OK, but the Christian God is not accountable to humans. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't make it illogical.
I never said he was. I said that him making the rules does not make him above them.
This should be obvious: we are all humans, ostensibly created equal enough that we can't claim to have power over each other. That is qualitatively different from an entity that made the universe.
But we
aren't all equal. There are weak and strong among us, and this disparity has been used as justification for the consolidation of power by tyrants since the dawn of civilization. Indeed, our moral values call upon us to
protect the weak and helpless, so this homogeneity you assume doesn't really exist, and thus cannot be what prevents "good" people from exerting whatever power they have over those weaker than themselves.
Anyway, we are supposedly created in God's image, so whatever traits we share with each other, we share with him, as well. This is demonstrated in God's behavior in the Bible.
God takes control of people sometimes. That does not mean he eliminates free will from humans.
The larger point is that the Bible can't really seem to make heads or tails of what actually constitutes free will. I have already argued that God's omniscience could be viewed as the total negation of free will, as one cannot act freely if the omniscient being has foreknowledge of the actions. If God knows "A" will happen, there is no way "A"
cannot happen.
I told my child not to run in the living room because of the slippery floors. He did so anyway (because he has free will). He slipped and bumped his head himself. I knew this would happen because I am wise. Now he doesn't run in the living room.
False premise. You knew there was a high probability that he would fall, but you did not have foreknowledge of the event. You understand this is a significant difference.
Are you suggesting I am to be faulted for this? That I was morally obliged in step in? That to not step in is to be immoral?
By allowing him to fall on his own, he could benefit from a first-hand lesson on the dangers of such a dangerous behavior. However, this presents the risk of serious injury, even death. Is the hard lesson worth that risk? I would say no, just on the face of it, and your letting him fall constitutes negligence, and since injury is involved, is immoral.
Of course we do. We were the ones bringing the event to pass - the killing of Jesus.
Not if God already knew it would happen, which is explicitly stated in the Bible.
You seem to be trying to hold God culpable for the murder of Jesus Correct me if I'm wrong. (I'll quote you if necessary). Your argument seems to be 'if he foresaw it, he was obliged to prevent it'. That logic, if valid could be applied to the creation of the entire human race. He foresaw all this mayhem, why didn't he act to prevent their creation in the first place? Why create the universe even?
You could take the argument back that far, certainly. I don't see how that invalidates it, however.
This is circular. It is also utterly unproveable. You cannot demonstrate that there is no such thing as logic in a given belief system.
Of course you can. I cannot say "Red is red, therefore blue is red" and call it logic. You're telling me there is no way to demonstrate the fallacy in this statement?
If the Christians think that God is God, and created the universe, then it is logical to conclude that he is not bound by laws he made for humans any more then he is bound by gravity or the need to breathe.
No, it's not. This is where you keep getting tripped up. "Because he created it" is not a logical explanation for why a creator would be exempt from the rules of the universe. There is nothing inherently exempting in the act of creation.
Well, that what we're arguing, isn't it? You can't use it to make your case.
Excuse me? Are you actually trying to tell me I cannot use the evidence for God's nature as evidence for his nature? How convenient for you!
What a silly thing to say.
Who said they have to be either? He is a God.
I've given reasons why these conditions exist. You have yet to demonstrate why being a god would exempt him from them. Saying "He is a God" is therefore no response at all.
I do not see a distinction between those two. Call it my failing. Don't be so quick to assume the worst of your opponents.
I don't assume anything. I only go by what you write. And on that count, yes, I do see this as your failing. One of many.
Of course. It wasn;t out of a moral sense though. It was because he wanted humans to hear his requirements. That's not moral; it's simply his will.
That would be like saying "I killed a million people because it was my will, therefore it is not a moral issue." Obviously the act of sacrificing your son (indeed,
creating him expressly for the purpose of sacrificing him) is immoral. If you believe God can do no immoral act because the rules do not apply to him, then trying to find loopholes in those rules is a useless exercise, no?
Jesus making a prediction does not lead inevitably to God being omniscient.
I can only suggest that you read the scripture. If you call Jesus' foreknowledge of the events--and their relation to God's plan for him--a "prediction," then I can safely assume that you haven't.
It would certainly behoove you to.
1 John 3:19-20 [19] This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence [20] whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.
Job 37:16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised, those wonders of him who is perfect in knowledge?
Psalms 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.
Psalms 139:4 Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD.
1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Matthew 20:17-19 [17] Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, [18] "We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death [19] and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" [JDawg's note: Prediction? Really?]
2 Kings 7:1-2 [1] Elisha said, "Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the LORD says: About this time tomorrow, a seah of flour will sell for a shekel and two seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria." [2] The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens, could this happen?" "You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!"
Ephesians 1:9-12 [9] And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, [10] to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment -- to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ. [11] In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, [12] in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
I mean, this stuff is simple. What do you think prophecies are? It's divine foreknowledge. How can God
not be omniscient if he's able to divulge events to people prior to their occurrence? And not simply things like Jesus' birth, but events resulting for the "free will" of men?
I typed it only and exactly as many times as you used the word if.
Another glaring example of your ignorance of the scripture. The "ifs" are not predictive. It's like saying "If two plus two equals four."
You have yet to provide a single example.
I was operating under the misapprehension that you had actually read the scripture. Therefore I did not think I had to provide examples of God's omniscience. My fault. I have since rectified the situation.
Let me be clear then. The reason I have been saying that has nothing to do with my personal stance, or with you, as a primary opponent. The reason I am saying it is because this thread is now the hundreds of posts, and for posterity, it will certainly not be apparent to anyone joining in the middle that I am playing Devil's Advocate. That I'm attempting to argue only logic, not belief.
Yet your argument is indicative of belief, and not logic, so one could easily construe your insistence on being a non-believer as a ruse perpetrated by a believer so that an apologetic argument could appear to come from a non-apologist. I've seen it before, and not just in religious discourse; in sporting forums, sometimes a fan of a rival team will pretend to be a fan of the team he's about to disparage in an attempt to give his argument more gravity.
This kind of deception is, of course, the basis of the Intelligent Design movement. By perpetuating their creation myth under the guise of biological science, the proponents of ID are attempting to circumvent the roadblocks that prevent the religious indoctrination of public school students.
I believe that the majority of atheists shoot themselves in the foot by presenting as angry and emotional. If we believe we are rational, we need to act rational. (And you've seen me play that card in other threads; you know I frown upon theatrics.) It doesn't matter whether you think that's pretentious, it is my decision to stay rational.
One could easily point to your constant whining about the level of discourse as theatrics in their own right. But your point about anger and emotion again reeks of Christian subterfuge. What is emotional about the appeal to keep Church and State separate? Is it not logical to demand that creation myths be kept out of biology classes?
Moderate theists usually complain that the arguments against faith are often inflammatory, and that atheists would "get further" in their arguments if they toned down the rhetoric, but this misses the point; we are not out to convince Christians to become atheists, we are simply pointing out the dangers and failings of faith in how they relate to society, and giving reasons as to why faith needs to be kept entirely separate. In order to convey these reasons, it behooves us to be honest and accurate in our depiction of those faiths.
There is no such thing as 'free-will.' It is determined by definition.
