Ok So Some People Do Not Believe In God..............

[Cris]

Kython13,

For a 16 year old you are performing superbly and a real equal to most here. If it doesn’t sound too condescending I offer you my congratulations for your ability to make considered, disciplined and polite posts. A very pleasant and refreshing change from the lunacy of Loone, who I see you have noticed.

I have a couple of questions for you.

The Problem of the Adam and Eve Paradox.

I don't fully know why he created sin. What I do know is that all sin spawned from 1 act, and that was Adam and Eve eating of the tree of knowledge. This is where our sinful nature came from, from this first sin, and from the temptation presented by the serpent.

Consider this as a question of logic that doesn’t really require extensive biblical knowledge.

It isn’t the tree of knowledge but the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ that Adam and Eve ate from. See Genesis 2:9.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree. How did they know it was wrong to eat from the tree? How did they know it was wrong to disobey God?

Remember that before they ate from the tree they would have had no knowledge of good or evil. This means they would not have known that it was bad to disobey God.

It was only after they ate from the tree that they finally had sufficient knowledge to know what they should not have done.

For God to then condemn them and to inflict massive misery on the billions of offspring to follow is in itself an act of evil. He had unfairly not appropriately instructed them on the nature of Good and Evil and the implications of their actions. In short they were tricked.

Since God is allegedly omniscient and the creator, then he knew exactly what was going to happen and as the creator he must have planned it that way since nothing can occur that does not conform to his design.

The conclusion must be that sin was part of God’s design from the beginning and the trick he played on Adam and Eve completely exonerates them from any blame.

The first sin was God’s evil trick played on Adam and Eve. Either that or he was incompetent from not teaching them correctly so they could avoid their error.

How would you explain this paradox?

Where did everyone come from?

The story of Adam and Eve is essential to the entire basis of Christianity. It is the means that sin is introduced and the basic reason why Jesus was sent to Earth. If the story of Adam and Eve is false then the entire basis for Christianity has no validity.

It is claimed that all peoples of the Earth were the offspring and descendents of Adam and Eve. Even if Adam and Eve were of two different races that still couldn’t explain the hundreds of races that currently populate the earth. Where did all these other peoples come from?

The Problem of Omniscience.

Arbitrary? You are given the choice to either reject or accept forgiveness, God is merely honoring your decision.

If God is both the creator and is omniscient then humans have no choice over their actions.

From the instant the universe was created God would have perfect knowledge of every action that will ever be made by any human that will exist. All actual actions of any human are then effectively fully pre-determined and humans cannot have any power to initiate a change since that would imply that God is not omniscient.

Since he would have designed the entire future of every human then why did he arbitrarily decide that some would find perfection in paradise and another set would suffer eternal torture in hell?

This again seems to indicate a particularly evil being.

If humans effectively have no free will then the claim that we can choose between accepting Jesus as a savior or choosing hell is meaningless.

The Issue of Sacrifice.

Jesus, who is God, came to earth and became a man. He lived a perfect life, and died. In the crucifixtion story, it is explained that as he hung on the cross, Jesus bore the sins of man. Yes he rose again. He lived his whole life perfectly, and then sacrificed his perfect live by bearing our sins. I think it isn't just that Jesus died that we are forgiven, but also that he sacrificed his perfect life. As he hung on the cross, when our sins were heaped upon Jesus, his perfect life was sacrificed, then his body died as well. My point is that he not died in body, but he sacrificed his perfection.

Again the issue is what was sacrificed? The implication of a God sacrifice is that something tremendous was given up for the sake of mankind.

But God still exists, and Jesus still exists in all his perfection. Or do you wish to imply that Jesus is no longer perfect. Before Jesus came to earth God was perfect. After the entire Jesus episode and crucifixion Jesus has returned to whence he came and is continuing as before. What was lost or sacrificed.

But even if we accept that Jesus as a man led a perfect life then what value is that claim? He knew he was special and he must have had special knowledge of God. Unless those miracles he performed were somehow accidents. In short he had privileged knowledge that other men would not have. That gave him a massively unfair advantage making it significantly easy for him to live a perfect life. So any stress on his perfection is meaningless.

A fair test would have been for him to be born on Earth without any special knowledge or powers and then see how he would live with all the human imperfections and temptations of reality.

So I still do not see that anything of any value was sacrificed.

Summary.

1. The claim for original sin seems to be invalid.
2. The validity of the whole Adam and Eve story seems impossible.
3. Humans cannot have any free will if God exists.
4. The claim of a Christian sacrifice is empty.

All of these issues strike at the heart of Christianity. Without full and comprehensive answers Christianity simply appears to be a foolish fantasy.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Xev,

Did you call???

You were doing fine without me.

Cris

 

[Jan Ardena]

Kyton 13,

I am only a sixteen year old who is trying to udo the idiocy of Sir Loone and other on these forums.

As a Christian, what exactly as Sir Loone done, that you feel you have to try and undo?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Adam]

As an Adamist... What has Sir Loone not done?

 

[Godless]

It all falls back to original sin does'n it?

Every argument of forgiveness of all the Christians branches falls upon Original Sin, we must repent for our own existence, we must obey the word of this god, whom has condemned humanity for being human!.

Quote: Ayn Rand*: Original Sin; your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choise is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a factnot open to his choise is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To unish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocense exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.*


Kython13, most athiest I've ever met have been of one denomination or anohter, I have been a Catholic, a Christian and last a Babtist, I jumped a bit! I guess. Anyhow we've all read the bible, some athiests still study the bible it's the best weapon against Christianity that exists!!. I'm not going to mock your age however you still got much learning to do, specially in philosophy, and then if you can understand Chris, you will learn alot of logic, from him.

I'm an Objectivist, read some of the work from Ayn Rand, heck start with a novel!. "The Fountain Head" comes to mind, it's a good story, and one which you will enjoy. I promise it will not change your views on religion, it didn't change my sister, and she enjoyed it tremendously!.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Cris
Kython13,
For a 16 year old you are performing superbly and a real equal to most here. If it doesn’t sound too condescending I offer you my congratulations for your ability to make considered, disciplined and polite posts. A very pleasant and refreshing change from the lunacy of Loone, who I see you have noticed.

Bravo Chris, for pointing this out. I concur. Kython13, you're doing a great job in the face of quite a bit of opposition.

The Problem of Omniscience.

If God is both the creator and is omniscient then humans have no choice over their actions.

From the instant the universe was created God would have perfect knowledge of every action that will ever be made by any human that will exist. All actual actions of any human are then effectively fully pre-determined and humans cannot have any power to initiate a change since that would imply that God is not omniscient.

I've argued this point in another thread. Omniscience does not force predetermination. The argument "omniscience equals predetermination" carries a modal fallacy: Given A therefore necessarily A. Given A is not strong enough to force necessarily A. In this case A is any known event or set of known events.

This can be exhibited by adjusting our temporal frame of reference. Given that I had pasta for dinner last night, it was necessary that I had pasta for dinner last night. This statement invokes the same fallacy. The known event A (I had pasta for dinner last night) is true does not make it necessary that A is true. In other words, knowledge of an event is not causal to the event.

This applies to any future observation of our present or future as well. That tomorrow, or 10,000 year in the future some observer will 'know' events that are yet to occur today does not force those events to occur. You can carry this out to the end of time or to a reference point outside of time.

Another way to demonstrate this is via the diagrams below:

The argument that omniscience forces the event implies:

knowledge -> event

Where knowledge of the event becomes the cause of the event.

Instead of:

cause -> event -> knowledge

Where knowledge derives from the event and does not change causation.

~Raithere

 

[daktaklakpak]

Omniscience does equal predetermination. An omniscient being occupies the whole time line, and therefore have complete knowledge of the whole time line. In another word, all events had happened in this being's view. So what's the difference between predetermination vs. everything already happened?

 

[Cactus Jack]

Originally posted by Kython13

So people created a religion around current events over a timespan of 6000 years?

Yes. First, The Catholic church doesn't condone it, and is now taking steps to try to end it. Secondly, I'm not a Bishop. Thirdly, I'm not Roman Catholic either. Fourthly, never believe everyone in the church is perfect and holy, the church is not a haven for saints. If it was, my attending church would ruin it. But rather, it is a hospital for sinners.

You misunderstood me. It wasn't that the people based there religion around this, but that the forerunner of this religion were human and had human impulses/situations that re-ocur even to this day.

Also the bishop thing was just a joke, good job arguing against it though.........

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
So what's the difference between predetermination vs. everything already happened?

It depends on your temporal frame of reference.

Try this example. Columbus continued so sail across the Atlantic despite the worries of his crew. He could have decided differently but we know, since this event is in our past, that he didn't. Does the fact that we have knowledge of the event at this point in time (temporal frame of reference) mean that his actions and the event were predetermined?

Likewise, an observer (be it God or some future human) at the end of time will know our actions but the knowledge does not cause our actions.

We are to Columbus as an omniscient being would be to us. The fact of knowledge before or after the event does not reverse the causal connection between cause, event, and knowledge.

The veracity of knowledge derives from the event.
The event does not derive from the veracity of knowledge.

~Raithere

 

[Aragorn]

sorry

Look, I did'nt mean to affend or anger anyone with my opinion but I have lived around people that simply interpret the bible word for word and that is simply the wrong way to go about it. That's why I think quoting the bible really makes no sense. You're right. The bible is full of many great lessons and messages but it is also full of alot of bull s##t.

 

[Cris]

Raithere,

The veracity of knowledge derives from the event.
The event does not derive from the veracity of knowledge.

The issue becomes how does something have perfect knowledge of an event before it occurs.

Omniscience isn’t about observing an event but knowing with certainty that it will occur. The implication isn’t that knowledge will cause the event, but that the cause is so well defined that perfect knowledge of the result becomes possible.

How does a god have such perfect knowledge? It is because he created the environment (the universe) in which the events will occur.

Note my full statement “If God is both the creator and is omniscient”.

If I write a computer program and I feed it data that I have defined then I will have perfect knowledge of every result that the program will produce, before the program is ever run. That is omniscience (within this specific scope). If I control all the factors then I cannot help but have perfect knowledge of everything. And in this case all the results are perfectly pre-determined.

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and omniscient and created the universe. Then everything that ever happens is perfectly pre-determined.

Cris

 

[James R]

I think that claims for an omniscient and/or omnipotent god are difficult to support with logic. There are two possible solutions to the problems they raise:

1. Back off from the claims - i.e. do not require God to be omnipotent/omniscient.

OR

2. Relax the restriction that God must be logical.

 

[??!!?!?_particlename]

Originally posted by Cris


If God is all-knowing and all-powerful and omniscient and created the universe. Then everything that ever happens is perfectly pre-determined.

Cris

However is it not also possible for something to not be predetermined even if the outcome is known? If I were to offer you a million dollars or a chance to grab a hot branding iron, which would you choose. Quite obviously you would choose the cash (if your sane). In this situation it is clear to us which decision would be chosen. Similarly, if you are faced with a choice (one in which the outcome isn't as clear), an omnipotent and omniscient being would be able to determine which you would choose. You still have the choice, only God would already know which one you will choose.

 

[Kython13]

Originally posted by Cris

The Problem of the Adam and Eve Paradox.

Consider this as a question of logic that doesn’t really require extensive biblical knowledge.

It isn’t the tree of knowledge but the ‘tree of knowledge of good and evil’ that Adam and Eve ate from. See Genesis 2:9.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from that tree. How did they know it was wrong to eat from the tree? How did they know it was wrong to disobey God?

Remember that before they ate from the tree they would have had no knowledge of good or evil. This means they would not have known that it was bad to disobey God.

It was only after they ate from the tree that they finally had sufficient knowledge to know what they should not have done.

"but you must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:17

In this passage God tells Adam that he cannot eat from this tree. You are correct in that he cannot know evil at this point, however he can know what death is.
This is further clarified for us who do understand evil in Romans 6:23 and various other verses.
"For the wages of sin is death,..." Romans 6:23
What this is essentially saying is that sin leads to death. In this light, sin is comparable to removing a knife from its sheath, or to loading a semi-automatic to play Russian Roulette. In other words, sin is a step towards death. In Adam learning of evil, he learned of sin itself.

If you don't agree that Adam knew what death was, let's simply work from the friendship between God and Adam. Let's suppose you and your best friend are talking and the conversation turns towards their past before you met them. Despite you two being the best of friends, you still don't know much about when your friend was younger. They then ask you to not pry into it, and then immediately close up (They become cold and distant [I included this clause because if the person got emotional this example wouldn't apply]). From their reaction, it is obvious that you should respect their wish. Similarly, Adam was a best friend (because Adam was the only person) of God. Thus should Adam have at the least respected his friend's request. Granted this example fails to take into account the power and knowledge difference between God and Adam, but the example still applies.

Originally posted by Cris


Where did everyone come from?

The story of Adam and Eve is essential to the entire basis of Christianity. It is the means that sin is introduced and the basic reason why Jesus was sent to Earth. If the story of Adam and Eve is false then the entire basis for Christianity has no validity.

It is claimed that all peoples of the Earth were the offspring and descendents of Adam and Eve. Even if Adam and Eve were of two different races that still couldn’t explain the hundreds of races that currently populate the earth. Where did all these other peoples come from?

First, there are hundreds of different nationalities, but not races. Each nationality can be tied into a larger, more general race. For instance, French, English, German, and Russian can be classified under a Caucasian race. Iraqi, Iranian, Egyptian, and Afghan can all be classified as Arabic.
Second, (and keep in mind I am not entirely sure about the specifics of genetics but...) Let's assume both Adam and Eve were African. Having dark skin is a dominant trait and fair skin is passive. Let's classify dark skin as A, and fair skin is a. Therefore let us assume both Adam and Eve were both of the Aa type. Because of the dominant A, they would have dark skin, and would be carriers of a, the fair skin. Now lets examine their possible offspring.
___|_A_|_a_
_A_|AA_|Aa_
_a_|Aa_|aa_
Adam and Eve are represented by the left column and the top row. The possible genetic combinations of their children are the cells which contain 2 letters. Thus from this union, it would be possible to create children with both dark (AA,Aa,Aa), and light (aa) skin. From this process (not only in skin color, but also in many other traits), it is possible for numerous different races to come into being. Furthermore, I will not discount man's ability to adapt to their surroundings contributing to this, as well as the possibility of Adam and Eve being of different genetics (however I would have to believe that they were essentiall the same genetically [because Eve came from Adam's own flesh], except for gender of course).

Originally posted by Cris


The Issue of Sacrifice.

Again the issue is what was sacrificed? The implication of a God sacrifice is that something tremendous was given up for the sake of mankind.

But God still exists, and Jesus still exists in all his perfection. Or do you wish to imply that Jesus is no longer perfect. Before Jesus came to earth God was perfect. After the entire Jesus episode and crucifixion Jesus has returned to whence he came and is continuing as before. What was lost or sacrificed.

But even if we accept that Jesus as a man led a perfect life then what value is that claim? He knew he was special and he must have had special knowledge of God. Unless those miracles he performed were somehow accidents. In short he had privileged knowledge that other men would not have. That gave him a massively unfair advantage making it significantly easy for him to live a perfect life. So any stress on his perfection is meaningless.

A fair test would have been for him to be born on Earth without any special knowledge or powers and then see how he would live with all the human imperfections and temptations of reality.

I think it is only fair to point out that Jesus was born normal. Yes he probably grew with the knowledge of his origins, but your points of his having special knowledge and/or abilites at birth is baseless. Jesus may have been more intelligent than most, but he had no special knowledge at birth.

"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:16-17

It is at this point that Jesus recieved his special knowledge and abilities. The Holy Spirit is biblically connected with the ability to perform miracles, and with the clarity to preach the word. Neither could the apostles could only perform these until after recieving the spirit.

 

[Xev]

Thus should Adam have at the least respected his friend's request. Granted this example fails to take into account the power and knowledge difference between God and Adam, but the example still applies.

What 'friend' would deny their friend knowledge?

This disrespect for knowledge is one of the evils of Christianity.

From this process (not only in skin color, but also in many other traits), it is possible for numerous different races to come into being.

This would be possible with mutation and natural selection, but it would take longer than 6000 years.

And what have you just done? You've accepted EVIL - LUTION!

Don't wanna do that.

Furthermore, I will not discount man's ability to adapt to their surroundings contributing to this, as well as the possibility of Adam and Eve being of different genetics (however I would have to believe that they were essentiall the same genetically [because Eve came from Adam's own flesh], except for gender of course).

Depends on which creation account you follow.

Uh oh, seems we have a contradiction.

Jan Ardena asked an interesting question - what exactly has Loone done?

 

[Kython13]

Originally posted by Xev


What 'friend' would deny their friend knowledge?

It would depend on the knowledge, I personally have parts of my history I would not tell anyone. I am not ashamed of that past, however I would not subject people to that knowledge. Surely tou have something you cannot or would not tell anyone. Whether it be an action, and experience, a thought, etc.

The knowledge of good and evil can be classified as a thought, an idea, a concept. There are certain things that should not be known.

Originally posted by Xev


This would be possible with mutation and natural selection, but it would take longer than 6000 years.

I wasn't speaking of evolution or mutation, but rather of migrationa and isolation. As more and more people reproduced and expanded to fill the land that was available to them, traits in specific reigons would become prevalent. This is especially true in the early days of creation where numbers would be significantly lower, and thus a single family moving to an isolated reigon would over time create a new race. For example, if one family moved to modern day Sweden, then had dozens of children, who would those children marry? Scince the family is isolated in this region they would likely marry a brother or sister. Then, through three or four generations of inbreeding, along with this continued isolation and numerous children, you could easily see the spawning of a new group of people. This inbreeding would bring numerous traits to the fore. In the example of scandinavians, the characteristic blond hair, large build, and large amounts of hair (this emergence of traits is adequately illustrated in the Dynastic rulers of France, Enland, Germany, Russia, etc. These families were largely interrelated and thus the trait of being a bleeder [I do not know the technical term for it] became prevelent). This group would then continue to grow and eventually turn into what we refer to as another race.
*inbreeding and incest were quite common in all of history up until about the 1800's, especially among the above mentioned royal dynasties

Originally posted by Xev


Jan Ardena asked an interesting question - what exactly has Loone done?

1) His random and irrelavent quoting of bible verses only serve to form the basis for numerous jokes. These jokes would then grow via the snowball effect. I felt that these jokes were seriously affecting the credibility of anyone who tried to argue a point similar to Sir Loone's. I was almost disuaded from even joining the forum because I didn't think I could argue rationally and would simply become another object of ridicule, almost.
2) His turn or burn philosiphy is outdated. The fire and brimstone messages lost their true value in the 1800's. I instead subscribe to the philosiphy of rationally trying to untie the theological knots casued by the turn or burn philosiphy, as well as trying to right the misconceptions about Christianity caused by society. Instead of threats, I present the idea's of Christianity from a different perspective and try to encourage you to make your own decision and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Xev]

Kython:

The knowledge of good and evil can be classified as a thought, an idea, a concept. There are certain things that should not be known.

God denied Adam the possibility of morality. Is that somthing a friend would do?

I wasn't speaking of evolution or mutation, but rather of migrationa and isolation.

You're describing speciation, whether you know it or not.

His random and irrelavent quoting of bible verses only serve to form the basis for numerous jokes. These jokes would then grow via the snowball effect.

You noticed?!

Loone's funny.

His turn or burn philosiphy is outdated. The fire and brimstone messages lost their true value in the 1800's.

Yes but
A: It illustrates what a sham Christianity is (no offense)
B: It's funny!

 

[Adam]

Regarding all that knowledge/apple/eden stuff:

I like learning. Apples are okay too I guess.

 

[Adam]

Well, tomatoes are from the Americas I think, and this was all from the Middle East.

 

[Kython13]

Originally posted by Xev

God denied Adam the possibility of morality. Is that somthing a friend would do?

God did not deny Adam morality, but rather offered the choice. Adam chose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is where he learned of evil and was banished from the garden. Granted Adam did not know the difference between good and evil, but he did bith know and decide between life and death. Adam then lived the rest of his life as we all do. We live with the knowledge of good and evil and thus must decide for ourselves which path to embrace. However, the perfect path of morality is nearly unatainable. This unatainable status is not due to God, but rather to man's own decisions and desires that remove the posibility of morality.