|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Oct 4, 2011 17:23:14 GMT -5
Hey Jesse, I have a question about the God you serve, just wondering if you could clear something up for me. This God is completely all knowing, correct? There is nothing that has happened, or will ever happened that this God could not/will not predict. Absolutely no surprises for him. Even when he was creating the universe he knew "If I create the earth this way, if I place Adam and Eve in this Geographical location, if i tilt the earth in this manner, I know that in turn bobbyjoecatfish will post of the openairourtreach discussion board at 5:21pm Central standard time on tuesday october 4, 2011" If this God did not know this.. well.. obviously then he would not be all knowing. Agreed so far? My question is, if God was creating the earth, and he knew that "If I create the earth like this, and if I create people with this nature, I know that a very large percentage of them will not believe in me, and therefore will burn forever in hell" Why did he create the earth in such a manner?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 9, 2011 12:37:31 GMT -5
Our nature does not control our free choices. God created us with free will. We are not just slaves of the laws of physics. If we were totally controlled by the laws of physics then we would never deserve punishment in the first place. We only deserve punishment for our bad choices because we could have chosen good but didn't. It was our fault, not physics, not our nature. Free will choices can not be foreknown. There is no such thing as a foreknown free choice. It is a direct conflict of definitions. Knowledge can't possibly be wrong, but a free choice can possibly turn out differently than expected. So there are no facts about future free choices. It is not a lack of knowledge to not have a "fact" that does not even exist. Look at what the Bible says. It teaches that God created a universe that is partially unpredictable. For example the book of Genesis (chapter six) says, Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Yahweh was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart. Yahweh said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the surface of the ground; man, along with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in Yahweh’s eyes. God actually changed His mind about having made people when He saw how bad they made themselves. Why would God make people if He foreknew they would be evil and that He would have to destroy them? That would make no sense. God expected people to be good, to obey Him, not to be evil. God even said (in the book of Ezekiel), Tell them, As I live, says the Lord Yahweh, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn, turn from your evil ways; for why will you die? And Jesus Christ, when He was talking about His future return to the earth, said, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth? Don't be confused by religious traditions that say God foreknows future free choices. The whole idea defies common sense. The Bible doesn't teach foreknown free choices. Jesse doesn't teach anything like that. He always preaches that we have free will and that God did not foreknow people would make themselves so evil. Jesse has multiple videos on this topic on his youtube channels.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Oct 9, 2011 20:14:52 GMT -5
Thank you for your answer, its the best one I have received for this question. I still think that there are some problems with this picture of God tho. When you say that God is unable to predict the actions of humans, you are admitting that God is limited and that he can make mistakes. This God creates humans... oh whoops there evil, and a lot of them don't believe in me so there outside of my grace, I guess I have to burn them in hell forever. This God is a tyrant, this is a God I want to rebel against not worship. I don't mean to offend you by speaking this way, I do appreciate your answer but I'm going to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 10, 2011 13:41:56 GMT -5
Hey it is better to be honest than to be a hypocrite. Jesus said to religious hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain.." There are a few different ideas you've brought up here. First I'll explain why other people have said these ideas limit God. People have this idea of time like it is a giant calendar. When you look at a calendar all the different days are right there in front of you - at the same time. You can see all the different days at once. There is a philosophical and religious tradition that says time is really like that. People theorized that time is like a calendar so that God can see every day at once. They said it was like God could take a step back and view all of history simultaneously. If that view of time were true then, Yes, it would be a limitation if God could not predict the free choices on a given day. If all of history existed simultaneously, like on a calendar, then of course God would be able to see it all. He wouldn't even need to predict things, because they would be directly visible. Imagine... there's a little boy taking his first steps on one day - scroll down the calendar a little - and there's that same person as an old man rejecting God on a later day. That would be totally insane, but that is basically the mainstream tradition. Is that something along the lines of what you meant by God being limited? If the future actually existed then God would certainly be limited if He could not see it. Fortunately reality is not like a calendar. There are not multiple days all happening side by side. There is none of that "Back-to-the-Future" / "Butterfly Effect" time travel stuff where you can go visit some other day in the past. The past does not exist. The word "exist" is a present tense verb. How could the past or the future "exist" (present)? It is all a big contradiction. There are not any other days you could "go to" other than right now. It makes a convenient science-fiction plot device, but it does not describe reality. If that stuff was true, imagine: you are worshiping God one day, strumming your ukulele on some tropical beach. But the whole time you are singing your heart out to God, in the corner of His eye, He can see the future way down on the imaginary calendar, and there you are in hell because years later you harden your heart and robbed some poor old lady. It is possible for anyone to choose to be good or bad. If all the different days actually exist, God might see all this at the same time you are on the beach praising Him under your coconut tree. You wouldn't know it, but He would. You would be enjoying worshiping Him, but He would be thinking "Why would I even make a universe like this?" Isn't that insane? If you and I would be reasonable enough not to make a universe like that, then certainly God is reasonable enough not to make things that way. To say that the future itself already exists is a direct contradiction to free will. If the future already exists (present tense) then our future choices have already been made - they would be set in stone. This is impossible because we have free will. There are actual different possibilities, not a script all written out in advance. If we have free will then the future can not exist already. Not only does it practically contradict the rules of grammar to say the future exists, but it also contradicts our ability to make free choices. The future does not exist. Since the future itself does not exist, God is not limited if He can't directly see "it". If I said God does not see Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer's nose, I would not be saying that God is limited, because Rudolph is fictional. It is not a limitation when we "can't see" things that don't even exist yet. There is no such thing as seeing something that doesn't exist. About the idea of God making mistakes: It is not like anyone has to be bad. People have free will. Creating people was not a mistake on God's part. It was a risk. It is people who have the power to turn themselves into a mistake or not. You can't give people the chance to be good (voluntary choice) without giving them the power to rebel also. The ability to be good and the ability to be evil are the same ability, not two different abilities. We are fully able to choose either way. So if it is wrong to give people the ability to be evil, then it is also wrong to give people the chance to be good. But is it wrong for a man and a woman to have children? Is it too much of a risk to have children who will develop the ability to choose good or evil? It seems pretty sad to say that no one should ever exist because some people might abuse their free will and endanger the whole community. Creation was not a mistake, as if God didn't realize what kind of power He was giving to people. It was a risk to create people. There is no way to share your life and power and have a relationship of trust without taking a risk of being betrayed. The other ideas you brought up were hell and tyranny. Certainly hell would be a tyrannical and unjust abuse if our future was set in stone before we were ever born. But if our future is open and we are in control of our moral choices, then God has the obligation to uphold the law for the good of the whole universe. God's law is not arbitrary but is based on self-evident truth (like in the Declaration of Independence). God only requires what is necessary and beneficial. He does not just make up impossible laws arbitrarily. His law is based on what is self-evidently best for everyone. God only punishes wicked people because He has to - not because He likes to hurt anyone. The Bible says, He has no pleasure in troubling and causing grief to the children of men. Let me know if I've misunderstood anything you brought up. I condensed the last couple points there to make the reply shorter.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Oct 10, 2011 17:00:28 GMT -5
Thanks again, very good response. Yes you pretty much understand my point. What I was getting at all along is that sending people to hell because of there set in stone future choices is unjust. That and the fact that human free will an all knowing creator are incompatible notions. The notion of God's inability to see that which does not exist, not being a limitation is a good point, I never looked at it that way. I do however still see limitations here. God is limited by time. Since he is not outside of it, and can't see it as a whole he is constrained to the rules of it. Even if the future does not currently exist, Isn't God supposed to be able to do the impossible? to see the non-existent? (obviously I realize these are direct contradictions, point is that my understanding of an all knowing unlimited God would suggest that there is absolutely nothing you could challenge him to, to which he would respond, "Even I, the all powerful all knowing all mighty creator am incapable of doing that." For an omnipotent being, I think that "impossible" does not exist. If it did exist I could imagine a being more powerful then him, because I can imagine a being that knows the tendencies of humans, and can predict them. Also, if God did not arbitrarily make up that which is good, is that not also something he is confined to? I mean I see that the notion of God arbitrarily making up values and the good is a ridiculous one, but I also see that the other way doesn't make much sense either. Either God made up the good out of nothing, or there is value and good that God does not have control over. Neither of these make sense to me.
Somewhat related question here, do you think that belief is a choice? The reason I ask is that I do not see a contrast between the way I live my life, and the way a christian lives. The only difference is that God does not make sense to me, God makes sense to them. I feel incapable of believing in his existence. They do believe, so within the christian worldview they go to heaven forever, and I burn in hell forever. Furthermore don't you think it would be more just to let me die? or give me punishment enough to suit my wrong doings then throw me into non existence? I just see this whole endless suffering thing as overkill.
To that point, I believe that it would be beneficial for me to be a christian. I am currently an agnostic so I admit that there is a chance that the christian God exists, because i can't prove otherwise. Obviously if its possible for this being to exist I would rather be within his grace instead of risking eternal damnation. But still I can't reach a belief in him. Not through reason because there are so many things that don't add up for me, and not through faith because I find the notion of faith absurd. "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Oct 17, 2011 9:27:30 GMT -5
Time:There is nothing about time that limits us. Time does not have any boundaries. So you can't be "inside" or "outside" of it. You can't be inside or outside of time just like you can't be inside or outside of space. There are no walls that enclose or divide up time or space. So there is no inside or outside. There are no compartments of time (like days on a calendar). When you said "he is not outside of [time], and can't see it as a whole" you were probably still assuming the calendar paradigm right? Contradictions:Being challenged to perform a contradiction is not really a challenge at all. Because being "unable" to perform a contradiction is not a lack of ability. It is the meaningless nature of a contradiction - not a reflection on the person's ability. It is like saying I am not strong enough to blahblahblahblahthismeansnothing. That sentence doesn't say anything at all about my strength because the sentence is meaningless. My strength is not challenged by that sentence. Are you familiar with that riddle the " liar paradox"? It is a sentence that claims to be a false statement, but since it negates itself, it is no longer a statement in the first place and has no truth value. Not every string of words means something. Not every string of words represents something about reality. There is no such thing as being strong enough to make someone else's free will choice, or having good enough vision to see the nonexistent, or being so small that you don't exist, or being such a good carpenter that you can build a shed with a 7ft high wall and 7ft high roof that only adds up to 8 ft tall (a customer asked for this where I work). There is no such thing as any of that. Contradictory phrases do not reflect the nature of reality. They're just empty words. Words can contradict themselves but reality can not contradict itself. Something either exists, or there ain't something in the first place. There is no such thing as both existing and not existing. So words that contradict themselves don't reflect reality and must be relegated to poetic use rather than philosophical. Human Tendency:You suggested that the tendencies of humans are predictable. This is partially true. There are a lot of things about people that are predictable. But as far as our moral choices go, they are free from any outside causation, free from any mechanical forces, free from mathematical formulas, and so on. Tendency is a vague word in this context because it conveys the idea of statistics and a hint of the idea of predictability and causation. Statistics don't apply to free choices the way they do to physics. Even though the whole world is bad, each new person can make their own choices. The fact that so many people have been bad does not make anyone's moral character scientifically predictable. There is no such thing as an infallibly predictable free choice. The phrase doesn't have any meaning because it contradicts itself. Origin of Right and Wrong:Good and evil are definitely self-evident, not arbitrary. The Bible says, Yahweh God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Also, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things" Right and wrong come from self-evident value. There is no such thing as having so much power and authority that you can make good not be good anymore. That would be another contradiction. There is no such thing as having control over whether good is good or not. The knowledge of right and wrong originates in God's mind because He is intelligent. We also have a small amount of His intelligence and so we can also discern right from wrong, just not as fully as He can. We have to rely on His superior wisdom. Belief:I don't really think of belief in God as a choice because it seems self-evident to my mind that He created all of this. The alternative would be insanity in my experience. I used to be agnostic. But the Bible says we are all without excuse because we can clearly discern God's existence from seeing all of creation. I still used to pray sometimes when I was supposedly agnostic. It is reasonable to reject wrong ideas about God, like the foreknowledge of free choices and things like that. That doesn't mean we are rejecting our Creator himself though, just a wrong idea about Him. It seems to me that you ought to feel incapable of believing some of these contradictory ideas we've been discussing. But I don't think that means you would feel incapable of believing in God Himself once you see past those wrong ideas. The Bible says that we all know about God whether we say we do or not. I will think some more about faith in the hopes of having more to say about it. I haven't really had many doubts since I read the gospels. When I read all the words of Jesus Christ, there was not any doubt in my mind that He was trustworthy. Seriously, I would challenge anyone to read His words and judge for themselves if He seems like a liar when He claims to have come down from God in heaven. The Lord is awesome. If you have not read the gospels I beg you to do so. The number of rational people who have read them and believed outweighs all the world's religious hypocrisy - not that that is proof - but it morally obligates any sincere truth seeker to investigate the claims of Jesus Christ and the disciples who knew him personally. Jesus said, "For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Punishment:Sin is breaking God's law. The punishment for breaking a law should fit the crime. What that really boils down to is that the severity of punishment should match the value of that which the law protects. If the law protects an eye, then the punishment should cost an eye. If the law protects a life, then the punishment should cost a life. That's what the Bible says, Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for life, wound for wound. This is the duty of the government though, not private citizens taking personal vengeance. So the severity of the punishment for breaking God's law should match the value that God's law protects. If the law was unimportant and protected nothing, then the punishment should be nothing. Do you agree with that so far? Should the punishment for breaking a law depend on the value that law protects? Is an eye for an eye fair? Or should it be two eyes for one eye? Or a lock of hair for an eye? What kind of message would it send to society if we just snipped a lock of hair when someone took out someone's eye? What would the public impact be? Would it make for a safe society? Do you understand the relevance of these questions? I'm trying to finish this response at work now. Thanks for your patience. I'm going to cut off here and just post this without finishing the response to every point you brought up. I will plan on finishing this soon, but maybe you would like to interrupt if you get where I'm going, or if I've misunderstood, or if you have a different question.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Oct 19, 2011 17:11:09 GMT -5
Time/Contradiction: I am still assuming the calendar paradigm, I still believe that an unlimited God would be outside of time and I think I have good reason to suppose that. Do you believe that God is not outside of space? technically speaking, supposing I could live for a really long time and I knew which direction to travel, could I hop in a space shuttle and travel to heaven to say "hey wud up JC." Is God made of the same stuff we are? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the traditional belief is that God is outside of space. I think an unlimited God would not have to obey any laws of reality. This God would have created the laws of reality. I agree that ones inability to draw a triangle with 4 sides does not say anything about ones ability to draw triangles. No matter how good you are you will never be able to do this. However I still see this as a limitation. Saying "I can't draw a triangle with 4 sides" simply suggests ones inability to draw a triangle with 4 sides. Reality will not allow it. Here is where theists run into problems, by suggesting that a being exists who is limitless, is to suggest there is One who is free from all limitations of reality. If God is confined to rules like these, he is not God. Reality is God. The law of reality is God's master. This same principe runs right along with the origins or right and wrong. If God is simply knowledgeable of what is good and what is evil, a reality exists that is the god over God.
Belief: I disagree with that bible verse (Romans 1:20 yes?) How can I be without excuse to not believe in him if I don't have the choice to believe in him, and even if I want to get there I can't get there based on reason. If I rely on faith as my compass I might as well flip a coin, might end up forcing myself to believe in the ancient greek Gods and realistically I don't think I'm capable of that. A reasonable faith is still based on reason, can't get there and Gods existence is so far away from self evident for me its ridiculous. I think that this is a pretty good excuse. If I find the time I'll take you up on your challenge to read through the gospels. Might take a while but yeah, I'll try to do that.
I don't have time to respond to the punishment part right now, Ill try to do that soon. Again I would like to say thanks for continuing in this dialogue. Many christians that I usually talk to would have lost patience with this kind of conversation already.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Oct 21, 2011 15:56:49 GMT -5
Punishment: This idea of punishment is too simple to be satisfactory. If what you say is true, we would rape rapists as punishment. Theres no way we could say "the value of this young women's sexual innocence is equally valuable as this rapists freedom for 25 years - life, so lets throw him in jail for that amount of time." Theres no way to be sure that this value judgement is correct, so lets do what the bible says, rape for a rape. We don't do that though. Do you believe that we should? If not, why not? I believe that the severity of the crime should affect the punishment of course but its much too simple to say the values should "match". There are also factors to consider that are not purely about retribution. Deterrence and rehabilitation should also play a role in deciding the punishment.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 15, 2011 9:32:29 GMT -5
bobbyjoecatfish, I'm sorry to have made you wait so long for a response. I hope you still see this since it's been a while.
It's not that God has to obey "Laws of Reality" as if some external laws are imposed upon Him. Laws (of logic, physics, morality) are more like a description of things that exist. They are not like arbitrary laws made by politicians and local governments. They are just descriptions of what the things that exist are like. Non-contradiction is not something that things have to "obey". It's simply the nature of "things" themselves that they are what they are. Reality is however reality is. Reality is not some way it isn't. However reality is, that's how it is. I know that sounds simple but it is true.
Our minds posses this mental reflection of reality called knowledge. Knowledge is consistent because it reflects reality. Since reality is how it is, not how it isn't, therefore true knowledge is also consistent with itself, not inconsistent. We are free to force contradictions upon our own minds (by deceiving ourselves, pretending, etc), but that is insanity because then our minds will not reflect reality. We have no ability to make reality other than what it is, therefore we can only turn knowledge into a false reflection of reality if we believe contradictions.
Contradictions are often passed off as wisdom in different religious traditions. A lot of people are sucked in by that kind of thing because it can seem like it is over their head and therefore it must be really intelligent or something.
God said the penalty for rape and for kidnapping should be death. Obviously no one should be raping rapists for punishment because they would be wrongly defiling their own body in order to inflict the punishment. God said rape in His judgment is just like when a man kills a man. So He commanded death for it.
Right and wrong originates in God's knowledge, not His will. It originates in God Himself, not outside of Him, not externally imposed upon Him. But neither is it arbitrary, because it is truth and understanding, not whim. Do you understand? It makes a huge difference.
I hope you still see this. Sorry again for keeping you waiting.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Nov 18, 2011 20:34:57 GMT -5
I realize that laws of logic, physics and morality are descriptions of things that exist, this amounts to the same thing, there are still laws in those descriptions. I don't see the relevance. I don't see any difference between these 2 statements "I can't draw a triangle with 4 sides, reality will not allow it" and "I can't draw a triangle with 4 sides because a triangle is a thing with 3 sides and it cannot be what is isn't". These statements amount to exactly the same thing. In the second statement, "it cannot be what it isn't" is a law of reality.
If knowledge is a reflection of reality, then nothing can originate in knowledge. A reality must exist outside of God for him to have knowledge and understanding of it. If right and wrong originate in "Gods knowledge" and that knowledge is not a reflection of reality, but is intrinsic to him then by your definition its not knowledge.
No worries on the long response time. I find this kind of conversation very interesting so I keep checking back. Do you have some kind of response for my point(s) on belief?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Nov 22, 2011 21:14:49 GMT -5
It is not like there are these geometry police who will not allow a triangle to have four sides. There simply is no meaning to the phrase "four-sided triangle". It is a meaningless string of letters. It does not mean anything because it is like the phrase has not decided what it wants to say yet. For example, have you ever seen children realize it is silly to answer "yesno" or "noyes" to a question? Sometimes they really think it is a funny way to tease someone. It's because they know that saying both yes and no together conveys zero meaning to the person asking the question. And they know when people ask questions they are looking for some meaning. So even children understand that contradictions are instrinsically without meaning. The words "four-sided triangle" are like a joke that children make. Being "outside of time", "not confined by space" - all that stuff is like a joke that children make. God is real - not some abstract science fiction concept. He is alive up in heaven ruling over us and will soon judge the world. The bible says, "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good."
Knowledge is part of reality. It is not distinct from reality. It can reflect itself. God has knowledge and understanding of Himself. We can relate to that because He made us the same way. God knew there was a great potential for happiness for Himself and all of us if He created us. But the actual potential for good is not the obligation itself. Potential is about what could or could not be. Obligation is about what should or should not be. There is no obligation until there is knowledge of potential good. That is why I said that obligation originates in God's knowledge. Without knowledge of potential good that you could choose there is no obligation. For example, the bible says, "to him who knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin."
There is nothing that makes trusting Jesus Christ illogical. The Bible says, "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord." Having read the words of Jesus and the rest of the Bible I can honestly say that if Jesus Christ is not trustworthy then nothing is trustworthy. Whoever would read the Bible, and then call it a lie, is a liar himself. The reason that Jesus Christ has had an impact on my life is because of how trustworthy He is. It is totally worthy of your trust that God would send Jesus to atone for our sins. We will not be judged by how we compare to other people. We will be judged righteously by our actions, our words, and the secrets of our hearts. Jesus Christ deserves your trust and He is the only one through whom we can be forgiven.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Nov 28, 2011 0:04:58 GMT -5
Ok well then I will try to word this in a way that fits your model, because I feel that this way of looking at it makes zero difference. So some strings of words have meaning, and others do not. The phrase "three sided triangle" has meaning, the phrase "four sided triangle" does not. This is determined by the nature of things that exist, thats just the way they are. Problem being, God does not have control over what strings of words have meaning. If this is so then he is not God because, again, reality is god over God (Its not like arbitrary government rule. All I'm saying with that is that if there is something outside of gods control and for god to be god he needs to be in control of everything, even the nature of meaning and things in existence.)
Ok so for the next topic, I understand what your saying more. You weren't saying that "the good" originates in God's knowledge like I thought, your saying that right and wrong choices do, because God has an understanding of what the good is and he sees what actions point towards potential for it. What I'm saying is that if "the good" is good because thats nature, thats the way it is and it did not originate in god, he just has knowledge of it therefore has knowledge of what decisions are right and wrong based of if they have potential for the good (if I'm wording it wrong, you should still be able to get what I'm saying) then there is a reality that god did not set in place. If "the good" originated in God, then its arbitrary, its pretty much just what god values.
So what your saying is I can get there based on reason? (that reason being, Jesus is obviously trustworthy, if you don't think so your a liar, if jesus is trustworthy then what he says is true therefore the christian worldview is true)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 4, 2011 23:44:29 GMT -5
The fact that the phrase "four-sided triangle" is meaningless is a result of the meaning of "four-sided" and the meaning of "triangle" (hint: "three-sided"). It is not the laws of physics that make us have to reluctantly say, "ok fine... four-sided triangles are meaningless i guess...." It is because there is such a thing as distinction in meaning. If "three" and "four" did not have distinct meaning then you would probably be dead. "Three" and "four" are quantities. Quantities are distinct. Therefore "three" and "four" are distinct. Aren't you imposing your laws of logic onto this discussion? You are saying that God HAS TO have this much or that much control because otherwise He would be violating a law that you believe in. You're saying a triangle should be able to be a rectangle no problem, but if God is not God then that is a problem. You are being consistently inconsistent. Why resort to logical argumentation if you want to "transcend" coherent meaning? When you are using logic to make a point about how much control God ought to have, you are relying on the principle of non-contradiction. You are trying to use non-contradiction to refute non-contradiction. Refutation and objection both presuppose non-contradiction. By objecting to non-contradiction you are really professing your own faith in non-contradiction. There is nothing wrong with saying God has both voluntary and involuntary attributes. You have to exist in order to have a will or any control or power. God's own happiness has intrinsic value. There does not need to be some extra reality outside of God in order for Him to be aware of the potential for His own well-being. The potential for good originates in God because He has the capacity to experience happiness, peace, joy, contentment. Just because the potential originates in God does not make it arbitrary. It does not originate in His will. God governs His own will in accordance with the moral obligation in His own mind which is based on the potential for good that exists in Himself first and now also in us by His own choice to create us. The existence of God is obvious. It is written into our minds by God Himself. Three year old children are smart enough to know there is an intelligent reason behind everything in the universe because they always ask "why" about everything. People deny God's existence because they don't like Him. Jesus said, He who doesn’t believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light, and doesn’t come to the light, lest his works would be exposed. People deny God's existence because they want to be as far away as possible from thinking about God judging them for their selfishness like they deserve. But because it is not easy to resist the conscience, unbelievers then pretend that they are innocent and sincere in their unbelief. If they did not pretend innocence then it would be too easy to feel the light of God's law shining on their selfish hearts. We ABUNDANTLY deserve to go to hell for loving our own pleasure above God's! If you truly value your own well-being then you should be terrified when you rationally consider what must become of you on the day of judgment. The bible says the unbelieving will be cast into the LAKE of FIRE. Don't count on just turning into dirt when you die and that's it. God raised Jesus Christ from the dead proving our future resurrection and judgment. The only way you can be saved is to repent of selfishness and submit to God, believing in Jesus Christ. Jesus IS trustworthy. He is perfect, without sin. The Bible says, The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. The apostle Peter (one of Jesus's closest friends) said, We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mountain.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Dec 8, 2011 16:34:17 GMT -5
Again, zero difference lol. The fact that quantities are distinct is just another way that it all works without God, outside of his control.
I'm not necessarily making an argument for contradiction. I am pointing out why I think that non-contradiction for God is absurd. I also think contradiction for God is absurd (ex. predestination). I'm pretty much saying that either way God does not make sense and we should not believe in his existence. The bible and teachers of the bible paint a picture of a God that has infinite power and infinite control. If his power/control is limited in any way its finite. If there is any way that the universe works without God putting it in place (such as distinction of quantities) and he has to work within those perimeters, then again he is limited in some way. This is not just my idea of what God has to be, its biblical.
The existence of God is far from obvious. Thats why were having this conversation.
Glad your trying to explain my unbelief away haha. I am sincere and genuine in my suspension of belief. It has nothing to do with my love of darkness, everything to do with what I think is true and what I think is false based on my rationality.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 20, 2011 20:32:26 GMT -5
I didn't say quantities are distinct without God. They are distinct because of God. God can obviously count.
Furthermore, someone's existence has to be certain in order for the extent of their control to be certain. If you might exist and not exist simultaneously in some weird contradiction then the extent of your control is not even certain. Existing is more fundamental than having control.
Also, if contradictions are meaningful, then I can agree with you and disagree with you simultaneously. Ready? You're not wrong... ok ... and I'm right. POOF! It's a miracle.
This nonsense is all beside the point anyway. The bible doesn't say God can perform a contradiction, Jesse would not say that, I never said that.
What are you actually saying? Are you arguing FOR this irrational and unbiblical idea that God can perform contradictions? Or are you arguing AGAINST it? If you are arguing against it then it is a straw-man. If you are arguing for it then you can't prove it.
The bible says when you lie to yourself about God then you become stupid and insane. You need to get your brain washed with the bible so you can have a sound mind like God instead of a warped and darkened mind like your mentor, Satan.
Jesus Christ is true. You say He is a liar because you hate Him. You should get right with God. You are going to burn in hell and you act like you don't even care! Confess your unbelief to God and trust in the Lord Jesus. You could die in your sleep any night and then you will not feel so smart anymore. Then you will not care about acting like an innocent little angel in your unbelief. You won't fondly remember your atheism the moment you see the lake of fire. Don't let the devil put thoughts in your mind like "he is just some crazy religious guy" or "I don't believe in God anyway" and "I don't need to be scared of going to hell", "hell is not a real place I am going to", etc. It is really stupid to embrace those thoughts. Whatever you think you are getting out of this, trying to convince yourself that you are an atheist, you will soon regret when you die and they start to take you down into hell. You will instantly hate yourself at that moment and forever regret rejecting Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Dec 21, 2011 13:25:49 GMT -5
I thought this was going to continue being a reasonable conversation, its not anymore. Id like to respond to your points, that conversation is something I could continue but your turning me off with your preaching. Get off your pulpit. I'm fine with continuing the debate over weather God exists or not, but if your going to tell me that I hate Jesus and assume all these things about my unbelief then I have no interest in continuing.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 21, 2011 22:03:08 GMT -5
Of course you don't have an interest in continuing. It's not me you have a problem with. It's Jesus. Jesus said, "the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." Was Jesus irrational for saying that? Jesus said, "he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." Was He irrational for saying that? Doesn't He turn you off? He said, "this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." Does it turn you off when Jesus says you hate Him? Doesn't He make you lose interest? Isn't it irritating when He is warning you that you are headed for hell? It's too bad you are an atheist! If only you believed then you could pray and ask Jesus to change the subject! " Lord, please stop saying I hate you and that I am going to bust hell wide open. It is totally turning me off! Amen."
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Dec 22, 2011 23:54:39 GMT -5
If you converted to faith because of a fear of hell (which it really seems like you did with your fixation on the whole fire and brimstone method of conversion) your faith is pathetic.
I'm not basing my worldview on something just because people tell me there are consequences for not believing that way.
"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called faith."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 25, 2011 20:36:07 GMT -5
You said, "I would rather be within his grace instead of risking eternal damnation." But why? What is your non-pathetic reason for not wanting to risk eternal damnation? Or were you just going out of your way to pretend to be reasonable? Jesus said you will be thrown into lava. You say it's unfair . But Jesus said you are a self-deluded liar. So unless Jesus is the liar, then it is fair. Jesus is not a liar, so He will actually have you thrown into lava. Therefore it is surely worth warning you in the hope that you will reconsider your attitude toward God. You already know you deserve it. Yes you do. There is no such thing as converting to faith because of fear. Jesus says unbelievers are liars. There is only stopping being a liar and starting to seek God. Even if Jesus had not told the truth about unbelievers then it would not even be logical to "become a believer" out of fear because the fear would imply belief in the first place. So not only did Jesus say you are a liar, but the fact that He solemnly warned that unbelievers will go into the lava and stay there is even more proof of your lies oh godless one. God wants us to obey Him, not just to admit He exists. The bible says, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." There is no such thing as obeying God simply out of selfish fear. God's law says to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. We can't obey that out of selfish fear because that is just a contradiction. Jesus said, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." But Jesus said that to His friends. I don't know if He would have wasted time talking to you because He said "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine". Merry Christmas if you repent.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Dec 25, 2011 22:34:57 GMT -5
I don't have one. It would be pathetic of me to convert for that reason. At the same time I don't even think I have the option or choice to do so because its absurd to me. The only legitimate reason to believe something is to come to the conclusion via observation reason and experience. Faith is a belief or a conclusion that does not depend on these things.
Jesus doesn't have to be a liar to say things that are untrue. If he believes these things and says them he is not a liar, whether these things are true or not.
An agnostic can fear hell without believing that it necessarily exists.
Once you truly believe that God exists I don't think motivation to obey him would be hard to find. Belief is the hard part.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Dec 26, 2011 1:32:01 GMT -5
They say that when god was in Jerusalem he forgave his murderers, but now he will not forgive an honest man for differing with him on the subject of the Trinity. They say that God says to me, "Forgive your enemies." I say, "I do;" but he says, "I will damn mine." God should be consistent. If he wants me to forgive my enemies he should forgive his. I am asked to forgive enemies who can hurt me. God is only asked to forgive enemies who cannot hurt him. He certainly ought to be as generous as he asks us to be."
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 1, 2012 16:03:47 GMT -5
Why should I believe that God's existence is not glaringly obvious to you? I don't have any proof of your atheism. No empirical evidence. Just your claim that you know better than Jesus.
If Jesus was not a liar then He would have to be insane or a fool. He said He came down from God in heaven. He said He was the only begotten son of God. He said He existed before this world did. As they say, He was either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord.
The fact that you are trying to malign God's character with your lame misunderstandings of the Gospel proves that you are no atheist. You are just scrounging for some excuse to justify yourself. As the Bible says, "even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind". In Romans 1, you are only a few verses away from becoming a fag. Maybe that's what it will take for you to wake up.
The Bible doesn't even have the word "trinity" in it. Jesus said, "You believe in God. Believe also in me". What is so complicated?
There is a difference between being loving and pardoning criminals. Does a loving judge just pardon every single crime? Obviously not because it would ruin the community. A loving judge does what is best for the community. Not out of selfish spite, but out of love and wisdom. Personal forgiveness and judicial pardon are two totally different things. If you don't turn you will burn.
If you were sincere you could cry out to God and He would help you with your stubborn darkened mind.
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Jan 1, 2012 23:08:05 GMT -5
Belief in God requires faith therefor its not glaringly obvious to anyone. I'm not getting your argument that I'm not actually and unbeliever. Jesus mentioned unbelievers, there obviously out there. Me telling you "I'm one of them" should be all the evidence you need to conclude my belief is suspended. I don't need to prove my agnosticism, the burden of proof is on the believer.
In my perception, you believe a lot of ridiculous things. Like freaking retarded out there type stuff. But do I think you are insane or actually mentally ill? Or a Liar? no. Humans are capable of believing things without any reasonable basis. You are a perfect example of that. Jesus (if not fiction) is another example of that.
That does not prove I'm not an unbeliever lol your hilarious. On one hand I don't think God exists, theres no evidence. On the other hand I don't think that the fictional character that is God is good. If I said bad things about Zeus would that prove my belief in him? Your ridiculous.
No crime deserves and infinite punishment. Earlier you wrote something about the fact that its God's law being the reason for eternal punishment. The importance of the law shouldn't have any correlation with the importance of the person who created it.
If you were sincere you would open your mind and realize your faith is complete bullshit
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Jan 9, 2012 13:48:23 GMT -5
I thought of a problem, just wondering if you have an intelligent answer for it. You have said before that God is within time, not outside of it. I'm assuming that you believe that God has always existed, no beginning no end. Would that not suggest that an infinite amount of time has passed to get to this point? (that obviously being a contradiction, by definition an infinite amount of time never ever passes)
I honestly appreciate the intelligent responses you have given me on a number of these issues. The point of my coming on this forum was too see if there was intelligent answers for a number of religious issues. I thought, just because i don't see it and i can't find any good answers to these things that doesn't mean they don't exist. But your preaching is entirely unconvincing for me. I already know the bible says I'm going to hell and I deserve it, you repeating that doesn't make me feel any more conviction then I had before. The only way I will feel convicted is if I see it to be rationally true. The only way you have a hope of getting me there is with rationality not a hellfire and brimstone sermon.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 19:40:07 GMT -5
I thought of a problem, just wondering if you have an intelligent answer for it. You have said before that God is within time, not outside of it. I'm assuming that you believe that God has always existed, no beginning no end. Would that not suggest that an infinite amount of time has passed to get to this point? (that obviously being a contradiction, by definition an infinite amount of time never ever passes) I honestly appreciate the intelligent responses you have given me on a number of these issues. The point of my coming on this forum was too see if there was intelligent answers for a number of religious issues. I thought, just because i don't see it and i can't find any good answers to these things that doesn't mean they don't exist. But your preaching is entirely unconvincing for me. I already know the bible says I'm going to hell and I deserve it, you repeating that doesn't make me feel any more conviction then I had before. The only way I will feel convicted is if I see it to be rationally true. The only way you have a hope of getting me there is with rationality not a hellfire and brimstone sermon. bobbyjoe, there is no such thing as an infinite amount. The two ideas (infinity & amount) are mutually exclusive. I can't think of any other way to reinterpret the question because it seems like it totally hangs on assuming eternity past is a quantifiable duration. I've thought about this a lot in the past few years and I also asked my friend recently for help trying to understand your question here. As it stands it is self-contradictory. If you can find some way around the contradiction of saying "infinite amount" or "infinite duration" that would be interesting to me. The question really seems to presuppose some kind of starting point. Did you try reading the gospels yet?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Mar 2, 2012 19:47:14 GMT -5
ps - hellfire and brimstone is a logical approach because I know the bible is trustworthy when it says all sinners (including unbelievers) are without excuse
|
|
|
Post by bobbyjoecatfish on Apr 2, 2012 19:14:11 GMT -5
Is there a difference between saying something has "always existed" (had no beginning), and something has existed for an infinite amount of time? I see where you see the contradiction between "infinite" and "amount" but where is the difference between that and a statement that I'm assuming you would agree with. That is again that God has always existed.
Its only logical if you assume the bible to be true and trustworthy in the first place. Once you convince me that christianity is rationally true we can agree about about hell. But you must realize that that kind of preaching is completely unconvincing.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 15, 2012 20:51:38 GMT -5
Is there a difference between saying something has "always existed" (had no beginning), and something has existed for an infinite amount of time? I see where you see the contradiction between "infinite" and "amount" but where is the difference between that and a statement that I'm assuming you would agree with. That is again that God has always existed. I think it depends on what you mean by "always". If you mean "all times past" then that would be trying to quantify eternity again. I usually just say God had no beginning. There is no contradiction there. The Bible does not say anything about God having a beginning. It makes sense to me that God would be eternal, otherwise you have existence suddenly appearing out of completely nothing. Presupposing everything that had a beginning also had a cause, then God did not ever have a beginning. Now if a beginning does not imply a cause then I don't think we would have any basis for science. We might detect synchronization and patterns in successive events but we couldn't say this one caused that one. Maybe it just happened without a cause. The patterns would be meaningless and unreliable chance. Unbelieving physicists have already resorted to stuff like this. It is amazing they still keep their jobs. This is also a problem with the idea that the universe is not ruled by a benevolent and intelligent mind. If everything was just random fractal stew then there would be no basis for scientific conclusions, only uninstructive experience. Even our sense of experience vs experiencer would be unreliable. The sense of identity could just be an uncaused and temporary quirk in the fractal stew of chance. People have to decide if the truth is valuable to them or not. How could you rationally prove that you don't really just believe God exists. Do you have any empirical proof that you might not believe in Him? Why should I take your word for it? If it is not good enough for me to say the bible is trustworthy then why is it good enough for you to say that your words are trustworthy when you say you really don't know if God exists? The bible had approx 40 authors over a huge span of time who all agreed and show no signs of being untrustworthy. Do you really have some empirical reason why I should trust you over the bible? I really hope you will read the bible for yourself. You could just read the gospel written by John. It is only 25 pages in my bible. Then you can judge by the character of the author whether you think it is worthy of your trust or not. Do you have a bible? If you prefer you could even read it online. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NKJV
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Jun 7, 2014 23:17:00 GMT -5
Hey it is better to be honest than to be a hypocrite. Jesus said to religious hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain.." There are a few different ideas you've brought up here. First I'll explain why other people have said these ideas limit God. People have this idea of time like it is a giant calendar. When you look at a calendar all the different days are right there in front of you - at the same time. You can see all the different days at once. There is a philosophical and religious tradition that says time is really like that. People theorized that time is like a calendar so that God can see every day at once. They said it was like God could take a step back and view all of history simultaneously. If that view of time were true then, Yes, it would be a limitation if God could not predict the free choices on a given day. If all of history existed simultaneously, like on a calendar, then of course God would be able to see it all. He wouldn't even need to predict things, because they would be directly visible. Imagine... there's a little boy taking his first steps on one day - scroll down the calendar a little - and there's that same person as an old man rejecting God on a later day. That would be totally insane, but that is basically the mainstream tradition. Is that something along the lines of what you meant by God being limited? If the future actually existed then God would certainly be limited if He could not see it. Fortunately reality is not like a calendar. There are not multiple days all happening side by side. There is none of that "Back-to-the-Future" / "Butterfly Effect" time travel stuff where you can go visit some other day in the past. The past does not exist. The word "exist" is a present tense verb. How could the past or the future "exist" (present)? It is all a big contradiction. There are not any other days you could "go to" other than right now. It makes a convenient science-fiction plot device, but it does not describe reality. If that stuff was true, imagine: you are worshiping God one day, strumming your ukulele on some tropical beach. But the whole time you are singing your heart out to God, in the corner of His eye, He can see the future way down on the imaginary calendar, and there you are in hell because years later you harden your heart and robbed some poor old lady. It is possible for anyone to choose to be good or bad. If all the different days actually exist, God might see all this at the same time you are on the beach praising Him under your coconut tree. You wouldn't know it, but He would. You would be enjoying worshiping Him, but He would be thinking "Why would I even make a universe like this?" Isn't that insane? If you and I would be reasonable enough not to make a universe like that, then certainly God is reasonable enough not to make things that way. To say that the future itself already exists is a direct contradiction to free will. If the future already exists (present tense) then our future choices have already been made - they would be set in stone. This is impossible because we have free will. There are actual different possibilities, not a script all written out in advance. If we have free will then the future can not exist already. Not only does it practically contradict the rules of grammar to say the future exists, but it also contradicts our ability to make free choices. The future does not exist. Since the future itself does not exist, God is not limited if He can't directly see "it". If I said God does not see Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer's nose, I would not be saying that God is limited, because Rudolph is fictional. It is not a limitation when we "can't see" things that don't even exist yet. There is no such thing as seeing something that doesn't exist. About the idea of God making mistakes: It is not like anyone has to be bad. People have free will. Creating people was not a mistake on God's part. It was a risk. It is people who have the power to turn themselves into a mistake or not. You can't give people the chance to be good (voluntary choice) without giving them the power to rebel also. The ability to be good and the ability to be evil are the same ability, not two different abilities. We are fully able to choose either way. So if it is wrong to give people the ability to be evil, then it is also wrong to give people the chance to be good. But is it wrong for a man and a woman to have children? Is it too much of a risk to have children who will develop the ability to choose good or evil? It seems pretty sad to say that no one should ever exist because some people might abuse their free will and endanger the whole community. Creation was not a mistake, as if God didn't realize what kind of power He was giving to people. It was a risk to create people. There is no way to share your life and power and have a relationship of trust without taking a risk of being betrayed. The other ideas you brought up were hell and tyranny. Certainly hell would be a tyrannical and unjust abuse if our future was set in stone before we were ever born. But if our future is open and we are in control of our moral choices, then God has the obligation to uphold the law for the good of the whole universe. God's law is not arbitrary but is based on self-evident truth (like in the Declaration of Independence). God only requires what is necessary and beneficial. He does not just make up impossible laws arbitrarily. His law is based on what is self-evidently best for everyone. God only punishes wicked people because He has to - not because He likes to hurt anyone. The Bible says, He has no pleasure in troubling and causing grief to the children of men. Let me know if I've misunderstood anything you brought up. I condensed the last couple points there to make the reply shorter.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 31, 2014 22:50:08 GMT -5
Yo, what's the deal?! I didn't make that last post. Hope that was a one time glitch
|
|