@ GIA
How is this thread different from your older one (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112370)?
How is this thread different from your older one (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112370)?
If God/Jesus does not know sex and reproduction, he is not fit to dictate it’s laws.
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Prove it
Validate it
Provide Hardcore Evidence to support your statement, because right know this is how i feel(look at picture)
Last edited:
Huh, humans actions includes human interactions. So again, who said anything about a god "causing" human actions? Being able to do a thing and being required to do a thing are quite different.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
1] False conclusion. There are many male Ob/Gyns in the world, many females studying testicular cancer.
2] Hertz eloquently put it:
I have never given birth to a dozen kittens. Does that mean I do not have the skill set to tend to my cat?
Yes he can. He invented it.
God gave mankind free will. It was mankind's decision what to do with it.
By the definition of the word God, he is not subject to human standards. That's kind of the point of being a God who creates a life form.
Yes. He invented it.
Yes. He invented it.
Again. Free will.
I am not a believer, but I am reasonably versed in religion enough to be comfortable with a God who created a life and gave it the free will to sin. I don't know why anyone has any difficulty with it. It's simple and it's self-consistent. You may have issue with God on many levels, but complaining that he gave mankind free will is not logical.
Great. Another drive-by. You zoom by, fire your bullet, then take off. Why bother firing it at all? It's not for our benefit, you're doing it for your own. The moment you find your ideas challenged, you take off, lest you have to face the holes in them.
So I'm not the only one seeing this MO.
@Syne --
You said that god was limited because he can't interfere with free will, that he can only work through the actions of people who are following his will voluntarily. However this does not gel with anything taught by any of the major religions, nor is it supported by any holy text that I am aware of(if it does mesh with a text that I am unaware of, by all means please make me aware of it).
It seems to me that you are working from a wholly personal god concept, one that I've not been made aware of, and if that is the case then you should probably do two things. One is to inform me of your personal concept of god and two is explain how and why you came to such conclusions.
You said that god was limited because he can't interfere with free will, that he can only work through the actions of people who are following his will voluntarily. However this does not gel with anything taught by any of the major religions, nor is it supported by any holy text that I am aware of(if it does mesh with a text that I am unaware of, by all means please make me aware of it).
It seems to me that you are working from a wholly personal god concept, one that I've not been made aware of, and if that is the case then you should probably do two things. One is to inform me of your personal concept of god and two is explain how and why you came to such conclusions.
Is this a science forum or a religious forum? Every other topic is discussing God , spiritual things, or UFOs. What is the point for no one seems to any progress.
What the hell are you talking about? You don't think it's logical to question why an omnipotent being would create people with predispositions to the very behavior that could cost them their eternal souls? You throw the term "free will" around as if all things are equal; as if it were as easy for, say, Elton John to refrain from sucking penises as it is for me.
It's only too bad there aren't more holy wars out there so all the psychopaths he's created could scratch their itch against infidels and get their ticket punched to heaven.
This is the religion sub forum, lol. Where can I get me some UFOs?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You can question why all you want. I have no problem with that. I'm simply saying if you read all the questions about it, there is a self-consistent explanation. God makes humans. He gives them free will, so that their actions are their own doing, and not his. This means yes, they can choose not to worship him.
Think of it like a biologist in a lab. He puts the fish in a tank and then observes their behavior. He lets the fish do what they do without interference. The fish say "why oh why biologist, would you put predators and prey in the same tank? They are eating us. Surely this is insanity."
The biologist says "But to interfere would ruin my observations. I am not here to make you lives happy. I am here to set up the study and observe it. If predator eats prey, it is not by my hand."
In the case of the fish, substitute the phrase "free will" with "what they do naturally". It works in both circumstances.
I have no idea what this is all about, or why you need to be so combative to make your point, but it's not helping your cause.
I think you are confusing the logic of the situation with your sensibilities about the situation.
Last edited:
I never said anything about "only work through the actions of people who are following his will voluntarily". A god would work through all wills as it is omnipotent.
"You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High." -Psalm 82
"See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh." -Exodus 7
"Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?" -John 10
"See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh." -Exodus 7
"Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?" -John 10
This last in response to be accused of blasphemy by claiming to be the son of god. Jesus affirmed this every time his disciples tried to imply that he was somehow elevated beyond what they could attain to.
DNA makes humans.
DNA is what gives us free will.
This is kind of anthropomorphic characterization is at odds with what we know about our origins--and of the causes of scientific inquiry, which came from the development of logic, and then its application, to explain phenomena which are not readily available to the senses and lower brain functions.
In a parallel mode, religion arose, diverging into hypotheses which remain orphaned by lack of evidence. Or if we trace its Greek roots, we can conclude that logic diverged from superstition, as the early philosophers began to test and prove better hypotheses that led to the discovery and application of the scientific method.
It works to the degree that the brain of a particular species of fish is adapted for its niche, and that adaptation appears to have been a prerequisite to the arrival of particular species that use their fins for digging and walking on the seafloor, and eventually, climbing out of the water altogether.
Free will is the product of countless struggles to fill evolutionary niches. It is but one aspect part of a complex set of brain functions that are all rooted in the chain of physical processes which ancestral species confronted and which were adapted to by natural selection.
The probability that brains could ever evolve at all was apparently resolved in the arrival of sensate invertebrates, that is, wherever nervous processes begin to appear. Each ancestor seems to contribute in some way to the outcome we call "free will", insofar as the causal fabric of evolution is so intricately woven.
This doesn't work on any level. First of all, the idea of God as some sort of scientist in a lab is inconsistent with the portrait of God painted in the Bible, which is the same place from which we draw our ideas of free will and eternal reward or punishment (at least in this context). The God of the Bible interferes often, at times even removing our ability to exercise free will--think of the hardening of the Pharaoh's heart--so it is easily demonstrated that his motives are not of a kind that would logically follow from the decision to grant us free will. Indeed, his very omnipotence renders the analogy of the fishbowl invalid, as there would be no need for the experiment.
It also doesn't explain why he commands children who curse their parents to be put to death, and then creates Turret's syndrome. Nor why a god who very clearly has the express purpose of having the entire world worshiping him (else why destroy the world when they are not?) would call upon his chosen few to bring the word to non-believers on the tip of a blade, making death a more favorable (and honorable) death for the infidel than submission? It makes no sense.
And this is all without considering that there was a larger world beyond the "borders," so to speak, of the Biblical world, full of people who had never heard the word of the sky-monster Yahweh. What good is their free will, when they do not have access to the same necessary teachings as the nomads?
You need to stop complaining about how other people argue. You whine in every thread. Enough already.
There is no logic of the situation. You can't take the situation as a whole and say it's consistent.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Please don't misunderstand my position. I do not believe in God. Mankind consists entirely of the atoms that make up his corporeal body.
I am playing Devil's Advocate in that if we suspend our disbelief of God, there is still some consistency in the logic. It breaks down in many, many places, for sure, but it doesn't break down in the place of why God would give his subjects free will.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I said nothing about "is". It is an analogy. The phrase I used is "Think of it as...".
It addressed the question of logically why someone might create a system only to let that system tear itself apart (even if they can't resist tweaking it here and there).
That is as far as the analogy goes.
All that be as it may, if one grants a god for the sake of argument, then a God who decides to give his creations free will as he sees fit, still makes sense, even if they use their free will to slaughter each other. And yes, even if he steps in to tweak it once in a while.
You do realize how wonderfully hypocritical that statement is?
If you have a strong case, your point will stand on its own merits; you don't need to try to intimidate your opponent with harsh language and insults. Harsh language and insults are a substitute for a strong case.
In a discussion, especially when you're addressing me, I get to ask that you keep it civil. Likewise, you get to crash around like a brute, flinging your spittle everywhere. And I also get to call you out on it.
You can take parts of a whole and recognize them as self-consistent. If I decide to create a number system where A=1, B=2, C=4 and D=8, it may be a useless system. but it is still consistent to acknowledge that E can logically be 16.
That is the entirety of my point here. I believe God is illogical, just as I claim that numbering system is illogical. But the numbering system does not fall apart "because E is 16", any more than God falls apart by supposing he grants us free will. There are plenty of other reasons for it to fall apart, but that isn't one of them. It's a flawed argument.
Last edited:
But then the analogy is defeated when one tries to apply it to the God of the Bible, as his motives are demonstrably different than what would be required for that analogy to work.
But such a god is not presented to us. Yahweh 's actions are not shown to be arbitrary, but rather purposed, and with direction. So the notion that free will in the context of the Christian or Jewish faiths is "self-consistent" is demonstrably false.
What a wonderfully ridiculous and inaccurate portrayal of my comments in this thread. The harshest thing I've said to you here is "What the hell are you talking about." If that counts as "crashing around like a brute, flinging my spittle everywhere," I suggest you remain in whatever basement you've locked yourself in, because there is a whole lot worse out there.
How is that you fail to notice that in order for E to logically be 16, D must be 8, C must be 4, B must 2, and A must be 1? You require a logical progression of numbers in order to reach that conclusion. But if E represents Biblical free will, and that value amounts to 16, then given all we know about the Biblical God, D would be 10, C would be -12, B would be Q, and A would be Sabrina the Teenage Witch. It simply does not follow that a god shown to have the directive of getting everyone to follow his word, and having a vested interest in such an outcome (he is shown to be angry, jealous, and loving at various times) would then make it, at times, impossible for his people to achieve that directive. It does not make sense, and is not consistent with his message or acts.
Might divinely-gifted free will work in the context of a different deity? Perhaps. But certainly not in the one we're talking about.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Just because God acts, even with purpose, does not negate free will. On two counts:
1] He doesn't always act. Which means the rest of the time theists* are free to act of their own volition.
2] Even he punishing them for disobeying does not mean they do not have free will. Removing free will would literally mean all humans are puppets, incapable of acting on their own accord.
*I have to stop saying "we". I am playing Devils' Advocate here. I am not a proponent of God.
And if I were of a mind, I might suggest you remain in yours, because there's a whole lot better out there. I choose to have a reasonable discussion in a forum on interesting topics where we argue the merits of our case rather than fling ad homs.
That is your stance. You haven't made your case yet that God is entirely illogical, so you can't use that to make your case. (That God is entirely illogical is your premise, yet to be shown). To use your premise as evidence of your case would be circular.
It does. I go back to the experiment analogy. The biologist will often have to intervene, if his mini-ecology goes off the rails for the wrong reasons.
'The predators are supposed to eat the prey, not each other.' Something about the experiment is awry. It must be tweaked. An experiment mimics nature, but it is not identical to nature, it must be cajoled to play out in ways that validate the experiment.
I am not literally saying God is doing this (in the theist's world view) I am simply drawing analogies as to why the intervention and non-intervention are
not paradoxical.
And I do appreciate you choosing to make your case on merit rather than on volume.
Last edited: