NationStates Jolt Archive

The other thread on free will made me want to ask this.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered sadistic for creating a person he knew would go to hell?

The other thread on free will made me want to ask this.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered for creating a person he knew would go to hell?
You know a gun that you sell will be used to shoot something. Should you be liable if the owner of that gun chooses to use it in the wrong way?

Is something good because it is favoured by God, or is it favoured by God because it is good? Does morality even apply to a supreme being?

Is something good because it is favoured by God, or is it favoured by God because it is good? Does morality even apply to a supreme being?
Someone good is favored by God, like Job.

You know a gun that you sell will be used to shoot something. Should you be liable if the owner of that gun chooses to use it in the wrong way?

Exactly. Even if God sees the outcome, He/She/It/They, isn't responsible for that outcome. That's exactly what free will is all about.

Good/Evil is there really such a thing?

Good/Evil is there really such a thing?
No, all actions are equally morally valid. Killing a million Jews in torture chambers is equally morally valid as feeding a million starving children.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered for creating a person he knew would go to hell?
I don't understand the question.

You know a gun that you sell will be used to shoot something. Should you be liable if the owner of that gun chooses to use it in the wrong way?

If you absolutely know that it will be used in such a manner, then yes. You're an accessory to the crime.

Good/Evil is there really such a thing?

yes, but it all depends on perception and moral values.

If you value life, then taking someone else's life can be viewed as Evil and saving someone else's life can be viewed as Good.

The next question... Can Good exsist without Evil? and vice versa?

Is something good because it is favoured by God, or is it favoured by God because it is good? Does morality even apply to a supreme being?

Someone's read Euthyphro, I take it.

Anyhow, I think this argument is directly related to the free will one. If the person damned to hell from conception had free will, God might not be to blame. If he had no free will, God is clearly a jerk (whether or not we want to call him "evil").

If you absolutely know that it will be used in such a manner, then yes. You're an accessory to the crime.
That's reading too much into the analogy. What it boils down to is that God gives every human being a gun, and the choice to use it or not. He knows what they will do, but He gives them the option.

That's reading too much into the analogy. What it boils down to is that God gives every human being a gun, and the choice to use it or not. He knows what they will do, but He gives them the option.

Gotta love the Free Will thing... :p

Predestination is a crap theory. God doesn't create people just to damn them. People forge their own paths.

yes, but it all depends on perception and moral values.

If you value life, then taking someone else's life can be viewed as Evil and saving someone else's life can be viewed as Good.

The next question... Can Good exsist without Evil? and vice versa?

Relatively, no. Absolutely, yes.

Good can exist without evil, but for needs of a reference, we would not know what is good without evil to measure it against. Therefor, relatively, good cannot exist without evil.

Absolutely, yes it can. If everyone and everything was good, and we purged all evil, then good would still be good, regardless of the existence of evil.

Predestination is a crap theory. God doesn't create people just to damn them. People forge their own paths.

if god is all knowing, then he knows what you are going to do with your "free will" (cuz he knows what you will eventually do), so in creating you he is indeed damming us. that is, if god even exists. :confused:

if god is all knowing, then he knows what you are going to do with your "free will" (cuz he knows what you will eventually do), so in creating you he is indeed damming us. that is, if god even exists. :confused:
No, He knows what you're going to do, but He doesn't force you to do it. I know my heart is beating, but I'm not making it do so.

The other thread on free will made me want to ask this.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered for creating a person he knew would go to hell?

For those who are parents, when your son or daughter was born, you knew that one day they would do bad stuff. You knew that they wouldn't always be perfect, and that they'd make mistakes. However, once they were born you were happy, same thing applies to God. Of course He knew that Adam and Eve would sin and that the whole world would decline morally to the point where they had to be completely oblitirated in a flood, but God was happy when he created Adam and Eve.

You know a gun that you sell will be used to shoot something. Should you be liable if the owner of that gun chooses to use it in the wrong way?
if you have absolute power (as God does) then yes, you should. if you were totally capable of stopping that person from harming anybody, and if stopping them would have done you no harm or cost you any effort, and you CHOSE to allow them to harm somebody anyway, then you bear part of the blame. most states in America have laws that hold humans responsible (something like compassionate bistander laws, usually), so why don't we hold God to the same basic standard of compassion and responsibility?

if you have absolute power (as God does) then yes, you should. if you were totally capable of stopping that person from harming anybody, and if stopping them would have done you no harm or cost you any effort, and you CHOSE to allow them to harm somebody anyway, then you bear part of the blame. most states in America have laws that hold humans responsible (something like compassionate bistander laws, usually), so why don't we hold God to the same basic standard of compassion and responsibility?
Because just as our laws don't apply to China, our laws don't apply to God. Let's look at the argument the other way. The government could implant a microchip that constantly monitored your actions. Anytime you were about to do something illegal, it would kill you. Thus, all crime would stop. But would you be happy then?

The other thread on free will made me want to ask this.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered for creating a person he knew would go to hell?

Hmm maybe God understood that this planet needs a balance of good and evil. Im sorry to say that we need people in this planet who are violent and hateful just as much as we need people who are peaceful and tolerant. Good depends on Evil and vice versa

That's reading too much into the analogy. What it boils down to is that God gives every human being a gun, and the choice to use it or not. He knows what they will do, but He gives them the option.

No, you're oversimplifying the analogy. God knows you're going to sin if He gives you life, and he gives you life anyway. That makes God PARTIALLY responsible when you sin.

No, you're oversimplifying the analogy. God knows you're going to sin if He gives you life, and he gives you life anyway. That makes God PARTIALLY responsible when you sin.
It doesn't make God anymore responsible than a parent who gives birth to a murderer.

Hmm maybe God understood that this planet needs a balance of good and evil. Im sorry to say that we need people in this planet who are violent and hateful just as much as we need people who are peaceful and tolerant. Good depends on Evil and vice versa

Explain how society benefits from the existence of evil.

It doesn't make God anymore responsible than a parent who gives birth to a murderer.

False analogy. The parent doesn't know their child will grow up to be a murderer. God knows we are going to sin.

Absolutely, yes it can. If everyone and everything was good, and we purged all evil, then good would still be good, regardless of the existence of evil.

But wouldn't the lesser good then become evil? the bar (so to speak) would raise up and the lesser good then would be the next evil.

eh. God's obviously on crack.

and about Good/Evil...there are no absolutes, within each are seeds of the other...even God is not a being of pure goodness,nor the devil one entirely of evil.has the yin-yang taught you nothing?

freedom is a dangerous thing, but one humans have brought upon themselves...free will=knowlege=experience in order to determine right from wrong=eating that darn apple and getting kicked out of paradise...what i don't get : God gives us curiosity and then punishes us for acting on it...shouldn't a teacher be happy when a student tries to learn, even if s/he is going about it in the wrong way?it's just, eternal banishment and damnation seems like a bit of an extreme reaction to a few bites out of a tempting apple by some very naive people. thinking about this in modern terms, would you punish a child who took candy from a stranger though you had told him/her not to? wouldn't the real wrath be towards the stranger?
God is a strange parent...but then apparently there were a few millenia there where God was very angry,so...

[QUOTE=Flamingle]eh. God's obviously on crack.

[QUOTE]

Of course he's on something... look at the Platypuss... :p

Explain how society benefits from the existence of evil.

Society benefits from evil because it allows people to understand pain and other stuff... I'm not defending the argument that God exists, i am an atheist, i just think that Evil does have its place in society as a teacher...

It doesn't make God anymore responsible than a parent who gives birth to a murderer.

There is no relationship between God and the parent example. How many mass murderers were normal people who just felt like murdering a shit load of people one day. In these situations, there are almost always biological factors that would cause a person to behave in this fashion. The parents have no control over this, the person has no control over this. The only person with control over this is God.

There is no relationship between God and the parent example. How many mass murderers were normal people who just felt like murdering a shit load of people one day. In these situations, there are almost always biological factors that would cause a person to behave in this fashion. The parents have no control over this, the person has no control over this. The only person with control over this is God.
Are you saying people are genetically predestined to be murderers? There'd be a good place for you in the eugenics movement...

Exactly. Even if God sees the outcome, He/She/It/They, isn't responsible for that outcome. That's exactly what free will is all about.

That isn't what is asked, though. It might be more appropriate to ask:

You know that if you build a gun, it will be used to commit homicide (i.e. not just shooting something, but shooting and killing a living rational creature). Are you morally culpable for that murder if you build the gun?

The answer, of course, is yes. Your actions played an integral role in the act, making it impossible were your actions not involved for the crime to have been committed, making you a de facto accessory to the crime.

Apply the same logic to God, and I think you have a strong rationale for why something has to give in traditional theology. Either you redefine what it means for there to be free will, or you stop positing God as omniscient/omnipotent.

the concept of predestination/hell is utter bullshit. If God loves us, he/she would never create us just to damn us. I believe that the supreme being is everlasting and benevolent, and all powerful in the spiritual realm, but I do not believe that he/she is either omnipotent or that he/she knows the future.

Are you saying people are genetically predestined to be murderers? There'd be a good place for you in the eugenics movement...

Obviously, that is not what I'm saying at all. Not only did you drastically simplify my statement, but you turned around until it really has nothing to do with the original point behind it.

Obviously, that is not what I'm saying at all. Not only did you drastically simplify my statement, but you turned around until it really has nothing to do with the original point behind it.
Well, people are either predestined or they aren't. If they're not, then God is no more liable than the parent. If they are, then eugenics is actually a good idea.

the concept of predestination/hell is utter bullshit. If God loves us, he/she would never create us just to damn us. I believe that the supreme being is everlasting and benevolent, and all powerful in the spiritual realm, but I do not believe that he/she is either omnipotent or that he/she knows the future.

Finally, a reasonable Christian who recognizes the flawed logic and manages to make up his own mind as to how it all works. You have my admiration, as you are in a very select class.

Well, people are either predestined or they aren't. If they're not, then God is no more liable than the parent. If they are, then eugenics is actually a good idea.

You failed to address the actual topic, since it referred to predetermination and the liability of God, not predetermination and the justification of eugenics. Since you declared God no more liable than the parent when life is not preordained, I suppose you feel it is less true when there is a predetermined fate.

1. Humans either have a predestined fate or do not.
2. For a cognizant creator to be omniscient, ut must know all that is going to happen.
3. If one knows all that is going to happen, then there must be a set future.
4. If there is a set future, then the lives of all people are preordained.
5. Thus, either there is predestined fate or there is no cognizant creator.
6. There is a cognizant creator.
7. Humans have a predestined fate.

For the conclusion in no. 7 to be wrong, one of the previous statements must be wrong also. One covers all options, two, three, and four are correct by definition, and five is correct through logical deduction. That means either we have a correct conclusion or six is incorrect.

You failed to address the actual topic, since it referred to predetermination and the liability of God, not predetermination and the justification of eugenics. Since you declared God no more liable than the parent when life is not preordained, I suppose you feel it is less true when there is a predetermined fate.

1. Humans either have a predestined fate or do not.
2. For a cognizant creator to be omniscient, ut must know all that is going to happen.
3. If one knows all that is going to happen, then there must be a set future.
4. If there is a set future, then the lives of all people are preordained.
5. Thus, either there is predestined fate or there is no cognizant creator.
6. There is a cognizant creator.
7. Humans have a predestined fate.

For the conclusion in no. 7 to be wrong, one of the previous statements must be wrong also. One covers all options, two, three, and four are correct by definition, and five is correct through logical deduction. That means either we have a correct conclusion or six is incorrect.
Three and four are only true in the context of a Creator bound by time. If someone existed at all points of time simultaneously, they would have omniesence without predetermining anything.

Three and four are only true in the context of a Creator bound by time. If someone existed at all points of time simultaneously, they would have omniesence without predetermining anything.

For something to exist at all points of time, time must be predetermined.

For something to exist at all points of time, time must be predetermined.
No, time is finite. God is infinite. A line is made up of an infinite number of points, the line exists at every point, yet none of those points is dependent on any other point.

Relating time to a one dimensional construct is a drastic simplification.

The beauty of being on my side is having you cornered by God's absoluteness, no matter how grandiose or vague your arguments can get I can still point to the fact that God created all of the constraints so is therefore responsible for the results.

God is infinite, time is finite, therefore God must have created time for it to exist in. So, at the creation of all things, God must have known that his actions would lead to the pain and suffering of all of his creations, be it during their lives, or after.

So, how about this question, if there is a all-knowing, completely just God would he choose not to exist, or would he continue with his operations? Would he have a choice in the matter?

Good/Evil is there really such a thing?

No, there is only choice and the ramifications of choice.

Then again, neither do I believe in heaven or hell, but in reincarnation. What we do in one life comes back the next. Or as a friend of mine said, "You keep coming back until you get it right. Then you can leave."

For something to exist at all points of time, time must be predetermined.

Nope.

"All that is" existed before this cycle of the universe and will exist in all possible futures. Which is to say, all that has happened before is "set in stone"; the future is an infinity of possibilities.

In none of those possibilities does "All that is" not exist.

need a more detailed explanation of time?

Relating time to a one dimensional construct is a drastic simplification.

The beauty of being on my side is having you cornered by God's absoluteness, no matter how grandiose or vague your arguments can get I can still point to the fact that God created all of the constraints so is therefore responsible for the results.

God is infinite, time is finite, therefore God must have created time for it to exist in. So, at the creation of all things, God must have known that his actions would lead to the pain and suffering of all of his creations, be it during their lives, or after.

So, how about this question, if there is a all-knowing, completely just God would he choose not to exist, or would he continue with his operations? Would he have a choice in the matter?

Everything that happens - all the pain, suffering, etc - is temporal. Can you remember pain? No - it's stored allegorically, not directly. You can remember that you hurt, but you can't say how much it hurt, except allegorically.

If we choose to suffer, we're allowed to do so. Our choices, our results. Simple.

You failed to address the actual topic, since it referred to predetermination and the liability of God, not predetermination and the justification of eugenics. Since you declared God no more liable than the parent when life is not preordained, I suppose you feel it is less true when there is a predetermined fate.

1. Humans either have a predestined fate or do not.

They do not. True.



2. For a cognizant creator to be omniscient, ut must know all that is going to happen.

All potential and possible futures are within the realm of "All that is". Ergo, true.



3. If one knows all that is going to happen, then there must be a set future.

False. To use a simple analogy, you flip a coin. There are three outcomes - it lands heads, it lands tails, it lands on its edge. Just because you know all the possibilities does not mean you know which possibility will manifest at this particular point in time.



4. If there is a set future, then the lives of all people are preordained.

As there is no set future, False.



5. Thus, either there is predestined fate or there is no cognizant creator.
6. There is a cognizant creator.
7. Humans have a predestined fate.

For the conclusion in no. 7 to be wrong, one of the previous statements must be wrong also. One covers all options, two, three, and four are correct by definition, and five is correct through logical deduction. That means either we have a correct conclusion or six is incorrect.

No, it means your assumptions are incorrect.

That isn't what is asked, though. It might be more appropriate to ask:

You know that if you build a gun, it will be used to commit homicide (i.e. not just shooting something, but shooting and killing a living rational creature). Are you morally culpable for that murder if you build the gun?

The answer, of course, is yes. Your actions played an integral role in the act, making it impossible were your actions not involved for the crime to have been committed, making you a de facto accessory to the crime.

False. You are only responsible for your choices and the results of your choices. I could choose to put a rock on my roof. I am not responsible for the nitwit who hefts said rock and drops it on the postman's head.

As you did not force the choice on the individual, that individual is responsible for their own choices.



Apply the same logic to God, and I think you have a strong rationale for why something has to give in traditional theology. Either you redefine what it means for there to be free will, or you stop positing God as omniscient/omnipotent.

Just because someone (or "something") knows what might happen does not mean that "whatever" has any obligation to make the choices for you. Just like raising children. If you do everything for them, they can't do anything for themselves.

Omniscient, omnipotent - but takes the longer view of what is going on.

False. To use a simple analogy, you flip a coin. There are three outcomes - it lands heads, it lands tails, it lands on its edge. Just because you know all the possibilities does not mean you know which possibility will manifest at this particular point in time.

With this analogy, you just proved that God doesn't know everything, therefore He's not omniscient. If He knows all possible outcomes, but DOES NOT KNOW which of them is going to happen, He doesn't know everything.

If the christian god exists then we do not have and have never had free will. Since God would have known ahead of time exactly what we were going to do no matter how much choice he gives us in the matter, it's predestination. He supposedly created us so he gave us the mind that would have made the choices. (Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." )

As for the Adam and Eve and the apple story, before eating the apple, Adam and Eve didn't know the difference between good and evil. So, by them eating the apple they didn't realize what they were doing was bad because God didn't give them the knowledge that it was so. Thus, God punished us for his own ineptitude.

(Gen.3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever")

if you have absolute power (as God does) then yes, you should. if you were totally capable of stopping that person from harming anybody, and if stopping them would have done you no harm or cost you any effort, and you CHOSE to allow them to harm somebody anyway, then you bear part of the blame. most states in America have laws that hold humans responsible (something like compassionate bistander laws, usually), so why don't we hold God to the same basic standard of compassion and responsibility?


Yes, I think that American states should pass laws holding God to the same standards as we hold compassionate bystanders. Then we could sue God.
What?

Who would presume to know the mind of God? Christians believe that God created the universe and everything in it. They further believe that all human life is forever and our time on earth is but a tiny portion of that forever. So any earthly suffering is minimal when compared to eternity. So why should God interfere in something that will in fact be over in no time, if that something gives the sufferer the opportunity to learn a valuable lesson?

If the christian god exists then we do not have and have never had free will. Since God would have known ahead of time exactly what we were going to do no matter how much choice he gives us in the matter, it's predestination.


Knowing something isn't the same as causing it.

If God knows everything you are going to do, that isn't the same as making you do it.

I know that cubes are cubic and that 2 + 2 = 4. I know that those facts will still be true tomorrow. I'm not going to make them true though, I just know them.

If God gives you 2 alternatives and allows you to choose between them, he knows which one you're going to choose but that isn't the same as forcing you to choose it.

Knowing something isn't the same as causing it.

If God knows everything you are going to do, that isn't the same as making you do it.

I know that cubes are cubic and that 2 + 2 = 4. I know that those facts will still be true tomorrow. I'm not going to make them true though, I just know them.

If God gives you 2 alternatives and allows you to choose between them, he knows which one you're going to choose but that isn't the same as forcing you to choose it.

Again, predestination. If we're predestined to do something then we have no choice. God CHOSE who is going to heaven and who is going to hell before he made us, therefore, our lives were determined ahead of time. If God is all-powerful we wouldn't be able to change the outcome no matter what we do, thus, we have no free will.

If the christian god exists then we do not have and have never had free will. Since God would have known ahead of time exactly what we were going to do no matter how much choice he gives us in the matter, it's predestination. He supposedly created us so he gave us the mind that would have made the choices. (Rom.8:29-30 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." )

I think the whole idea that you're judged by your actions in life is just totally incompatible with fate, making the idea of Judgement and Fate together verrry flawed. How can you be judged on your actions when from the time you're born, it's already written and known what you will do. How "good" or "evil" you'll be. Life is pointless then. There is no meaning save to scripted role like an actor and then exit stage. And then what. You get judged and set to hell for what was predetermined for you? Something your soul had no control over?

As a side note, personally, I hold no faith in any organised religion and written set of beliefs. How is the concept of the christian god any more valid then the concept of the muslim god? Not to down anyone's beliefs. I believe anything is possible, I just take nothing as certain. Just a thought since this line on fate and such seems deeply embedded in Christian beliefs.

The other thread on free will made me want to ask this.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered sadistic for creating a person he knew would go to hell?
wow! great question!

okay, so here goes: i will compress it for you.

so jesus is quoted as saying 'i and my father are one.' this has to mean that he is saying that he is a physical embodyment of the ssame deity who set up adam and eve for a fall they couldn't possibly avoid, okay? and lter return to die for their sins -- meaning to become a human being and teahc about how to let go of the idea of original sin and then died, physically, only to be reborn cause god's immortal and can;t die. (although Nietzche is still missing...)

so i would say the idea would be that it's okay to be ANGRY at god for telling a couple of first day people "don't do this" when they diodn't know what 'don't do' meant -- and then punishing them for doing it!

i congratulate you for seeing what most "christsians" and many jews close their minds to -- as if they were adhering the letter of the law and ignoring the spirit of the law --

i would say forgive God, but feel therage on your own cause it's cool.

best to you,
dr v jones
Commonwealth of Terran Individualists international relations chair

You know a gun that you sell will be used to shoot something. Should you be liable if the owner of that gun chooses to use it in the wrong way?

Actually, you do not know whether a gun you sell will be used to shoot something. The person may just be a collector.

That isn't what is asked, though. It might be more appropriate to ask:

You know that if you build a gun, it will be used to commit homicide (i.e. not just shooting something, but shooting and killing a living rational creature). Are you morally culpable for that murder if you build the gun?

The answer, of course, is yes. Your actions played an integral role in the act, making it impossible were your actions not involved for the crime to have been committed, making you a de facto accessory to the crime.

Apply the same logic to God, and I think you have a strong rationale for why something has to give in traditional theology. Either you redefine what it means for there to be free will, or you stop positing God as omniscient/omnipotent.

I'd hardly call it logic. Not all guns are fired at a living being. Not all guns are fired either. Care to try another analogy?

Finally, a reasonable Christian who recognizes the flawed logic and manages to make up his own mind as to how it all works. You have my admiration, as you are in a very select class.

Do you know for a fact that Callisdrun is indeed a Christian? Did he/she tell you or mention it in another post? If he/she did not say before, then you do not know whether he/she is a Christian or not. Perhaps he/she is not a Christian and your comment offended him/her. Do not make assumptions for it shows a lack of intelligence.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered sadistic for creating a person he knew would go to hell?
No, he shouldn't. I'm not sure what you mean by "without consideration for free," but if you mean free will, then it must be considered; it cannot be excluded from consideration.

God created man. Man has free will. This isn't something God "built into" him; it comes with sentience, it is the ability to choose. All self-aware creatures have this ability. God made man aware of "good" and "evil", making him special amongst sentient creatures. Man is the only sentient who has to choose between good and evil, with full awareness of his own behaviour and the consequences of his actions.

Hell is a consequence. If man chooses to do evil, he will experience hell; it is inevitable. It's not a punishment, it is a natural consequence of acting contrary to our own god-hood, which is the soul imparted to each of us at birth. (The soul is like a little piece of God in each of us.)

God did not create hell, nor heaven. Being in heaven is being with God; being in hell is existing apart from him. Being in hell can be viewed as a self-punishment, such as the torment a mind puts itself through when it is wracked with guilt and shame. Such emotions are spurred when a person acts contrary to their own god-hood. Such emotions are the allegory of Dante's hell.

"Good", to the Christian, is acting in accordance with God's Will, which we all have an inherent knowledge of through the soul, and is stated and hinted at in God's Book. I'm not a Christian. Good to me is acting to the benefit of life and the quality of life. Whatever my concept of good, if I behave in a manner contrary to it --for instance, if I were to attempt to take another human life --I would be wracked with guilt, shame and a host of other feelings. Where from do these feelings come? From us, from inside us. We create them, we generate them, we control them. We put ourselves into hell for acting contrary to "good", which is god-nature.

So no, God is not sadistic for doing this to us; we do it to ourselves.

Shit; I think I finally found a definition of "evil".

No, he shouldn't. I'm not sure what you mean by "without consideration for free," but if you mean free will, then it must be considered; it cannot be excluded from consideration.

God created man. Man has free will. This isn't something God "built into" him; it comes with sentience, it is the ability to choose. All self-aware creatures have this ability. God made man aware of "good" and "evil", making him special amongst sentient creatures. Man is the only sentient who has to choose between good and evil, with full awareness of his own behaviour and the consequences of his actions.

Hell is a consequence. If man chooses to do evil, he will experience hell; it is inevitable. It's not a punishment, it is a natural consequence of acting contrary to our own god-hood, which is the soul imparted to each of us at birth. (The soul is like a little piece of God in each of us.)

God did not create hell, nor heaven. Being in heaven is being with God; being in hell is existing apart from him. Being in hell can be viewed as a self-punishment, such as the torment a mind puts itself through when it is wracked with guilt and shame. Such emotions are spurred when a person acts contrary to their own god-hood. Such emotions are the allegory of Dante's hell.

"Good", to the Christian, is acting in accordance with God's Will, which we all have an inherent knowledge of through the soul, and is stated and hinted at in God's Book. I'm not a Christian. Good to me is acting to the benefit of life and the quality of life. Whatever my concept of good, if I behave in a manner contrary to it --for instance, if I were to attempt to take another human life --I would be wracked with guilt, shame and a host of other feelings. Where from do these feelings come? From us, from inside us. We create them, we generate them, we control them. We put ourselves into hell for acting contrary to "good", which is god-nature.

So no, God is not sadistic for doing this to us; we do it to ourselves.

Shit; I think I finally found a definition of "evil".
This is a position I've wondered about myself, and I can see its attraction, but I think it might be quite a dangerous one.

To re-state the position in my own words, correct action creates a clear conscience, which creates a feeling of peaceful joyousness. In contrast, incorrect action creates a burdened conscience, which creates a feeling of troubled guilt. Spiritual peace indicates good alignment with your divinity, whereas spiritual anguish indicates conflict with your divinity. It's a matter of right action, detirmined and monitored by yourself.

The first problem for me is that these feelings could indicate psychological or physical states rather than spiritual ones. Nothing inherently wrong with that of course, except it pre-supposes that people are inherently good, which is quite some presumption. They may simply be acting in their own interests, not necessarily those of wider humanity. It also pre-supposes that the individual concerned does not suffer from psychosis or are (in the extreme case) psycopaths. Such people may well be completely untroubled by their conscience, and be quite calm and at peace with themselves, but that would say nothing about the rightness of their actions.

To approach this from a different perspective; such feelings of enlightenment and liberation are not just reported in a spiritual context. They are also reported by, for example, marxists and absolutist free-marketeers on discovering and coming to terms with their political model. In sociological terms, such people have found their ideology - a model for interpreting their world that offers complete understanding, certainty and simplicity, but which is a filter for reality rather than reality itself. The model will be internally consistent, and the actions dictated by it may well be beneficial. The acceptance of such simple models may even be vitally necessary in particular circumstances (cf the standard defence of Thatcher's ideology in 1980's Britain or Stalin's idealogical defence against the German invasion of Russia). However, the merit of the model is not, I think, to be measured in the nature or strength of the feelings it engenders.

The danger arises when idealogues, convinced by their personal experience of the rightness of their idealogy, try to impose their reality on the world. Viewing other people through their filter de-humanises them, de-sensitises the idealogue to the consequences of their actions, with sometimes horrendous consequences.

False. To use a simple analogy, you flip a coin. There are three outcomes - it lands heads, it lands tails, it lands on its edge. Just because you know all the possibilities does not mean you know which possibility will manifest at this particular point in time.

This analogy does not work. If you had created all of the rules and forces governing the way in which the coin flips and lands, you would be aware and always correct in predicting the way in which it will land.

But as for the argument dealing with time and why it is not predetermined, I will need a better explanation.

Do you know for a fact that Callisdrun is indeed a Christian? Did he/she tell you or mention it in another post? If he/she did not say before, then you do not know whether he/she is a Christian or not. Perhaps he/she is not a Christian and your comment offended him/her. Do not make assumptions for it shows a lack of intelligence.

You are correct and I must apologize for the generalization. Going back and reading Callisdrun's post there is no verbage indicating that he/she is a christian, and if any offense was taken, I am sorry.

This analogy does not work. If you had created all of the rules and forces governing the way in which the coin flips and lands, you would be aware and always correct in predicting the way in which it will land.
But one of those forces you created was randomness.

Relatively, no. Absolutely, yes.

Good can exist without evil, but for needs of a reference, we would not know what is good without evil to measure it against. Therefor, relatively, good cannot exist without evil.

Absolutely, yes it can. If everyone and everything was good, and we purged all evil, then good would still be good, regardless of the existence of evil.

Good cannot exist without the POTENTIAL for evil, at the very least. You would not be able to do good acts, if they were the only option available to you!

But one of those forces you created was randomness.

Another post topic and a terrific one!!!

The other thread on free will made me want to ask this.

Without consideration for free, should God be considered sadistic for creating a person he knew would go to hell?

This touches on predestination. Predestination says that God chose people to go to Heaven.

John Calvin, as well as other posters on this board from what I've read, GOT IT WRONG in the inference that this means that God also then chose people to go to Hell. As the Bible states, God wants all men to come to salvation.

I've noticed a few logical proofs here. But since when does God exist as a proof? Ultimately, accepting the doctrine of Predestination comes down to a matter of Faith, a central part of Christianity.

This touches on predestination. Predestination says that God chose people to go to Heaven.

John Calvin, as well as other posters on this board from what I've read, GOT IT WRONG in the inference that this means that God also then chose people to go to Hell. As the Bible states, God wants all men to come to salvation.

I've noticed a few logical proofs here. But since when does God exist as a proof? Ultimately, accepting the doctrine of Predestination comes down to a matter of Faith, a central part of Christianity.

God was used as an assumption, not a proof. My argument was meant to show that God is a false assumption, or the proof was right. Then this whole nature of time and infinity argument came up and I'm not sure where the argument stands.

God seems to be little more than an assumption outside of my argument, as well, so I don't see why using him as an assumption here should be deemed illogical.

God was used as an assumption, not a proof. My argument was meant to show that God is a false assumption, or the proof was right. Then this whole nature of time and infinity argument came up and I'm not sure where the argument stands.

God seems to be little more than an assumption outside of my argument, as well, so I don't see why using him as an assumption here should be deemed illogical.

I'm not deeming it illogical. I'm not deeming it logical. My point is that logic is swell, but God can beat the pants off logic.

I'm not deeming it illogical. I'm not deeming it logical. My point is that logic is swell, but God can beat the pants off logic.

That is true that a God would not be confined by logic. However, the I never touched on the workings of God. I merely stated that he must exist for my argument to be true. And by debating in this topic I must assume that God exists, as saying that God doesn't exist renders this entire debate useless.

Exactly. Even if God sees the outcome, He/She/It/They, isn't responsible for that outcome. That's exactly what free will is all about.
But according to tradition God (at least the judeo-christian-islamic one) does not only (passively) see the outcome but had also (actively) determined it before he even created the world.

But according to tradition God (at least the judeo-christian-islamic one) does not only (passively) see the outcome but had also (actively) determined it before he even created the world.
No Judeo-Christian would say that unless they are Calvinist.

No Judeo-Christian would say that unless they are Calvinist.What do you mean? Is this god not supposed to be omniscient? That also includes all that is in the future, since for god time is of no relevance. And since this god knows all deeds a person will do it is clear that he actively supports all those deeds because they were included already in the making. This god does not create and then looks what happens. Omniscience forbids that.

Good cannot exist without the POTENTIAL for evil, at the very least. You would not be able to do good acts, if they were the only option available to you!

You certainly would be able to do good. In fact, that is all you could do in such a world. You wouldn't be able to CHOOSE to do good.

Predestination is a crap theory. God doesn't create people just to damn them. People forge their own paths.
Yeah . . . . if God gives us free will how can we be predestined? (tho some ppl say that since God is all-knowing, he knows our actions in advance. But i reject that theory)

What do you mean? Is this god not supposed to be omniscient? That also includes all that is in the future, since for god time is of no relevance. And since this god knows all deeds a person will do it is clear that he actively supports all those deeds because they were included already in the making. This god does not create and then looks what happens. Omniscience forbids that.
It would seem there are people who believe in predestination. Most, I found, don't even want to talk about it...

Good cannot exist without the POTENTIAL for evil, at the very least. You would not be able to do good acts, if they were the only option available to you!
sure you could. there are many acts that are neither good nor evil, and we would still be able to distinguish acts that are GOOD from acts that are neutral. it is totally unnecessary to have evil in the world for free will and goodness to exist, so the fact that there is evil means that either God wanted there to be evil or he was unable to stop it; in either case, he is unworthy of worship.

sure you could. there are many acts that are neither good nor evil, and we would still be able to distinguish acts that are GOOD from acts that are neutral. it is totally unnecessary to have evil in the world for free will and goodness to exist, so the fact that there is evil means that either God wanted there to be evil or he was unable to stop it; in either case, he is unworthy of worship.
It's not about what God wants. Sorry, I just have to say this because it galls me a bit...

That evil is an option is not about what God wants. Worshipping God is not about what God wants. Creation is not about what God wants. God has no wants. Just people have wants.

Your last line indicates that you are presenting an arugment on behalf of those who do worship to say, "See? what you worship is not worthy of worship because it wants evil." But my worship is not dependant on God's wants. God has no wants. It's not about wants.

Just had to say that. We now return you to your regular programming...