within the universe. You think it is the second. I'm saying it is the first. God is inside and outside the universe at the same time. And He is not subjected to it. Instead, the universe is subjected to God. Try not to turn the things around, or it get really hard to keep the conversation in the right place...

I understand this, what alternative word to 'good' would you have me use to describe the circumstances I mentioned?

It is not the word that is important, it is the concept behind it that really matters...

So the eradication of evil would have almost no effect on our free will, because we would still have a plethora of choices to make.

No because you can only choose between "good" and "evil", "life" and "death, "empty" and "full"...

Imagine this conversation:
A: Do you want a glass of wine?
B: Yes, thanks.
A: Empty or strange?
B: Ahhh... empty... I guess...:bugeye:

Is that really a choice? You can only choose between full and empty, otherwise it is not a real choice...:bugeye:

 

[TruthSeeker]

Pammy,

You say that God should make people stop killing one another. So what should God do? Kill those people? Suppose those people are taking care of their sons who are innocent, wouldn't killing those people also harm the innocent as well?
Now you'll say why not possess them so they won't kill people. As the saying goes, nobody's perfect. If God possess everyone who is not perfect, then this world will be a zombie world. Now you might say why not make everybody perfect in the first place? I think if everyone is perfect, then human's will not have survived to today because we will all be eaten by predators if we can't defend ourselves because everyone will be sacrificing ourselves to save someone else. It is through selffishness and self preservation that the fittest survive and not the weakest.

God never kills. God never possesses. Selfishness and "self preservation" (cowardy...?) brings death... not survival. Turn the other way around. What would happen if anyone would care about the other? We survived because we are social. Without being socila, the human being wouldn't exist anymore. And without greed and self interests this world would be a far better place to live...

This is just the way the world is. Up and down, left and right, cause and effect, past and future, good and evil. Nobody could change that because there would not be one without the other. If you take away 'left', what would 'right' be?

Thanks for trying to explain it to him...

By "I think if everyone is perfect, then human's will not have survived to today because we will all be eaten by predators "
I mean a situation like" Man A sees a sick man attacked by a tiger". If man is perfect, he would surely try to save the sick man. Maybe he succeed, maybe he don't. However because he gets into such situations often, it is likely he will be killed. If man has a bit of selfishness, he may reason with himself and come to the conclusion that if he fights the tiger, both he and the sick man will be killed so he escapes.

Perfection not only implies ability to get out of difficult situations all alone but also implies that you won't get in those situations in the first place. It also implies that you won;t get sick, cause sickness is an imperfection.

 

[Xelios]

The universe is within God, not God is within the universe. You think it is the second. I'm saying it is the first. God is inside and outside the universe at the same time

So the universe is part of God and God is part of the universe? That's the only way he could be inside and outside at the same time. I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me. How could God be outside the universe, inside the universe, not be subjected by the universe but be able to interact with the universe?

It is not the word that is important, it is the concept behind it that really matters...

I understand where you're coming from Truth, but what I'm saying is what you're saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if 'good' no longer exists when 'evil' is eradicated, the point is something still exists, and this is the something we will base the rest of our free will on. By eliminating 'evil' you are eliminating the concept of 'good', but there will still be a catagory of choices present, we would simply call it something different.

Take laws for example. If we pretend for a moment that laws eliminate our choice to do anything illegal, we will still have the choice to do anything legal.

Perfection not only implies ability to get out of difficult situations all alone but also implies that you won't get in those situations in the first place. It also implies that you won;t get sick, cause sickness is an imperfection.

True, what I am wondering is how we got to discussing perfection in the first place. It has nothing to do with good vs evil. One can have no evil and still not be perfect. For example, I may have the exclusive ability only to choose good but still get sick.

Is that really a choice? You can only choose between full and empty, otherwise it is not a real choice...

Sigh.. I understand this. If evil was eliminated, could I still choose to drive my car to work instead of bike there? Could I still choose to eat ice cream instead of bread this morning? Coud I still choose to be a computer programmer instead of a McDonald's employee? None of these have anything to do with good vs evil, so I can still make these choices even if evil is no longer present.

 

[TruthSeeker]

So the universe is part of God and God is part of the universe? That's the only way he could be inside and outside at the same time. I'm sorry but this makes no sense to me. How could God be outside the universe, inside the universe, not be subjected by the universe but be able to interact with the universe?

...
Let's try to use mathematical terms...
In a Venn diagram, God is the sample space, while the universe is defined by A. God is the sample space+A, while the universe is just A. In this sense, God would be within the universe and at the same time the universe would be within God. God would be the universe plus... the rest of Him... So in this sense, God is not subjected to the universe, but the universe is subjected to God.

I understand where you're coming from Truth, but what I'm saying is what you're saying is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if 'good' no longer exists when 'evil' is eradicated, the point is something still exists, and this is the something we will base the rest of our free will on. By eliminating 'evil' you are eliminating the concept of 'good', but there will still be a catagory of choices present, we would simply call it something different.

There is already no evil. There is only abscence of good, which is evil. You can choose abscence of good if you wish too, it is still free will. "Good" and "bad" are concepts innerent to almost everything in the universe. But "bad" is like the abscence of "good", as much as "darkness" is the absence of "light".

Take laws for example. If we pretend for a moment that laws eliminate our choice to do anything illegal, we will still have the choice to do anything legal.

But since it doesn't inclue anything illegal, than you don't have the opportunity of really choosing it.

True, what I am wondering is how we got to discussing perfection in the first place. It has nothing to do with good vs evil. One can have no evil and still not be perfect. For example, I may have the exclusive ability only to choose good but still get sick.

According to the Bible, you are free from sickness.

Sigh.. I understand this. If evil was eliminated, could I still choose to drive my car to work instead of bike there? Could I still choose to eat ice cream instead of bread this morning? Coud I still choose to be a computer programmer instead of a McDonald's employee? None of these have anything to do with good vs evil, so I can still make these choices even if evil is no longer present.

Yes, I understand that. But the choice that matters is the choice between good and evil. God doesn't limit the choices we can make. Our choices are only limited to the laws of nature (although I think that it won't be always like that...).

 

[Xelios]

In a Venn diagram, God is the sample space, while the universe is defined by A. God is the sample space+A, while the universe is just A. In this sense, God would be within the universe and at the same time the universe would be within God. God would be the universe plus... the rest of Him... So in this sense, God is not subjected to the universe, but the universe is subjected to God.

I'll have to get back to you on this, my brain isn't working right now =P

There is already no evil. There is only abscence of good, which is evil. You can choose abscence of good if you wish too, it is still free will. "Good" and "bad" are concepts innerent to almost everything in the universe. But "bad" is like the abscence of "good", as much as "darkness" is the absence of "light".

This is just a touch irrelevant is it not? I could just as well say that good is the absence of evil.

But since it doesn't inclue anything illegal, than you don't have the opportunity of really choosing it.

Exactly, it's not that you are restricted from choosing it, it's that you can't choose it because it doesn't exist (as far as you are concerned).

Yes, I understand that. But the choice that matters is the choice between good and evil. God doesn't limit the choices we can make. Our choices are only limited to the laws of nature (although I think that it won't be always like that...).

I suppose if you believe that's the reason we're here, then yes that would be the only choice that matters. However from my POV it's just another choice, one among millions.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Xelios,

This is just a touch irrelevant is it not? I could just as well say that good is the absence of evil.

Maybe not. "Light" for example is a substance, and "darkness" is the mere abscence of it. The same work for "empty" and "full". Wheter it works for "good" and "evil" I still don't know. But the Bible compares "good" with "light", and "evil" with "darkness", so it might be true. But I don't know if it is what it is meant in the Bible...

Exactly, it's not that you are restricted from choosing it, it's that you can't choose it because it doesn't exist (as far as you are concerned).

But then God wouldn't be giving me the choice of doing "good", and that is what it is important here...

I suppose if you believe that's the reason we're here, then yes that would be the only choice that matters. However from my POV it's just another choice, one among millions.

It is a big choice for everyone. You rlife would be totally different if you were evil. You would even feel as evil. Right? So, it is an important choice...