NationStates Jolt Archive

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.

You *never* ask that question. One of my friends is *really* *really* *really* religious, and she'd first reply that it was because of Lucifer, and then someone says 'then why did god allow him to fall from heaven and become evil?' or something. And then she would say 'because god gave us free will'. So then someone else says 'Ah, but no. God said we can't eat the fruit - he was mean to us! -, and then the dude came along and said we could - but the fruit actually gave us the concept of right/wrong, good/evil, and before that we had no idea of what it is....' and then the argument goes on *forever*. You just don't go there.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.

In my experience the typical answer tends to boil down to "God created everything and is sovereign over all things... but anything evil that happens is still our fault, not his. Conversely, everything good that happens God gets credit for, even if it looks an awful lot like you did it yourself."

In my experience the typical answer tends to boil down to "God created everything and is sovereign over all things... but anything evil that happens is still our fault, not his. Conversely, everything good that happens God gets credit for, even if it looks an awful lot like you did it yourself."
And that's just before you get to the omniscient God bit of it...

Isn't this what Job is all about? I'm not necessarily a reading man or a theologian, but if I recollect right, God had some kind of wager with Satan, like there was some kind of big crap game in heaven and Jesus, the Easter Bunny, and the ghost of Nathan Detroit were all there and anyway, God threw boxcars and so he had to let Satan roast Job's chestnuts. Thus were evil.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.

God thirsts for blood.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.
In order for good to exist, bad must exist as well. If everything was good, no one would care because no one would know how good it is. Note that the tree was the knowledge of GOOD and evil.

Think about it this way...If nothing bad ever happened to you, and then suddenly you loose your favorite something-or-other, you would be devistated because you'd never known loss. Or think also if nothing had ever gone your way, and suddenly you find a fiver on the ground. You would be ecstatic because you'd never known good. It's all about perspective. The problem here being that without either good or evil, there is no perspective.

If I wanted to be technical, I'd ask, what's the square root of 1? It is 1, but it is also -1. Both are possible. God gives you a choice: you can choose to obey him, but with that comes the understanding that you can choose not to. If you didn't know you could choose not to, it wouldn't be much of a choice, would it?

As for destiny: God has a plan, "A plan to prosper you." You can either be a part of that plan, or you can choose not to be. If you choose to be, great, cool. If not, God works around you, and indeed, uses your refusal to further his plans.
Basically, God's got stuff he wants to do, but he's not going to make us do it, he's going to ask us to do it. He is all powerful, yes, but he cedes control over our destiny to us because he's cool like that.

God doesn't control destiny, he just knows the outcome. Evil exists because he gave creation free will.

God doesn't control destiny, he just knows the outcome. Evil exists because he gave creation free will.
What he said ^.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.
Because god is an evil mofo who likes to see children lying dead in piles, apparently.

God doesn't control destiny, he just knows the outcome. Evil exists because he gave creation free will.
But if he knows the outcome, there's only one possible outcome, correct?

Yeah, my vote is for free will. "But doesn't God know everything?" No, he doesn't. "But isn't he all powerful?" Yes, he is. The solution lies in the fact that we have to grant God free will too, and then allow the paradox that God has freely CHOSEN not to know our futures. Since it's not a leap of logic to say, if you are a believer in God, that 'eternal truth' is little more than the 'knowledge of God', then something that God chooses not to know has no value, our futures are completly open.

Course, then you have to defeat scientific determinism...

-j

Yeah, my vote is for free will. "But doesn't God know everything?" No, he doesn't. "But isn't he all powerful?" Yes, he is. The solution lies in the fact that we have to grant God free will too, and then allow the paradox that God has freely CHOSEN not to know our futures. Since it's not a leap of logic to say, if you are a believer in God, that 'eternal truth' is little more than the 'knowledge of God', then something that God chooses not to know has no value, our futures are completly open.
But in the Bible, it stated that God does know everything, so if you take it as truth, you have to throw part of it ut as untrue, and lots of people seem to freak out about that for some reason.

EDIT: Oops, you said you weren't basing your post on the Bible.
Sorry about that, then...
Course, then you have to defeat scientific determinism...
Way ahead of you there, quantum physics took care of that already.

But if he knows the outcome, there's only one possible outcome, correct?

Correct.

And free will flies out the window...

Evil is a test. If you follow the path of evil you're being disloyal to God. Use your free will wisely.

Evil is a test. If you follow the path of evil you're being disloyal to God. Use your free will wisely.
This doesn't address the paradox of the all-knowing God though.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.

I can give you the theological answer, the biblical answer would take too many quotes to fit easily here:

Just because God is omnipotent does not mean that he chooses to intervene in every situation. Sometimes God chooses to not intervene because he wants men and women to make their own choices. Sometimes it's because he wants them to learn and grow by having to face adversity. Sometimes he doesn't intervene for his own reasons, which "are beyond knowing." So obviously, evil exists because he allows it to exist. If God is, in fact God, then there is no way we as created creatures can fathom his reasons.

But if he knows the outcome, there's only one possible outcome, correct?

God doesnt lead you to this outcome, you lead yourself. It's just that God knows what choices you will make. God is the all-knowing. Fate and Free will are different things.

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.
I think it is how God weeds out those not worthy of Heavan. THose who cannot resist evil and sinning are not worthy, and those who cannot repent are not worthy.

God doesnt lead you to this outcome, you lead yourself. It's just that God knows what choices you will make. God is the all-knowing. Fate and Free will are different things.
If God knows what you will do, there isn't any way you would do anything else though.

It's sorta like quantum physics, once the superposition is observed, it collapses into one of the many possibilities.

God doesnt lead you to this outcome, you lead yourself. It's just that God knows what choices you will make. God is the all-knowing.

And if he knows what choices you are going to make you obviously can't choose differently. Hence no free will, since the ability to choose from among multiple possible options is a prerequisite of posessing free will.

Fate and Free will are different things.

Yes... different incompatible things. You can have one or you can have the other but you can't have both at the same time.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

That settles this debate. God created evil.

But the person above who spoke of good not existing without evil is 100% correct. Good and evil are entirely relative.

Also, if God knows the outcome of your actions, then you have no free will to choose, because it is predetermined. You can not see into the future unless the future has already been planned. He can't see into the future if you can change your path.

If God knows what you will do, there isn't any way you would do anything else though.

Its like a video. You watch it once. You know X is going to do Y to Z but that didnt stop the director from deciding that was going to happen. He chose, you just know how the choices are going to turn out.

Its like a video. You watch it once. You know X is going to do Y to Z but that didnt stop the director from deciding that was going to happen. He chose, you just know how the choices are going to turn out.
Invalid analogy.
Once I see it, it can't happen any other way. If I watch it again, it will be the same.

For this situation to work, it would mean that God would have to see everything only after it happens.

To the Isaiah quote, read this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iamwrong1.html

The response to the foregoing is summed up in God's nature and His desire for mankind. Look at the logic: How could God allow for love without the potential for evil? God could have created robots that do nothing more than forever say, "I love you, I love you, I love you." But such creatures would be incapable of a real love relationship. Love is a choice, and the Bible says God desires a real love relationship with His creation. Love is not real unless was have the ability to not love. One of God's attributes is omniscience. God knew that in a world with choice, there would be much evil -- to choose not to love is evil by definition. However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love. Suffering and death are a side effect of evil (Romans 5:12). God says in His Bible that this side effect is only for a time. Evil serves the limited purpose of establishing real love relationships between creation and the Creator, and evil will be done away with after that purpose is achieved. "And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides forever" (I John 2:17).

Its like a video. You watch it once. You know X is going to do Y to Z but that didnt stop the director from deciding that was going to happen. He chose, you just know how the choices are going to turn out.

No it isn't. You can only watch a video after the events in it have already occured and been filmed, and all the decisions have been made.

You can't watch a video before it's filmed.

Invalid analogy.
Once I see it, it can't happen any other way. If I watch it again, it will be the same.

For this situation to work, it would mean that God would have to see everything only after it happens.

I said it was like a video, I didnt say it was A VIDEO. In other words, God has allready seen what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. We made the choices in those times, he just knew the choices we were going to make.

To God, because he knows about all the events that there were, are and will be, to him it is like a video.

I find it funny how the debate has settled a couple times on the "Why is there evil?" when I believe that was more of an aside, judging by the original post.

I said it was like a video, I didnt say it was A VIDEO. In other words, God has allready seen what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. We made the choices in those times, he just knew the choices we were going to make.
I never said it was a video either. I explained why the analogy doesn't work.
For this to happen, we'd have to have made the choices before he saw them. If he knows what will happen, then that is the only possibility to happen. An observer destroys the possibility of free will.

Love is not real unless was have the ability to not love. One of God's attributes is omniscience. God knew that in a world with choice, there would be much evil -- to choose not to love is evil by definition.

No it's not, it's apathy at worst.

However, there would also be the capacity for real love. Philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes, "An all loving, all powerful, all knowing Being could permit as much evil as He pleased without forfeiting His claim to being all loving, so long as for every evil state of affairs He permits there is an accompanying greater good". The potential for love out weighs the existence of evil, especially if evil can only exist for a time. Evil is a side effect of love.

What an interesting claim. However...

Suffering and death are a side effect of evil (Romans 5:12). God says in His Bible that this side effect is only for a time. Evil serves the limited purpose of establishing real love relationships between creation and the Creator, and evil will be done away with after that purpose is achieved.

Oops. So it's not possible to have love without evil... evil is a side effect of love... but God's going to get rid of evil and still have love at some point in the future.

I detect a flaw in your explanation.

the answer is god doesn't exist he is propagnda made up by the right wing fundamentlist christstion to control the mass like carl marx said religion is the opiate of the masses

like carl marx said religion is the opiate of the masses
No, heroin is the opiate of the masses.
;)

I never said it was a video either. I explained why the analogy doesn't work.
For this to happen, we'd have to have made the choices before he saw them. If he knows what will happen, then that is the only possibility to happen. An observer destroys the possibility of free will.

No it doesnt. I may chose to reply to this post in a particular way. God knew I was going to do that but that does not negate the fact that I chose to do so. By observing he is not controling.

No it doesnt. I may chose to reply to this post in a particular way. God knew I was going to do that but that does not negate the fact that I chose to do so. By observing he is not controling.
The thing is, nowhere has anyone stated that God is controlling everything.
I've never said he controls it, I've said that by knowing it, he defeats the possibility of free will.

No it doesnt. I may chose to reply to this post in a particular way. God knew I was going to do that but that does not negate the fact that I chose to do so. By observing he is not controling.

The point is that if we even assume the ability to observe future events exists at all, those events ARE pre-determined. They must be, by definition, in order to be observable before they happen.

Now, while that doesn't absolutely require the observer to be the one who did the pre-determining (although that's the most reasonable assumption) that doesn't matter, free will just went down the toilet in any case.

To the Isaiah quote, read this

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/iamwrong1.html

Dont you think its fishy if someone needs more than three screens to refute a single statement that isnt very ambigous to begin with?
How come that there always is a specialist who exactly knew what God's intentions were when He said something to a Bible author? And how nice that they always fit the views of the specialist...

God chooses to give us power and freedom to make choices and then holds us accountable for the choices we make. He does everything to help us make the best choice, but he leaves the decision in our hands. If he didnt do this, it would be unreasonable for him to condemn us for making wrong or bad choices. And if we dont have the freedom to decide, it doesnt make sense for him to tell us to choose. God can know what we will do (or not), but we are still completely free to do it(or not).

Ok I can see the anger people get here at nautral evil. People often say "If God exists how can he allow X to happen and for Y many people to die/suffer horribly etc". While this arguement I am about to present does not console for grief, it does explain it logicaly.

The issue of "undeserved" suffering (the kid didn't "deserve" to die; the virus victim didn't "deserve" to suffer so much);

Underserved suffering. Thats a logical falacy. That would sugesst that we only get what we deserve. And so the following things would be true

- Almost no one could win the £3 million lottery Jackpot.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways'
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.

So thats a problem with getting what you "Desereve" and another problem is this. Deservedness presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him

God can know what we will do (or not), but we are still completely free to do it(or not).
But that's the problem.
How, if he does know all we will do, can you say we have free will? Free will requires choices, and if he knows what will happen, it means we can't choose otherwise.

Dont you think its fishy if someone needs more than three screens to refute a single statement that isnt very ambigous to begin with?


I'm sorry. Was it too complicated for you. The ammount of explination nessecary is no bearing on the quality of the explination

God can know what we will do (or not), but we are still completely free to do it(or not).

Oh come on, saying it doesn't make it so. That statement is completely illogical. Consider the following exchange.

Omniscient Diety (OD): "Bob, I am presenting you with a choice. There are three cars here, blue, grey, and black. You may pick whichever one you want."

Bob: "Gee, Thanks!"

OD: "But you will pick the black car."

Bob: "Umm.. what? You know I'm still kind of mulling over the options here and..."

OD: "Yes, yes, whatever, but you will pick the black car. I know you will pick the black car and I can't be wrong. I'm omniscient and infallible you see."

Bob: "But I thought you said I could pick any car I want?"

OD: "Oh sure, and you can, as long as it's the black one."

Bob: "Ummm... ok..."

Bob: "So, what if I pick the blue one?"

OD: "Impossible. You can't pick the blue one because I KNOW you will pick the black one, and it's impossible that I am wrong. Stop wasting my time and get on with the black car picking."

And that can go on, and on, and on... but you never get around the fact that Bob is picking that black car and there's nothing he can do about it UNLESS we say that God doesn't really know what he will pick.

So either God knows and Bob doesn't have any choice (Knowledge of the future but no free will) or Bob does have a choice and God doesn't really know what he will pick (Free will but no knowledge of the future).

It's one or the other, you don't get to have both simultaneously. They're mutually exclusive concepts, one negates the other.

God knows what we will do, but we do it. if God knows our choices, does that mean he made them for us? no it doesnt. God can foresee what we will do, but that does not impact our choice to do it. Our choice is not everything, since it is empty and impossible without Gods grace; and yet our choice is not nothing, since we can indeed accept or reject that grace.

Oh come on, saying it doesn't make it so. That statement is completely illogical. Consider the following exchange.

Omniscient Diety (OD): "Bob, I am presenting you with a choice. There are three cars here, blue, grey, and black. You may pick whichever one you want."

Bob: "Gee, Thanks!"

OD: "But you will pick the black car."

Bob: "Umm.. what? You know I'm still kind of mulling over the options here and..."

OD: "Yes, yes, whatever, but you will pick the black car. I know you will pick the black car and I can't be wrong. I'm omniscient and infallible you see."

Bob: "But I thought you said I could pick any car I want?"

OD: "Oh sure, and you can, as long as it's the black one."

Bob: "Ummm... ok..."

Bob: "So, what if I pick the blue one?"

OD: "Impossible. You can't pick the blue one because I KNOW you will pick the black one, and it's impossible that I am wrong. Stop wasting my time and get on with the black car picking."

And that can go on, and on, and on... but you never get around the fact that Bob is picking that black car and there's nothing he can do about it UNLESS we say that God doesn't really know what he will pick.

So either God knows and Bob doesn't have any choice (Knowledge of the future but no free will) or Bob does have a choice and God doesn't really know what he will pick (Free will but no knowledge of the future).

It's one or the other, you don't get to have both simultaneously. They're mutually exclusive concepts, one negates the other.

Big BIG flaw in your analogy. God does not tell you which one you will do. He knows but he does not inform you.

Big BIG flaw in your analogy. God does not tell you which one you will do. He knows but he does not inform you.
But, you see, the paradox is still there.

EDIT:
Yeah, I know, the flaw is huge, but it doesn't really wipe out the fact that there is a paradox.

Big BIG flaw in your analogy. God does not tell you which one you will do. He knows but he does not inform you.

It doesn't matter if he tells you or not! If he knows, and if he can't be wrong, then the situation is fixed. It's set in stone. there's no way around what will happen. You have NO CHOICE in the matter.

The conversdation was just to illustrate the absurdity of saying he can know what you're going to do AND that you still can decide what you're going to do.

But, you see, the paradox is still there.

No, not at all. You see the fact that God is aware of your choice does not negate from the fact that you chose to do so. If however God was to come down and inform you of what you will do before you do it, and he is omnicisent then yes, he would break the free will logic as by informing you, and being correct, you would have no choice. But because you are unaware of your future decisions and their concequences, you make the choice. God does not force you to make the choice and the fact that he knows does not negate from the fact that you choose. It IS like a video, in the sense that God knows all that is, was and will be. So to him what we are doing now appers like a video. But that does not stop us (the directors of said video) from chosing what the film/our life will be like.

No, not at all. You see the fact that God is aware of your choice does not negate from the fact that you chose to do so. If however God was to come down and inform you of what you will do before you do it, and he is omnicisent then yes, he would break the free will logic as by informing you, and being correct, you would have no choice. But because you are unaware of your future decisions and their concequences, you make the choice. God does not force you to make the choice and the fact that he knows does not negate from the fact that you choose. It IS like a video, in the sense that God knows all that is, was and will be. So to him what we are doing now appers like a video. But that does not stop us (the directors of said video) from chosing what the film/our life will be like.
The problem with your video analogy, going along with it, is that God sees the "video" before the "directors" choose what happens.

EDIT:
Wait, the informing bit is a bit off too...

The problem with your video analogy, going along with it, is that God sees the "video" before the "directors" choose what happens.

Yes, but that does not negate from the choice. God makes that choice. It was possible for him to make any number of choices but he chose that one. You make the choice, God knew you were going to make the choice but you still made it.

Evil is the action of man to go against G-d's will.

There is evil in the world for 2 reasons.

1. to test the faith of his children and allow them to grow to a divine purpose.

2. because free will allows us to rebel if we so choose

G-d made us so we could be free and not be slaves to him. He made us out of love, just as a parent allows their child to make their own choices, so does G-d allow us to make our choices, though he will punish when the wrong one is selected. Its a testing and learning stage that humans "live" in, then, upon death, based on how well we do in the test is what our eternity will bring.

I don't believe in the common idea of the Christian Hell, I believe more in Sheol, the land of the dead. I also feel that each soul has different areas they are taken to when they die, based on faith and deeds and such, and there they wait for the final judgement. All hope is not lost for them though, because repentance can still be found after death, in my belief.

The eternal pit, where the most vocal christians seem to feel all sinners will be punished was not made for humans, but rather the angels that rebelled, both the fallen Watchers and those that fell with Sammael aka Satan. The truely wicked that stand in the face of G-d and still renounce him are the only ones said to suffer the lake of fire, and then they are consumed, and are no more.

-=-=-=-=-
on a side note, Lucifur is not Satan's angel name, Lucifur is a latin/greek name that means, the morning star or bringer of light. Its a name given to a fallen king of babylon, by Danial, though it is said to reflect on Satan, perhaps an anti-christ of old that knew of Satan, though I don't recall Satan falling in the Old Testament, though I'm not 100% sure of that.

Sammael is the angelic name for what is known as The Adversary. Since his purpose was to challenge and acuse G-d's children and to uphold the law. When the law was fulfilled and humans could be divine by faith, he refused it, and was cast out because of it.

He was not the first fallen angel though, before him the Watchers also fell, for breeding with human women and spawning giants and nephilim (the fallen ones). The leader of the 200 angels was bound for judgement, and 1 of every 10 angel was released to wonder the earth till the day of judgement. The spirits of the giants became the foul spirits of the earth. This bit is from a book that was removed from the bible, though was known to the 12 disciples of Christ, and was quoted by them.

It doesn't matter if he tells you or not! If he knows, and if he can't be wrong, then the situation is fixed. It's set in stone. there's no way around what will happen. You have NO CHOICE in the matter.

The conversdation was just to illustrate the absurdity of saying he can know what you're going to do AND that you still can decide what you're going to do.

Your vision is limited. The conflict between God knowing and your deciding is illusory.

Yes, but that does not negate from the choice. God makes that choice. It was possible for him to make any number of choices but he chose that one. You make the choice, God knew you were going to make the choice but you still made it.
The crux of the matter is that if God can see it before it happens, by the rules of logic it must happen the way he sees it.
Ergo, only one possible choice.

I'm sorry. Was it too complicated for you.
No need to get personal. I just bet that i can as easily find a expert in old hebraic who will state, that, without any qualifiers, the sentence states God created Good and Evil.
That you believe the given explanation is correct does not mean it neccessarily is. It just fits your belief system and therefore you want it to be correct.

But that's the problem.
How, if he does know all we will do, can you say we have free will? Free will requires choices, and if he knows what will happen, it means we can't choose otherwise.

When you're all powerful, I think you can bend some logic without too much trouble.

Not saying I believe in God in the Christian form, but if he really is all powerful, I don't think he'd have any trouble giving us free will and knowing what choices we'll choose.

Ok I can see the anger people get here at nautral evil. People often say "If God exists how can he allow X to happen and for Y many people to die/suffer horribly etc". While this arguement I am about to present does not console for grief, it does explain it logicaly.

The issue of "undeserved" suffering (the kid didn't "deserve" to die; the virus victim didn't "deserve" to suffer so much);

Underserved suffering. Thats a logical falacy. That would sugesst that we only get what we deserve. And so the following things would be true

- Almost no one could win the £3 million lottery Jackpot.
- EVERY flip of a coin would have to go to the most 'virtuous' person(!)
- The good would NEVER die first (or young).
- Hospitals would only be full of 'evil' people (and so why fund them, eh?)
- A twin that died one day earlier than another twin, would have to have been 'less good'.
- Smashing your thumb with a hammer would be reserved for the more evil...(and accordingly, skill and talent would have been 'deserved')
- Earthquakes only hit the evil cities, and ALL 'evil cities' MUST get earthquakes...
- All MINOR illnesses would be 'intelligent'--chickenpox would only infect the 'bad students' and not 'the good students' in a schoolroom (for example)...
- Those doing 'evil' acts would never live long enough to 'change their ways'
- Forgiveness can NEVER occur--the evil would die before that.

So thats a problem with getting what you "Desereve" and another problem is this. Deservedness presupposes some metaphysically 'real' ethical structure of the universe, and only the kind that can be associated with the absolutes of a God who can 'build' natural consequences (e.g. landslides) into ethical actions. All other systems have a 'human contractual' character--hardly something physical laws of plate tectonics should be expected to honor!!! Picking an ethic and agreeing on it, or 'actualizing it' (whatever THAT means!) by sincerity, will, etc. hardly is going to affect global weather patterns that produce hurricanes or tornadoes. So if you are going to argue that we only get what we deserve, then you need a God to judge what you do/dont deserve. Any human judging it would not be sufficent. So you cant rearly use this arguement against him

I assume by the fact that no one has yet responded to this

A) Your all ignoring it

B) You all agree with it

I assume by the fact that no one has yet responded to this

A) Your all ignoring it

B) You all agree with it

Insulting is generally not the best way to respond, but put me up with letter "B."

The crux of the matter is that if God can see it before it happens, by the rules of logic it must happen the way he sees it.
Ergo, only one possible choice.

Not nessecarly. He could see it but it not happen. We do not know enough about the nature of God to be certian about this (or the nature of the future for that matter).

Insulting is generally not the best way to respond, but put me up with letter "B."

How was that insulting?

I assume by the fact that no one has yet responded to this

A) Your all ignoring it

B) You all agree with it
A), I didn't bother to read it, as it was about good and evil, and I didn't care about that.

No, not at all. You see the fact that God is aware of your choice does not negate from the fact that you chose to do so.

That's like saying that the fact that I'm 6 feet tall doesn't negate from the fact that I could be any height.

Umm, actually, yes it does. If I'm 6 feet tall then I am NOT any other height. And if it is already known by ANYONE or ANYTHING what I will do in the future then I DON'T have any choice but to do it... otherwise they couldn't bloody well know I would do it could they?

If however God was to come down and inform you of what you will do before you do it, and he is omnicisent then yes, he would break the free will logic as by informing you, and being correct, you would have no choice.

What in the act of speaking out loud within your hearing the fact that you WILL do something in the future no matter what negates free will that does not apply by having there BE the fact that you WILL do that something no matter what?

It doesn't matter if whoever knows that shares the information... the information still exists.

But because you are unaware of your future decisions and their concequences, you make the choice. God does not force you to make the choice

Maybe, maybe not... but SOMETHING does or else it couldn't be known in advance what I was going to do. It could be guessed at in advance. It could be speculated upon in advance.

It could not be KNOWN in advance.

Any more than you can watch a video before the directors decide what's going in the film.

Not nessecarly. He could see it but it not happen. We do not know enough about the nature of God to be certian about this (or the nature of the future for that matter).
Ahh.
You have a very good point.

How was that insulting?

Most people will take being called ignorant an insult.

While you may not have meant it as an insult, I'm sure you know that it doesn't matter how you meant to say it--what matters is how others take it.

your right about the paradox, because it is a paradox. If we cling to side A of the paradox and say simply that God waits for us to choose; the results could get ugly. we might believe that we can reason our way to God. or we might decide that we dont really need Gods involvment in our daily lives. If we cling to side B of the paradox and say that God chooses us, we dont have to do anything. he looked at the human race and chose who would be saved. that means we are powerless to do anything.
the bible says we have to choose. it also says that the choice is Gods. (paradox) The choice is ours and the choice is Gods. is it possible that we have a set of choices and that God has a set of choices? perhaps he is giving us things to decide that he leaves completely open, pending our decision. and perhaps he has reserved other desicions exclusivley for his own domain. two sets of choices to play off one another.
God chooses to give us life. people choose death over life. God chooses to offer us a new life. we can choose to accept that new life. although God invites every person to choose, it is Gods choice to send out the invitation. he chooses options and then chooses to lay them out for us. we cant choose anything he has not presented as a possible choice. He chose to send Jesus to earth for a way for us to return to God. and he chose to allow everyone the opportunity to choose him and believe in him. With God having laid out the options, it is our choice whether we live or die.

Ahh.
You have a very good point.

Thank you (Glad someone agrees with me)

Not nessecarly. He could see it but it not happen.

In which case he was wrong, and didn't actually have knowledge of the future.

As has been pointed out several times, the options are:

1. Free will but no foreknowledge.
2. Foreknowledge but no free will.

The situation you just described was #1.

Most people will take being called ignorant an insult.

While you may not have meant it as an insult, I'm sure you know that it doesn't matter how you meant to say it--what matters is how others take it.

I said "Your all ignoring it" not "Your all ignorent"

In which case he was wrong, and didn't actually have knowledge of the future.

As has been pointed out several times, the options are:

1. Free will but no foreknowledge.
2. Foreknowledge but no free will.

The situation you just described was #1.

You misunderstand me. I meant he could see it and it hasnt happend YET. Free will and foreknowledge are not exclusive ideas.

I said "Your all ignoring it" not "Your all ignorent"

*checks eyes*

Wow, I don't know how I read "ignorant".

I truly apologize for that.

I hearby retract my statement. Hope ya' forgive me!

*Runs reading tests*

Predestination denies free will. Predestination is the idea that god has planned everything out in advance, and that means god making choices for us. If you're not talking about god making choices for us, then you're not talking predestination. Perhaps you meant fate? There are many people who look at coincidences as preordered movements and events that did not involve god's interference, and chalk them up to fate.

The American Heritage Dictionary incorrect equates predestination with fate and destiny; they could only possibly be equivocal for the person who believes in predestination.

Think about this for a moment. Without free will who is making our choices for us? God, the Devil? What is it that makes you do the things you do if it not your own choice.

Think about this for a moment. Without free will who is making our choices for us? God, the Devil? What is it that makes you do the things you do if it not your own choice.
Right. If you believe we have free will, there can be no predestination.

You misunderstand me. I meant he could see it and it hasnt happend YET. Free will and foreknowledge are not exclusive ideas.

Well then either he sees it because it IS going to happen, in which case you must do it or else how would he see it?

= Foreknowledge but no free will.

Or he's just plain seeing things and you can do something else. (God with auditory and visual hallucinations?)

= No foreknowledge but free will.

There's no third option here. Well, except possibly no foreknowledge AND no free will, but that one's kind of pointless to consider.

There's no third option here. Well, except possibly no foreknowledge AND no free will, but that one's kind of pointless to consider.

fourth option: forknowledge and free will

fourth option: forknowledge and free will

which is like saying "Fourth option: You're red and you're not red."

Or for something that resembles the subject a little closer "Fourth option: You can only do this one thing AND you can do anything you want"

HOW is it an option to have two mutually exclusive states of affairs simultaneously?

I'm not religious. However, the most convincing religious argument I've come across so far to explain evil runs as follows (actually, technically, it isn't even religious; its roots were laid down by Aristotle. Anyway...)

Evil can be likened to cold in that it doesn't exist in and of itself: it's not a substance, it's a lack, a deficiency. Anything can be evil insofar as it falls short of what it means to be whatever it is. As such, the only way one can be 100% evil is to be 100% deficient, ie. non-existant. For example, then, Hitler was good insofar as he existed, but evil insofar as he fell short of what it meant to be human. However, for a cat to eat mice isn't an evil act on the cat's part, however much it may distress the mice in question (though they may consider it to be evil, since they see the world through a musculocentric viewpoint), since a cat which eats mice is fulfilling what it means to be a cat, which can therefore be considered to be a good act.

Right. If you believe we have free will, there can be no predestination.

You misunderstand me. I assume we have free will because I am doing this at the moment under no duress. I could easyily stop at any time, as I am under no pressure to do so. But I also know that there is a God with full knowledge of what is, will come and has been. You see that as a contridiction, but let me ask you this. Without the free will, what is controling you.

HOW is it an option to have two mutually exclusive states of affairs simultaneously?

Quite simple. They are not mutually exclusive.

Well then either he sees it because it IS going to happen, in which case you must do it or else how would he see it?

= Foreknowledge but no free will.

Or he's just plain seeing things and you can do something else. (God with auditory and visual hallucinations?)

= No foreknowledge but free will.

There's no third option here. Well, except possibly no foreknowledge AND no free will, but that one's kind of pointless to consider.

Think of it more like a parent watching a kid at the kitchen table, who loves cake and dispises peas... there are peas and cake on the table and the child has no one to stop him from doing what he wants... the parent knows he will take the cake, but the parent doesn't force the child to take the cake.

Forknowledge and free will can co-exist.

Quite simple. They are not mutually exclusive.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Lay out one single scenario in which it is known in advance what I will do and yet I am free to do whatever I want when the time comes.

i'm expecting something beyond "God knows what you will do... and um... you can choose do whatever you want."

Explain at at least a conceptual level how you make this state of affairs work.

Neo Cannen: do you think that God exists in time, everlasting, or that he is outside time, eternal, etc? Which model you go for has a big importance on the omniscience/free will debate.

if god created time space and matter, then he would be outside of time space and matter....

Think of it more like a parent watching a kid at the kitchen table, who loves cake and dispises peas... there are peas and cake on the table and the child has no one to stop him from doing what he wants... the parent knows he will take the cake, but the parent doesn't force the child to take the cake.

Sorry, what you just described in not foreknowledge as is spoken of when addressing the issue of all-knowing deities. It is an educated guess based upon past behaviour, and it can be wrong. The kid just might decide that today's the day he's going to skarf down some of those peas and the parent won't know it until he does it.

Foreknowledge cannot be wrong (otherwise it's not foreknowledge, is it?), that is what eliminates the possibility of free will.

Neo Cannen: do you think that God exists in time, everlasting, or that he is outside time, eternal, etc? Which model you go for has a big importance on the omniscience/free will debate.

How about both.

Foreknowledge cannot be wrong (otherwise it's not foreknowledge, is it?), that is what eliminates the possibility of free will.

Why? Prove it...

Without the free will, what is controling you.
If i accept that i have free will, i can turn it around, that there is no knowledge of the future, because it is impossible. Therefore God would be impossible in the way he is supposed to be, namely omniscient. Ergo, no one is controlling me, free will exist, but God's omniscience does not.

It is an educated guess based upon past behaviour, and it can be wrong.

Gods foreknowledge would not be a guess.

if god created time space and matter, then he would be outside of time space and matter....

And what exactly is "outside of time" supposed to mean? I expect that you can explain it if you're using it as an explanation.

I mean, I would hate to think that you just threw together a bunch of words that kind of sounded good as an answer without knowing what the heck you were actually talking about.

Gods foreknowledge would not be a guess.

Uh-huh... and as I just pointed out, that's the problem.

if god created time space and matter, then he would be outside of time space and matter....

Alright. In which case, if you're god the eternal, timeless, wholly simple god, you've got this situation:

If God is omniscient, then he, being outside time, knows exactly what will happen at all moments in time, since time is irrelevant to him. If he has this foreknowledge, it follows that we lack free will.

If we have free will, God cannot be omniscient.

Foreknowledge cannot be wrong (otherwise it's not foreknowledge, is it?), that is what eliminates the possibility of free will.

Foreknowledge cannot be wrong. You are correct, however that knowledge doesn't force anyone to do anything. Knowing a thing doesn't cause it to be. It is the action or simple existance of a thing that causes its action or being.

If i accept that i have free will, i can turn it around, that there is no knowledge of the future, because it is impossible. Therefore God would be impossible in the way he is supposed to be, namely omniscient. Ergo, no one is controlling me, free will exist, but God's omniscience does not.

Show me how these to have to be mutually exclusive... :confused:

Why? Prove it...

That's like asking me to prove that a vehicle that has 4 wheels isn't a bicycle.

To have foreknowledge is to know what IS going to happen. If what you think is going to happen DOESN'T happen then you DIDN'T know what was going to happen and you don't have foreknowledge for cripes sake.

How about both.

Explain how that's possible, and I'll give you the extrapolations of it.

Alright. In which case, if you're god the eternal, timeless, wholly simple god, you've got this situation:

If God is omniscient, then he, being outside time, knows exactly what will happen at all moments in time, since time is irrelevant to him. If he has this foreknowledge, it follows that we lack free will.

If we have free will, God cannot be omniscient.

What definition of knowledge says that to know a thing is to create it?

Neo Cannen: do you think that God exists in time, everlasting, or that he is outside time, eternal, etc? Which model you go for has a big importance on the omniscience/free will debate.

I think that since he created the univerese and that the universe had a begining and an end he must exist outside time.

What definition of knowledge says that to know a thing is to create it?

None.

What part of that post you were replying to said any such thing?

Einsteins Theory of General Relativity = It demands an absolute beginning for time, space and matter. if God is the creator, he would be outside time space and matter. Einstein says they had to be created at the same time because one cannot exist without the other.

If God is omniscient, then he, being outside time, knows exactly what will happen at all moments in time, since time is irrelevant to him. If he has this foreknowledge, it follows that we lack free will.


why?

To have foreknowledge is to know what IS going to happen. If what you think is going to happen DOESN'T happen then you DIDN'T know what was going to happen and you don't have foreknowledge for cripes sake.

Sorry, what I'm asking you to prove is that foreknowledge equals creation of a fact and or that forknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive.

Sorry, what I'm asking you to prove is that foreknowledge equals creation of a fact

I never stated such a thing, why are you asking me to prove it?

and or that forknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive.

Already demonstrated repeatedly.

None.

What part of that post you were replying to said any such thing?

You are saying that foreknowledge creates reality, but knowing something isn't the causal factor in its existance.

What definition of knowledge says that to know a thing is to create it?

If God existed in time, it would be possible to say that that God is omniscient insofar as he knows everything which has already happened, and everything which will happen insofar as it can be predicted from events which have already happened and cannot be derailed by free-willed entities.

However, if God exists outside time, his knowledge must also be timeless, meaning that he knows all actions which will happen in the universe at any time, and, therefore, that there is no free will, since that action has already been predetermined.

I never stated such a thing, why are you asking me to prove it?



Already demonstrated repeatedly.

I sure haven't seen it anywhere in this thread unless you define free will or knowledge differently than the last dictionary I read.

Einsteins Theory of General Relativity = It demands an absolute beginning for time, space and matter.

No, it doesn't.

And "beginning of time" is a nonsensical phrase.

If God existed in time, it would be possible to say that that God is omniscient insofar as he knows everything which has already happened, and everything which will happen insofar as it can be predicted from events which have already happened and cannot be derailed by free-willed entities.

However, if God exists outside time, his knowledge must also be timeless, meaning that he knows all actions which will happen in the universe at any time, and, therefore, that there is no free will, since that action has already been predetermined.

Forknowledge and predestination are not synonymous. Predestination is to have a causal realtionship to events, foreknowledge is only to know beforehand that a thing will happen.

Again, knowledge does not equal causality.

I sure haven't seen it anywhere in this thread unless you define free will or knowledge differently than the last dictionary I read.

Fine.. you tell me how YOU define them then.

You are saying that foreknowledge creates reality, but knowing something isn't the causal factor in its existance.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread state any such thing.

If God existed in time, it would be possible to say that that God is omniscient insofar as he knows everything which has already happened, and everything which will happen insofar as it can be predicted from events which have already happened and cannot be derailed by free-willed entities.

However, if God exists outside time, his knowledge must also be timeless, meaning that he knows all actions which will happen in the universe at any time, and, therefore, that there is no free will, since that action has already been predetermined.

And that relates to my question how?? I don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't see the connection to the definition of knowledge.

I haven't seen a single person in this thread state any such thing.


If forknowledge forces a thing to happen, thereby removing free will, it has to be the causal/creating factor for the events following. I don't see this as an appropriate definition of knowledge.

Forknowledge and predestination are not synonymous. Predestination is to have a causal realtionship to events, foreknowledge is only to know beforehand that a thing will happen.

Again, knowledge does not equal causality.

Try looking at it this way: if God is omniscient, he knows that, after writing this post, I will press "submit reply". If I have free will, there remains the potential that I won't. If there's a possibility that I won't, there's an equal possibility that God's foreknowledge is wrong, and the existence of that possibility makes him not omniscient.

See?

If forknowledge forces a thing to happen, thereby removing free will, it has to be the causal/creating factor for the events following. I don't see this as an appropriate definition of knowledge.
The foreknowledge does no such thing. It isn't forcing it to happen, it just means that the universe is deterministic and cannot have free will.
It is entirely possible that there is no free will anyway, whether or not there is a God to view everything.

No, it doesn't.
youve got to be kidding? look up Einsteins Theory of General Relativity. time space and matter had to be created at the same time.

[/quote]And "beginning of time" is a nonsensical phrase. [/quote]

beginning of time:
kalam argument
1.an infinite number of days has no end.
2.but today is the end of history.(history being a collection of all days)
3.Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today.(time had a beginning)

If forknowledge forces a thing to happen, thereby removing free will, it has to be the causal/creating factor for the events following.

Foreknowledge doesn't force a thing to happen, it is an indicator that events have been predetermined because that is the only situation in which it is possible for foreknowledge to exist. You can't know a thing is going to happen unless that thing WILL happen and there's no two ways about it.

I'm here pointing out that if there's smoke there's fire, and you're arguing back that it's illogical of me to say smoke CAUSES fire, which I'm not doing in the first place.

youve got to be kidding? look up Einsteins Theory of General Relativity. time space and matter had to be created at the same time.

It doesn't say they had to be created at all actually and I'm quite familiar with the theory, thanks.

beginning of time:
kalam argument
1.an infinite number of days has no end.
2.but today is the end of history.(history being a collection of all days)
3.Therefore, there were not an infinite number of days before today.(time had a beginning)

The anti-Kalam:
1. An infinite series has no end.
2. Time is not discrete.
3. Therefore an infinite number of divisions of time can be made between now and yesterday, with now being the end of the series.
4. Therefore we never could have gotten to now from yesterday, as we would have had to traverse an infinite series of time divisions to do so.

Hmmm... something isn't right here.

And "beginning of time" is still nonsensical. How do you begin time without having time IN WHICH to begin it?

You can't know a thing is going to happen unless that thing WILL happen and there's no two ways about it.

if you know something is going to happen, then yes its going to happen. but how does it happen? God knows its going to happen, but does he make it happen? God knows what will happen, and your right, it will happen. but it is our choices that make things happen. god knows what we will choose, but he does not make our choices for us. he simple knows what we will choose.

if you know something is going to happen, then yes its going to happen. but how does it happen? God knows its going to happen, but does he make it happen? God knows what will happen, and your right, it will happen. but it is our choices that make things happen. god knows what we will choose, but he does not make our choices for us. he simple knows what we will choose.
I will state again, nobody has said that God chooses for us. People have just said that foreknowledge contradicts free will.

[QUOTE=Anikian]OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.[/QUOTE

Just to clear this up... God is all powerful, but not in control of OUR destinies.. we are given the gift of CHOICE.. it is our choice to succeed or fail. Evil exists because people are using their chioces in their own way.

It doesn't say they had to be created at all actually and I'm quite familiar with the theory, thanks.

The anti-Kalam:
1. An infinite series has no end.
2. Time is not discrete.
3. Therefore an infinite number of divisions of time can be made between now and yesterday, with now being the end of the series.
4. Therefore we never could have gotten to now from yesterday, as we would have had to traverse an infinite series of time divisions to do so.

Hmmm... something isn't right here.

And "beginning of time" is still nonsensical. How do you begin time without having time IN WHICH to begin it?
wow, i like you. well done, and well-said with the smoke-and-fire point above...this is just fun fun fun to watch!

Try looking at it this way: if God is omniscient, he knows that, after writing this post, I will press "submit reply". If I have free will, there remains the potential that I won't. If there's a possibility that I won't, there's an equal possibility that God's foreknowledge is wrong, and the existence of that possibility makes him not omniscient.

See?

Again you are equating forknowledge with causality. Perhaps He knows you so well that he knew exactly what you would chose.

{quote]The anti-Kalam:
1. An infinite series has no end.
2. Time is not discrete.
3. Therefore an infinite number of divisions of time can be made between now and yesterday, with now being the end of the series.
4. Therefore we never could have gotten to now from yesterday, as we would have had to traverse an infinite series of time divisions to do so.[/quote]

you cant add anything to something that is infinite.

imagine a horizontal line . divide it with hash marks, on the right end of the line is a dot. On the left end an arrow pointing left.

Ok, now the segments mark each day of history, and the line pointed left marks days of distant history. so the further left you go, the further back in history you go. the dot on the right is this instant. Now, assume for a moment that this line extends to the left indefinitely, so that you cant see if or where it begins. But as you look to the right, you can see the end of the line, because the last segment of the line represents this instant. the next instant isnt hear yet, but when it gets here we'll add one more segment to the right end of the line.
Now. heres how this proves that time had a beginning: since the line certainly ends on the right, the timeline cannot be infinite because something that is infinite has no end.
you cant add anything to something that is infinite.

You misunderstand me. I assume we have free will because I am doing this at the moment under no duress. I could easyily stop at any time, as I am under no pressure to do so. But I also know that there is a God with full knowledge of what is, will come and has been. You see that as a contridiction, but let me ask you this. Without the free will, what is controling you.
'No free will' does not imply 'choices made under duress'; there is no reason you'd be aware of it at all. It simply means that, as someone said earlier, if God knows the outcome of your actions, then you cannot make a choice of which he is unware. Therefore, the choice was essentially made before you came to it.

You are making a distinction between foreknowledge and predestination, and I approve, if you can pull this off. But I don't think you can.

Foreknowledge doesn't force a thing to happen, it is an indicator that events have been predetermined because that is the only situation in which it is possible for foreknowledge to exist. You can't know a thing is going to happen unless that thing WILL happen and there's no two ways about it.

I'm here pointing out that if there's smoke there's fire, and you're arguing back that it's illogical of me to say smoke CAUSES fire, which I'm not doing in the first place.

Perhaps it is your own free will that predestines what will happen. Knowing that of your own free will you will chose something doesn't take away that it is your choice.

Right. If you believe we have free will, there can be no predestination.

People use to ask me, "Do you believe in predestination, or free will?" My answer would always be, "Yes." The two are only seemingly contradictory because we see things from the perspective of human beings, not from the perspective of God. For us, that is impossible, since we are NOT God.

How many times has science thought something was absolutely true, only to have subequent theories and discoveries render it false? Yes, I understand how the scientific method works, but to presume to say that "predestination" and "free will" are mutually contradictory falls into the category of things we have yet to understand.

Well I'm not a Christian but perhaps I know the answer to omniscence and free will. We make choices due to our free will. Due to the fact that God is all-knowing, he knows the effects of all of our actions. He sees all of the paths that we could take, therefore he is all-knowing. He is supposedly timeless, therefore he is everywhere and knows everything. Thus we make our choices and he steers us towards the paths that would most benefit him. We can take contrary paths, because we so choose, and he would place obsticles in our path to veer us towards his goal. Being All-Knowing, he can see what we shall do. He is All-Being, therefore he can see the possible paths, and thwart our taking unwanted paths. Therefore he knows where and what we do, we choose still after all if we are clever enough we can evade His will, lest he strike us down. That is the only way I can see that he can know all of our actions, and allow free-will. That or he lied and we don't have our own will. One of the two.

I will state again, nobody has said that God chooses for us. People have just said that foreknowledge contradicts free will.

But that is the problem, foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will unless you redefine those terms.

then you cannot make a choice of which he is unware

right. god knows our choices, but thier our choices. just because he knows what we will choose doesnt mean we dont freely choose them.

How many times has science thought something was absolutely true, only to have subequent theories and discoveries render it false? Yes, I understand how the scientific method works, but to presume to say that "predestination" and "free will" are mutually contradictory falls into the category of things we have yet to understand.

Here here!

But that is the problem, foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will unless you redefine those terms.
All I said in my post is that others have been saying that, and the post that I replied to was refuting a point that had not been made.

you cant add anything to something that is infinite.

Sure you can, do it in math all the time. You can add to it, multiply it, all kinds of fun things.

Infinity + 1 = ... infinity.
Infinity x10 = ... infinity.

imagine a horizontal line . divide it with hash marks, on the right end of the line is a dot. On the left end an arrow pointing left.

Ok, now the segments mark each day of history,

I don't know why you're bothering with segments at all, but whatever.

and the line pointed left marks days of distant history. so the further left you go, the further back in history you go. the dot on the right is this instant. Now, assume for a moment that this line extends to the left indefinitely, so that you cant see if or where it begins. But as you look to the right, you can see the end of the line, because the last segment of the line represents this instant. the next instant isnt hear yet, but when it gets here we'll add one more segment to the right end of the line.
Now. heres how this proves that time had a beginning: since the line certainly ends on the right, the timeline cannot be infinite because something that is infinite has no end.

Sorry, but that exact graphical representation is used for graphing lines that are unbounded in one direction in mathematics all the time... and they ARE infinite in that direction whether you bound them on the other end or not.

you cant add anything to something that is infinite.

The line you just described drawing IS infinite, and you most certainly can add to it.

Perhaps it is your own free will that predestines what will happen. Knowing that of your own free will you will chose something doesn't take away that it is your choice.

Ok, I've asked before and I need to ask again. Explain how in the world you are defining foreknowldege and free will.

All I said in my post is that others have been saying that, and the post that I replied to was refuting a point that had not been made.


Okay, now I'm confused and its time for me to go home to my lovely wife, so I will have to post pone the rest of my part of this conversation for another day.

I hope you all enjoy the debate and that people can come to see that foreknowledge and free will are not mutually exclusive by definition. They can actually co-exist quite nicely...

People use to ask me, "Do you believe in predestination, or free will?" My answer would always be, "Yes." The two are only seemingly contradictory because we see things from the perspective of human beings, not from the perspective of God. For us, that is impossible, since we are NOT God.
Okay, but we must rely on the human perspective, with human defintions of human words and ideas, to converse and understand in human terms. Such is our lot. :) We cannot ignore it.

Predestination means "the act of God foreordaining all things gone before and to come" - dictionary.com. That effectively eliminates choices. If a human is thinking in human terms and looking at the world with an attitude that upholds a belief in predestination, then he must necessarily believe he has no free will.

you cant take time in the future and add it to time in the present because the future is not here yet. so it is not infinite.

Infinity + 1 = ... infinity.
Infinity x10 = ... infinity.


Infinity is not a number (Contary to the belief of many primary school children) it is a concept. You cannot add to it, by the very nature of the concept. Nor can you multiply it etc.

How many times has science thought something was absolutely true, only to have subequent theories and discoveries render it false? Yes, I understand how the scientific method works, but to presume to say that "predestination" and "free will" are mutually contradictory falls into the category of things we have yet to understand.

Blatant logical contradictions don't exactly fall into the category of things we just don't understand yet.

you cant take time in the future and add it to time in the present because the future is not here yet. so it is not infinite.
Err, come again?
I can't understand what you're trying to say.

Infinity is not a number (Contary to the belief of many primary school children) it is a concept. You cannot add to it, by the very nature of the concept. Nor can you multiply it etc.
Augh, I hate it when people try to use infinity as a number...

Perhaps it is your own free will that predestines what will happen. Knowing that of your own free will you will chose something doesn't take away that it is your choice.

If there exists free will, there also exists the possibility that you will do other than what you did. An idea similar to what you could be getting at is that our minds are formed, moulded, whether by genetics, social imprinting, experience, etc. such that, while it might be physically possible for you to do something other than that which you did, your mental imprinting makes this impossible for you to have done otherwise in the circumstances.

In other words, yes, you chose to do it, but your mental imprinting was such that you couldn't have chosen otherwise. It's choice, but it's certainly not free choice.

Infinity is not a number

I'm aware.

You cannot add to it

Yes, you can. Take some semi-advanced math courses.

you cant take time in the future and add it to time in the present because the future is not here yet. so it is not infinite.
Booya!

Well done.

I will have to post pone the rest of my part of this conversation for another day.

ditto, ive got to get some work done so i am off...

Err, come again?
I can't understand what you're trying to say.
The future does not exist.

Ok, I've asked before and I need to ask again. Explain how in the world you are defining foreknowldege and free will.

foreknowledge = having a completely accurate perception of a reality that will happen before it happens

free will = having the freedom to chose one's own individual actions within the constraints of physical and mental humanity and thus the causality and responsibility for what one choses to do

For that line thing. The dot represents the present right?

Augh, I hate it when people try to use infinity as a number...
well, math classes make it a little hard to know the propper usage for infinity, in a way. i mean, you can raise values to the power of infinity, or use infinity in fractions, and you can get actual number values out of the whole mess...it's clearly not the same as a variable like X, but it's also not a concrete number like 5.

besides, when my brother tells me that i am stupid times infinity, what am i to do if i cannot simply tell him that he is stupid times infinity plus one?!

Yes, you can. Take some semi-advanced math courses.

No you cant. You can add to infinate recursion but thats not infinity. To add to infinity would be to add to the universe (assuming the univierse is infintie, if it isnt then adding to the universe in the first place by assuming there is something infinite) Imagine an infinately long piece of paper. It streches across the universe but it never stops streching because it is infinite (thats assuming the universe too is infinate). You cant add to it because it is allready total full.

besides, when my brother tells me that i am stupid times infinity, what am i to do if i cannot simply tell him that he is stupid times infinity plus one?!
Err...
I'm more the sort that would duct-tape his mouth shut, myself.
:D

If there exists free will, there also exists the possibility that you will do other than what you did. An idea similar to what you could be getting at is that our minds are formed, moulded, whether by genetics, social imprinting, experience, etc. such that, while it might be physically possible for you to do something other than that which you did, your mental imprinting makes this impossible for you to have done otherwise in the circumstances.

In other words, yes, you chose to do it, but your mental imprinting was such that you couldn't have chosen otherwise. It's choice, but it's certainly not free choice.

Forknowledge doesn't take away that you could choose something other than what you chose, it just knew which you would choose before you made the choice. No causal relationship.

Okay, but we must rely on the human perspective, with human defintions of human words and ideas, to converse and understand in human terms. Such is our lot. :) We cannot ignore it.

Predestination means "the act of God foreordaining all things gone before and to come" - dictionary.com. That effectively eliminates choices. If a human is thinking in human terms and looking at the world with an attitude that upholds a belief in predestination, then he must necessarily believe he has no free will.

There is another thread which discusses faith. This post points at that thread. Faith activates when knowledge fails.

besides, when my brother tells me that i am stupid times infinity, what am i to do if i cannot simply tell him that he is stupid times infinity plus one?!

Well, technically, if you have only one mind, it would only be possible to be stupid once. Therefore, if you're stupid times infinity, your collective intelligence is probably a hell of a lot greater than his! :p

Forknowledge doesn't take away that you could choose something other than what you chose, it just knew which you would choose before you made the choice. No causal relationship.

Okay. Look. Free will implies two or more options. For the sake of argument, let's call them (a) and (b). If an omniscient being knows that (a) will come to pass, it precludes the possibilty that (b) could happen. This makes (b) impossible. If (b) is impossible, (b) is no longer an option. If there is not an option, there is not free will.

Well, technically, if you have only one mind, it would only be possible to be stupid once. Therefore, if you're stupid times infinity, your collective intelligence is probably a hell of a lot greater than his! :p
whoa...

you're messing with my head, man.

foreknowledge = having a completely accurate perception of a reality that will happen before it happens

free will = having the freedom to chose one's own individual actions within the constraints of physical and mental humanity and thus the causality and responsibility for what one choses to do

Fine. I don't see how these definitions change anything I've been talking about.

Entity 'A' has a completely accurate perception of what I will do before I do it. Now, let's look at one specific instance when I do something. We'll call that somethine "S"

Let's call the time I will decide to do this hypothetical thing "t".

So, entity "A" knows at time "t-x" (where "x" is some indeterminate amount of time) that I will decide to do "S". It is already a fact, an established aspect of reality at that time, that I will decide to do "S" because at "t-x" the statement "I will decide to do 'S'" is already defined as true.

So, when time "t" arrives and I am presented with my decision how do I choose my own individual actions? A choice must by definition be between more than one possible option. I know of ONE possible option that exists when I am presented with my decision in this scenarion, that being that I will choose to do "S".

What is the second option? A second is necessary to fulfill the basic requirements for the existence of free will. This second option must not invalidate entity "A"s foreknowledge of the outcome in order to reconcile free will and foreknowledge.

So what is it?

No you cant. You can add to infinate recursion but thats not infinity. To add to infinity would be to add to the universe

I'm unaware of any logical prohibition to adding to the universe. Wasn't God supposed to have created the thing? So... he can't add to his creation if he created it infinite?**

Imagine an infinately long piece of paper. It streches across the universe but it never stops streching because it is infinite (thats assuming the universe too is infinate). You cant add to it because it is allready total full.

So say I'm standing on this peice of peper. I break out the scissors and glue and splice in a section right at the spot I'm standing.

I just added to an infinite peice of paper... and it's still infinite.

**Disclaimer: I do not believe God created the universe.

I'm unaware of any logical prohibition to adding to the universe. Wasn't God supposed to have created the thing? So... he can't add to his creation if he created it infinite?**

So say I'm standing on this peice of peper. I break out the scissors and glue and splice in a section right at the spot I'm standing.

I just added to an infinite peice of paper... and it's still infinite.

**Disclaimer: I do not believe God created the universe.

infinity is not a tangible or definite value thus you could never "add" to it as u simply stated. If one was to "add" to infiinity it would remain infinite and the end result would be the same. likewise - pro darwinism and other sciences...

I'm unaware of any logical prohibition to adding to the universe. Wasn't God supposed to have created the thing? So... he can't add to his creation if he created it infinite?**

The universe is infinite, but the amount of matter in the universe is finite, since the vast majority of the universe contains nothing but cold, empty void. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to add to an "infinite" universe simply by adding matter to it.

On that note, I'm heading off.

infinity is not a tangible or definite value

In that case I would suggest that saying it cannot be traversed or assigning it to things like the surface area of paper is ill-advised.

thus you could never "add" to it as u simply stated.

I can within the framework of the example I was responding to.

If one was to "add" to infiinity it would remain infinite and the end result would be the same.

I believe I mentioned that very thing in my post.

I feel misunderstood. What I meant was more in terms of Natural disastes and such - how could those happen, if he controls everything? The tsunami, for example.

I'm aware.



Yes, you can. Take some semi-advanced math courses.

Since we're onto numbers:

.99~=1

Back on topic, has anyone considered that if God is indeed all-powerful that he could bend the rules of logic? That way he could know what we're doing yet still allow us to choose? It's impossible to us, but if we were all powerful, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard.

Back on topic, has anyone considered that if God is indeed all-powerful that he could bend the rules of logic?

No it hasn't occured to me, because it's kind of a silly idea. For example: the laws of logic tell us you cannot ever have a square circle. Would you think God could make a square circle because the laws of logic don't necessarily apply to him?

The 'laws' of logic aren't like the 'laws' of physics, positing supernatural workarounds just doesn't do the job, even on a purely conceptual level.

Back on topic, has anyone considered that if God is indeed all-powerful that he could bend the rules of logic? That way he could know what we're doing yet still allow us to choose? It's impossible to us, but if we were all powerful, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard.
God cannot "alter the rules of logic", not without interfering in our free will by altering us. We are the source of logic; it is a human philosophy.

God cannot "alter the rules of logic", not without interfering in our free will by altering us. We are the source of logic; it is a human philosophy.
But he created humans as they are ... so in some way he was responsible for logic in its present form

OK - is God all powerful and in control of destiny? And if so, why does evil exist? It is a common question, and I am interested in the biblical answer, especially.

So we're talking about free will versus God's sovereignty and the possibility of evil. My apologies, but this will be a long one to cover all aspects of the topic.

God created man to have free will. He wanted people to be able to love, which is not truely possible without being able to choose to love. In order for choice to be possible, there also needed to be a possibility of humans doing something evil. Hence, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It matters little what the tree was, only that it was involved in man's first choice. Man could choose to eat the fruit or not to, to disobey or obey. Man chose to disobey. This created a long list of consequences which I do not wish to get into, but suffice it to say that evil entered the world where before it was just a possiblity. This includes manmade evil as well as things which are not evil per se, but cause human suffering anyway (eg, the recent tsunami). This is why there is evil in the world.

As to God's knowledge and control versus our free will, it all depends on how much God controls. Just God knowing about the future does not mean that He controls all of it. I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but that does not mean that I cause it to do so. God does cause certain things to happen, but He also uses what we cause to work towards a certain end. After all, if God knows what we will choose in advance, it means He can make a pretty good plan, right? God gave us free will, and He also respects us too much to violate that free will. People often ask if God could have stopped the hijackers on September 11. Yes, He could have. But He would not because He respects our free will. If God can step in to stop such atrocities like 9/11 from happening, then why not step in whenever anything happens which He doesn't like? This inclues stopping genocide aroudn the world to stopping you from swearing tomorrow. Pretty soon, we can see that we no longer have any free will left, and the whole point goes out the window.

As to destiny, I consider destiny to be God's plan for my life. However, I do always make choices to bring that destiny to fruition. I often make choices that detract from it. In short, God has a plan for my life, but He also gives me the option of deviating from that plan. Destiny is what is meant to be, but free will determines what actaully is.

I hope this answers your questions reasonably well.

So we're talking about free will versus God's sovereignty and the possibility of evil. My apologies, but this will be a long one to cover all aspects of the topic.

God created man to have free will. He wanted people to be able to love, which is not truely possible without being able to choose to love. In order for choice to be possible, there also needed to be a possibility of humans doing something evil. Hence, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It matters little what the tree was, only that it was involved in man's first choice. Man could choose to eat the fruit or not to, to disobey or obey. Man chose to disobey.

Of course they didn't know it was wrong to do so, since they hadn't eaten the fruit from the tree yet and didn't have knowledge of good and evil.

You would think an omniscient deity would take this kind of thing into account when setting his 'children' loose to wander around in a situation where they could potentially inflict evil and suffering on billions of people throughout thousands of years by making a single wrong decision which they're not even properly equipped to make in the first place... but maybe that's just me.

I feel misunderstood. What I meant was more in terms of Natural disastes and such - how could those happen, if he controls everything? The tsunami, for example.

That's the thing, He doesn't control everything. If He did there would be no sin, death, pain, suffering etc. We by our and our ancestors choices, exercised in free will, have brought the natural consequences of a would infected with evil. God provided an individualized remedy for that, but we still have to choose it on an individual basis as this world will ultimately destroy itself and anyone not clinging to Him, the source of life.

Yes, he knows the bad things will happen, but he allows us our choices just and their consequences just the same. He does it because Love can't be forced or bought, it has to be our choice, not out of fear, not out of promise of gain, but out of a response to His love for us.

Of course they didn't know it was wrong to do so, since they hadn't eaten the fruit from the tree yet and didn't have knowledge of good and evil.

You would think an omniscient deity would take this kind of thing into account when setting his 'children' loose to wander around in a situation where they could potentially inflict evil and suffering on billions of people throughout thousands of years by making a single wrong decision which they're not even properly equipped to make in the first place... but maybe that's just me.

It was explained to them that it would cause death and destruction. Eve in particular chose to believe the lie that the serpent told that they wouldn't die, rather than believe in God. Adam chose life and death with Eve over his allegence to God, but they both had the information they needed to make the right decisions and chose willfully not to heed the warnings given.

Of course they didn't know it was wrong to do so, since they hadn't eaten the fruit from the tree yet and didn't have knowledge of good and evil.

You would think an omniscient deity would take this kind of thing into account when setting his 'children' loose to wander around in a situation where they could potentially inflict evil and suffering on billions of people throughout thousands of years by making a single wrong decision which they're not even properly equipped to make in the first place... but maybe that's just me.

God said enjoy my creation, but you cannot take fruit from this tree. if you do you will die. thats what he said, it doesnt matter if adam and eve didnt know good or evil at that time. they were given an order to not eat the fruit of that tree. they can obey or disobey. the choice was thiers...

So we're talking about free will versus God's sovereignty and the possibility of evil. My apologies, but this will be a long one to cover all aspects of the topic.

I hope this answers your questions reasonably well.

Well said. It's still dumbfounding to me that this is so hard for some people to grasp. It took my wife years.

The universe is infinite, but the amount of matter in the universe is finite, since the vast majority of the universe contains nothing but cold, empty void. Therefore, it's perfectly possible to add to an "infinite" universe simply by adding matter to it.
But amount of matter you add to the finite amount of matter in the universe still comes from within the universe, so you're not adding to the universe at all.

God said enjoy my creation, but you cannot take fruit from this tree. if you do you will die. thats what he said, it doesnt matter if adam and eve didnt know good or evil at that time. they were given an order to not eat the fruit of that tree. they can obey or disobey. the choice was thiers...

But they didn't know disobeying was wrong because they had no knowledge of good or evil yet, so what the hell were they supposed to base their decision on?

Coin flip?

And then of course there's the fact that God also let a talking snake who liked to trick people into doing bad things wander around the garden with them without doing anything about that situation either... you know if I were an omniscient deity who cared about my creation I'd be just a tad more careful when dealing with situations that could cause pain, evil, death and suffering to be inflicted on billions of them for thousands of years.

But maybe I have a different definition of 'care' than religious people.

It was explained to them that it would cause death and destruction.

Yes... and then after that they were told it was ok to eat the fruit. When presented with this information I see two options.

1. They conclude that it is NOW ok to eat the fruit. After all, they were just told so.

2. They conclude "You're lying and deliberately trying to deceive us into...".

Oh wait. Lying is evil (it's even on God's top ten list). They had no knowledge of good or evil. There's no way they would have concluded the snake was lying, they had no reason to do so. So... I guess that's 1 option.

I repeat, they were not equipped to make the proper decision in this situation according to the information presented to us in the bible. Add to that the fact that God is supposed to be very anti 'visiting the sins of the sons on the fathers' and yet visited the consequences of this one on every human being who would be born on earth for the next however many thousand years and we start to get a small glimpse of just how much sense this story doesn't make.

God said enjoy my creation, but you cannot take fruit from this tree. if you do you will die. thats what he said, it doesnt matter if adam and eve didnt know good or evil at that time. they were given an order to not eat the fruit of that tree. they can obey or disobey. the choice was thiers...
Same as replied above but another way just incase you did not catch it

how did they know it was "wrong" to disobey?

being that "wrong" did not exist they had nothing to base it on ,you know disobeying is wrong because you know what wrong is.

I could say a tree is very flavahaven (made up word) but that would have no meaning to you ... it could mean something that can hurt you but without understanding of what it is you would have no way to tell that it could be a bad thing

It was explained to them that it would cause death and destruction. Eve in particular chose to believe the lie that the serpent told that they wouldn't die, rather than believe in God. Adam chose life and death with Eve over his allegence to God, but they both had the information they needed to make the right decisions and chose willfully not to heed the warnings given.
How did they even know what death and distruction even is ?

Yes... and then after that they were told it was ok to eat the fruit. When presented with this information I see two options.

1. They conclude that it is NOW ok to eat the fruit. After all, they were just told so.

2. They conclude "You're lying and deliberately trying to deceive us into...".

Oh wait. Lying is evil (it's even on God's top ten list). They had no knowledge of good or evil. There's no way they would have concluded the snake was lying, they had no reason to do so. So... I guess that's 1 option.

I repeat, they were not equipped to make the proper decision in this situation according to the information presented to us in the bible. Add to that the fact that God is supposed to be very anti 'visiting the sins of the sons on the fathers' and yet visited the consequences of this one on every human being who would be born on earth for the next however many thousand years and we start to get a small glimpse of just how much sense this story doesn't make.

I have seen this arguement before. The arguement that "Well of course they would'nt have eaten the fruit had they known the concequences". Thats just stupid. By that logic everyone should be able to see the future to know the concequences of their actions in order to know which is the best ones. Thats like saying "Of course Gavrilo Princip wouldnt have shot Franz Ferdinand if he had know what it would cause".

I have seen this arguement before. The arguement that "Well of course they would'nt have eaten the fruit had they known the concequences". Thats just stupid. By that logic everyone should be able to see the future to know the concequences of their actions in order to know which is the best ones. Thats like saying "Of course Gavrilo Princip wouldnt have shot Franz Ferdinand if he had know what it would cause".
At least they would have a frame of refference and of comparison if they knew ... think of adam as a kid who dosent know somethign sharp will hurt him ... he dosent know sharp or real damage.

We as adults have a frame of refference and comparison ... not knowing evil is really removing a lot of that frame of refference that we rely on now to make decisions.

In the first book of the bible he gives us free will so now we have the will to chose if we didnt evil would never touch us. He has a plan but it is up to us if this plan is carried out or not. If we chose something that wasnt part of his plan or has nothing to do with it in the long run we'll probably be more volnerable to evil. He has put our life in our own hands and we have to make the right choice to turn around and put it back in his hands.

At least they would have a frame of refference and of comparison if they knew ... think of adam as a kid who dosent know somethign sharp will hurt him ... he dosent know sharp or real damage.

We as adults have a frame of refference and comparison ... not knowing evil is really removing a lot of that frame of refference that we rely on now to make decisions.

There is a flaw in your assumption. There is no evidence of their inablity to understand.

There is a flaw in your assumption. There is no evidence of their inablity to understand.
if they understood nothing even remotly like evil then how COULD they? we all reason by comparison as long as they were human really they more then likly did the same

I have seen this arguement before. The arguement that "Well of course they would'nt have eaten the fruit had they known the concequences". Thats just stupid.

That's not the point of the argument. The point is that they were denied the basic ability to make decisions based upon any kind of moral criteria because knowledge of good and evil was witheld from them... and then they were punished for not making the good decision when they lacked the capacity to even weigh that factor.

THAT'S stupid.

Or sadistic. Take your pick.

You might as well punish a blind man for not picking the right color of paint for his wall... when YOU'RE the one that blinded him!

Look, there are so many things wrong with the story of the Fall it's just sad.

1. God witheld knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve and then punished them for not knowing what they were doing was the evil choice.

2. God let a devious talking serpent roam around the garden to tell lies to Adam and Eve, who he had to know perfectly well had no means of recognizing them AS lies, and then punished them for not seeing they were lies.

3. God set things up such that one single wrong decision by two people would doom billions of people for thousands of years who had NOTHING to do with what happened to pain, death, evil and suffering even though the bible says he DOESN'T visit the sins of the father on the son. The MAIN PREMISE upon which Christianity bases it's claim that redemption is necessary is that we inherited the consequences of the sin of our father many MANY times removed and then it has the gall to say God doesn't punish sons for their father's sins!?!?!

Look, taken literally the entire genesis account is so incredibly ridiculous it defies description.

if they understood nothing even remotly like evil then how COULD they? we all reason by comparison as long as they were human really they more then likly did the same

There is no evidence that they did not understand. In the Bible they did not say "We do not understand" when God gave the command. Nor did they defend themselves with ignorence when they were called upon to defend themselves. They told the truth as they knew it.

There is no evidence that they did not understand. In the Bible they did not say "We do not understand" when God gave the command. Nor did they defend themselves with ignorence when they were called upon to defend themselves. They told the truth as they knew it.
Does not say they understood either ... I was making a logical comparison to what I think I would feel in the same situation. I personaly would not understand (besides if god is all knowing why would they have to defend themselfs he already knows exactly what they were/are thinking)

That's not the point of the argument. The point is that they were denied the basic ability to make decisions based upon any kind of moral criteria because knowledge of good and evil was witheld from them... and then they were punished for not making the good decision when they lacked the capacity to even weigh that factor.

THAT'S stupid.

Or sadistic. Take your pick.

You might as well punish a blind man for not picking the right color of paint for his wall... when YOU'RE the one that blinded him!

Look, there are so many things wrong with the story of the Fall it's just sad.

1. God witheld knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve and then punished them for not knowing what they were doing was the evil choice.

2. God let a devious talking serpent roam around the garden to tell lies to Adam and Eve, who he had to know perfectly well had no means of recognizing them AS lies, and then punished them for not seeing they were lies.

3. God set things up such that one single wrong decision by two people would doom billions of people for thousands of years who had NOTHING to do with what happened to pain, death, evil and suffering even though the bible says he DOESN'T visit the sins of the father on the son. The MAIN PREMISE upon which Christianity bases it's claim that redemption is necessary is that we inherited the consequences of the sin of our father many MANY times removed and then it has the gall to say God doesn't punish sons for their father's sins!?!?!

Look, taken literally the entire genesis account is so incredibly ridiculous it defies description.


This is how I see it as well

That's not the point of the argument. The point is that they were denied the basic ability to make decisions based upon any kind of moral criteria because knowledge of good and evil was witheld from them... and then they were punished for not making the good decision when they lacked the capacity to even weigh that factor.

THAT'S stupid.

Or sadistic. Take your pick.

You might as well punish a blind man for not picking the right color of paint for his wall... when YOU'RE the one that blinded him!

Look, there are so many things wrong with the story of the Fall it's just sad.

1. God witheld knowledge of good and evil from Adam and Eve and then punished them for not knowing what they were doing was the evil choice.

2. God let a devious talking serpent roam around the garden to tell lies to Adam and Eve, who he had to know perfectly well had no means of recognizing them AS lies, and then punished them for not seeing they were lies.

3. God set things up such that one single wrong decision by two people would doom billions of people for thousands of years who had NOTHING to do with what happened to pain, death, evil and suffering even though the bible says he DOESN'T visit the sins of the father on the son. The MAIN PREMISE upon which Christianity bases it's claim that redemption is necessary is that we inherited the consequences of the sin of our father many MANY times removed and then it has the gall to say God doesn't punish sons for their father's sins!?!?!

Look, taken literally the entire genesis account is so incredibly ridiculous it defies description.

1) The decision to eat the apple or not was not one of good or evil. Thats a mistake many people make. It was a decision of obediance or disobediance. Knowledge of good or evil was not nessecary to understand the command. It was an arbitary command, just dont do something God had told you not to do.

2) If God had not allowed the serpant to exist, he would have been no better than a dictator, and adam and eve would believe him only because they didnt know better.

3) Ok, so remove original sin. Can you claim to never have sinned in your entire life. No, and neitheir can anyone else.

1) The decision to eat the apple or not was not one of good or evil. Thats a mistake many people make. It was a decision of obediance or disobediance. Knowledge of good or evil was not nessecary to understand the command. It was an arbitary command, just dont do something God had told you not to do.


YES IT IS! how did they not know it was "good" to disobey?

There is no evidence that they did not understand.

If we believe the genesis account there is no way they COULD.

They had no knowledge of good and evil. Explain how you understand good and evil without knowledge of it if you don't mind.

YES IT IS! how did they not know it was "good" to disobey?

It was God who told them to do it. They knew who God was, and so they know they have to obey him. A child does not need advanced theological understanding to obey its parents.

How did they even know what death and distruction even is ?

They didn't have first hand knowledge because it didn't exist prior to sin on earth. But God did provide them sufficient information to make even Eve cautious when talking to the serpent. She acknowledge that she knew it would kill her, though it is apparent that she expected it to happen immidiately. Still, she had the info. necessary to make a choice and chose to believe that God, her Creator and Sustainer, was lying rather than the serpent.

1) The decision to eat the apple or not was not one of good or evil. Thats a mistake many people make. It was a decision of obediance or disobediance. Knowledge of good or evil was not nessecary to understand the command. It was an arbitary command, just dont do something God had told you not to do.

but if there is no standard of good and bad, no right and wrong, than Adam and Eve would not have performed a wrong action by disobeying God (by definition), so God would have no reason to punish them.


2) If God had not allowed the serpant to exist, he would have been no better than a dictator, and adam and eve would believe him only because they didnt know better.

he was still no better than a dictator; he put an alternate voice in the garden, and then cast out anybody who listened to it.

think about if that were the case today: "Christian priests are allowed to say what they want, but anybody who decides to listen to them and learn about Christ is going to be exiled from our country forever, and never allowed to return." would you say that people are being given freedom to choose, in that case? if we expell any person who listens to an alternate voice or attempts to learn about alternative ideas (remember, it was the Tree of KNOWLEDGE they ate from), doesn't that make us just a teeny bit dictatorial?


3) Ok, so remove original sin. Can you claim to never have sinned in your entire life. No, and neitheir can anyone else.
sure i can...i don't believe there is such a thing as "sin," therefore i cannot have "sinned" any more than i can have "gnarfblatted."

If we believe the genesis account there is no way they COULD.

They had no knowledge of good and evil. Explain how you understand good and evil without knowledge of it if you don't mind.

They didnt need the understanding of good and evil to obey God. All there was was a simple command. Obey or not.

It was God who told them to do it. They knew who God was, and so they know they have to obey him. A child does not need advanced theological understanding to obey its parents.
No but he has to understand that either
1 disobaying his parent is bad
or 2 that pain or punishment will be caused by disobeying (though this leads to the correct response ... obeying parent ... but really for the wrong reasons)

But they did not know what bad was ... and they did not know what pain or any other punishment is (not really understand)

And they dident have anything to compare it to

They didnt need the understanding of good and evil to obey God. All there was was a simple command. Obey or not.
But they did not have any reason to obey him either

Does not say they understood either ... I was making a logical comparison to what I think I would feel in the same situation. I personaly would not understand (besides if god is all knowing why would they have to defend themselfs he already knows exactly what they were/are thinking)

That would depend on how much an infinite God would help you understand, which leaves the possibility that they understood as well or better than us.

YES IT IS! how did they not know it was "good" to disobey?

Perhaps God told them...

That would depend on how much an infinite God would help you understand, which leaves the possibility that they understood as well or better than us.
Now that is an arguement ... devine information ... hard to prove or disprove either way. today humans learn through experience mostly, I supose this could have been shortcuted but there is no base for belief for or against that (if they TRULY understood compleatly there would have been no chance that they would have made the decision they did ... well some chance but slim ...)

but if there is no standard of good and bad, no right and wrong, than Adam and Eve would not have performed a wrong action by disobeying God (by definition), so God would have no reason to punish them.


You are missing the point. To obey or disobey God was the command. God is the standard of what is good for them. They knew who God was and they knew what he had said. They chose to disobey.


he was still no better than a dictator; he put an alternate voice in the garden, and then cast out anybody who listened to it.

think about if that were the case today: "Christian priests are allowed to say what they want, but anybody who decides to listen to them and learn about Christ is going to be exiled from our country forever, and never allowed to return." would you say that people are being given freedom to choose, in that case? if we expell any person who listens to an alternate voice or attempts to learn about alternative ideas (remember, it was the Tree of KNOWLEDGE they ate from), doesn't that make us just a teeny bit dictatorial?


I think a better example is

"Burglers put up infomation on the internet explaining how to bypass burgler alarms. While the internet is free domain of infomation, anyone using this infomation is going to be arrested and prosecuted"


sure i can...i don't believe there is such a thing as "sin," therefore i cannot have "sinned" any more than i can have "gnarfblatted."

Your dealing with Christian logic. Dont try attacking it from the outside. Your quite happy to accept God's existance a second ago in your arguement.

Genesis 2:16-17 God Commanded the man," you are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

he gave a command. dont eat the fruit. they disobeyed. the insintive was death. satan tempted them to eat the fruit, saying it would give you knowledge of good and evil. they disobeyed Gods command.
do babies disobey when they are young? yes, do they comprehend good and evil? no.

Man created god (s) in his/her image. Man also created the devil, demons. Good and evil exists in man - therefore god and the devil exists in the human mind.

But they did not have any reason to obey him either

He was God. That is reason enough.

You are missing the point. To obey or disobey God was the command. God is the standard of what is good for them. They knew who God was and they knew what he had said. They chose to disobey.



But if there was no bad there was no oposite of good ... so EVERYTHING was good

disobeying included

1) The decision to eat the apple or not was not one of good or evil. Thats a mistake many people make. It was a decision of obediance or disobediance.

No it wasn't. As already pointed out the serpent presented them with new information AFTER the first command had been given. They then had two options, conclude that the serpent was telling the truth and that the saituation had changed, or assume the serpent was lying.

Only if we believe the story they had no knowledge of lying or deception, because lying is evil and they had no knowledge of evil.

So the only rational option left to them is to assume that it was NOW ok to eat the fruit, where it hadn't been ok before.

Knowledge of good or evil was not nessecary to understand the command. It was an arbitary command, just dont do something God had told you not to do.

Until someone else comes along and tells you it's ok now... and then how are they supposed to know it's not without knowledge of the deceptive and evil nature of the one giving them that information?

2) If God had not allowed the serpant to exist, he would have been no better than a dictator,

I'm sorry... if we're to assume God exists then I'm sure God hasn't created lots of evil talking serpents. Does that make him a dictator?

And even if he had to create the serpent and allow it to exist for some obscure reason, why exactly was it allowed in the Garden when it clearly had knowledge of good and evil AND was clearly sinful? Adam and Eve were tossed out on their backsides immediately.

Did THAT make God a dictator?

and adam and eve would believe him only because they didnt know better.

Because God prevented them from knowing better... then punished them for it.

3) Ok, so remove original sin. Can you claim to never have sinned in your entire life.

I don't believe in sin... so yes, I can.

And that doesn't solve the problem of the reason death and destuction and evil and suffering EXIST. God let it be inflicted on the entire world as a punishmment for the actions of two people?!?

No but he has to understand that either
1 disobaying his parent is bad
or 2 that pain or punishment will be caused by disobeying (though this leads to the correct response ... obeying parent ... but really for the wrong reasons)

But they did not know what bad was ... and they did not know what pain or any other punishment is (not really understand)

And they dident have anything to compare it to

1) They did understand, they would die if they disobeyed (not immidately but later). And there is no evidence that they did not understand death (when he said it to them, they did not then say "Whats death" or something to that equivelent)

2) They understood who God was and that they shouldn't disobey him purely on the basis of who he was. He had said that if ate of the tree one day they would die. I say that's bad

[QUOTE=Bottle]but if there is no standard of good and bad, no right and wrong, than Adam and Eve would not have performed a wrong action by disobeying God (by definition), so God would have no reason to punish them.


he was still no better than a dictator; he put an alternate voice in the garden, and then cast out anybody who listened to it.

QUOTE]

He didn't put the alternate voice there. It came of its own volition. God was merciful in that He continued to keep them on life support even after they had willfully seperated themselves from the source of life and gave them an opportunity to reconnect themselves with Him and eventually return to the garden someday. If He was just an arbitrary dictator, none of us would be here. We'd have all died the instant we sinned.

1) They did understand, they would die if they disobeyed (not immidately but later). And there is no evidence that they did not understand death (when he said it to them, they did not then say "Whats death" or something to that equivelent)

2) They understood who God was and that they shouldn't disobey him purely on the basis of who he was. He had said that if ate of the tree one day they would die. I say that's bad
1) As there is no basis to believe they did understand there is also no basis to believe god told them what good and bad is.

2) I dont think you get it to them THERE WAS NO BAD nothing they could do WAS BAD because for them BAD did not exist

No but he has to understand that either
1 disobaying his parent is bad
or 2 that pain or punishment will be caused by disobeying (though this leads to the correct response ... obeying parent ... but really for the wrong reasons)

But they did not know what bad was ... and they did not know what pain or any other punishment is (not really understand)

And they dident have anything to compare it to

I've never tried to eat arsnic or used controled substances, but on the basis of knowledge related to me by others, I am quite certain they aren't good for me.

I've never tried to eat arsnic or used controled substances, but on the basis of knowledge related to me by others, I am quite certain they aren't good for me.
That is the whole point you have INFORMATION you have something to compare it to. People before you have eaten it and gotten sick and told about it... you have a frame of reference on what death is by experience with family/friends you have this wealth of knowledge that comes with experience that THEY DID NOT HAVE

No it wasn't. As already pointed out the serpent presented them with new information AFTER the first command had been given. They then had two options, conclude that the serpent was telling the truth and that the saituation had changed, or assume the serpent was lying.

Only if we believe the story they had no knowledge of lying or deception, because lying is evil and they had no knowledge of evil.

So the only rational option left to them is to assume that it was NOW ok to eat the fruit, where it hadn't been ok before

Until someone else comes along and tells you it's ok now... and then how are they supposed to know it's not without knowledge of the deceptive and evil nature of the one giving them that information?


They knew who God was and so they know that he is not lying to them, only God would have been able to change that command.


I'm sorry... I'm sure God hasn't created lots of evil talking serpents. Does that make him a dictator?

And even if he had to create the serpent and allow it to exist for some obscure reason, why exactly was it allowed in the Garden when it clearly had knowledge of good and evil AND was clearly sinful? Adam and Eve were tossed out on their backsides immediately.

Did THAT make God a dictator?


The bible doesnt make it clear why it was there, only that it was. But think about it. Had it not been there, Adam and Eve would only have obeyed out of ignorence, not love.


Because God prevented them from knowing better... then punished them for it.


I have allready explained this. They did not need to know Good and Evil to obey.


I don't believe in sin... so yes, I can.


Thats stupid. For the rest of the arguement your happy to debate within Christian logic. Look at what a sin is. Can you say that you havent commited one if it did exist (Humour me why dont you)


And that doesn't solve the problem of the reason death and destuction and evil and suffering EXIST. God let it be inflicted on the entire world as a punishmment for the actions of two people?!?

God did not chose this. We did. Everyone has sinned. All sin.

That is the whole point you have INFORMATION you have something to compare it to. People before you have eaten it and gotten sick and told about it... you have a frame of reference on what death is by experience with family/friends you have this wealth of knowledge that comes with experience that THEY DID NOT HAVE

GOD was their frame of refernce. GOD told them.

but if there is no standard of good and bad, no right and wrong, than Adam and Eve would not have performed a wrong action by disobeying God (by definition), so God would have no reason to punish them.

he was still no better than a dictator; he put an alternate voice in the garden, and then cast out anybody who listened to it.


He didn't put the alternate voice there. It came of its own volition.

are you claiming God did not create the snake, even though He supposedly created everything?

That is the whole point you have INFORMATION you have something to compare it to. People before you have eaten it and gotten sick and told about it... you have a frame of reference on what death is by experience with family/friends you have this wealth of knowledge that comes with experience that THEY DID NOT HAVE

That's just not true. God told them they would die. Eve even repeated that she knew this knowledge and that it was an incentive not to eat. She then chose to believe the serpent rather than to trust her Creator and people have been doing it ever since and look where it has gotten us... pain, cruelty, death, destruction, mahem etc.

GOD was their frame of refernce. GOD told them.

frame of refference
# A set of ideas, as of philosophical or religious doctrine, in terms of which other ideas are interpreted or assigned meaning.

God was a being that gave them a command not doctrine ... frame of refference is in your head not external

are you claiming God did not create the snake, even though He supposedly created everything?

The snake was Lucifer in disguise.

GOD was their frame of refernce. GOD told them.
but he did not give them the ability to know that doing what he said was Good and failing to do so was Bad. to take somebody's advice about not eating poison you must first have the concept of "bad idea." since Adam and Eve could not have had the concept of a "bad idea" before Good and Evil were introduced, they could not possibly have had any concept that obeying God was different in value than disobeying God. all would have been neutral, with no right or wrong about it, so why would God have punished them for breaking rules that did not exist?

That's just not true. God told them they would die. Eve even repeated that she knew this knowledge and that it was an incentive not to eat. She then chose to believe the serpent rather than to trust her Creator and people have been doing it ever since and look where it has gotten us... pain, cruelty, death, destruction, mahem etc.
They did nto even know what death was really ... she did not know that disobeying or not believing god was bad either try to see beyond the knoledge that you now have that they wouldent have had

1) As there is no basis to believe they did understand there is also no basis to believe god told them what good and bad is.


1) They dont profess ignorence as their arguement when God asks them to explain themselves

2) They dont complain lack of understanding when they were told (They didnt ask "whats death?" "Whats your command, I dont understand" etc...)


2) I dont think you get it to them THERE WAS NO BAD nothing they could do WAS BAD because for them BAD did not exist

Bad and Good are not objects that exist and do not exist in the way you describe. The decison to disobey was not evil in the sense that of itself it caused no harm. What was wrong was the disobediance of God. They knew that because of who God was.

but he did not give them the ability to know that doing what he said was Good and failing to do so was Bad. to take somebody's advice about not eating poison you must first have the concept of "bad idea." since Adam and Eve could not have had the concept of a "bad idea" before Good and Evil were introduced, they could not possibly have had any concept that obeying God was different in value than disobeying God. all would have been neutral, with no right or wrong about it, so why would God have punished them for breaking rules that did not exist?
I have tried to say this in like 10 different ways but they just refuse to see beyond the knoledge that they as humans NOW have... evil is a basic concept to us and it is hard to imagine someone NOT knowing what it was ... 90 percent or more of our decisions are based on what is "good" or bad for us but they did not have that most basic knoledge!

1) They dont profess ignorence as their arguement when God asks them to explain themselves

2) They dont complain lack of understanding when they were told (They didnt ask "whats death?" "Whats your command, I dont understand" etc...)



Bad and Good are not objects that exist and do not exist in the way you describe. The decison to disobey was not evil in the sense that of itself it caused no harm. What was wrong was the disobediance of God. They knew that because of who God was.
they may have known who god was but they did not know what WRONG was

but he did not give them the ability to know that doing what he said was Good and failing to do so was Bad. to take somebody's advice about not eating poison you must first have the concept of "bad idea." since Adam and Eve could not have had the concept of a "bad idea" before Good and Evil were introduced, they could not possibly have had any concept that obeying God was different in value than disobeying God. all would have been neutral, with no right or wrong about it, so why would God have punished them for breaking rules that did not exist?

He told them what to do and what not to do. They knew who he was. By that knowledge alone they should know to obey him. They understood death, we know this because they dont profess ignorence when God tells them they will die (They dont ask "What is death, I dont understand?"). The rule existed, God explained it fully to them.

He told them what to do and what not to do. They knew who he was. By that knowledge alone they should know to obey him. They understood death, we know this because they dont profess ignorence when God tells them they will die (They dont ask "What is death, I dont understand?"). The rule existed, God explained it fully to them.
why should they obey him?

He told them what to do and what not to do. They knew who he was. By that knowledge alone they should know to obey him. They understood death, we know this because they dont profess ignorence when God tells them they will die (They dont ask "What is death, I dont understand?"). The rule existed, God explained it fully to them.
why should they obey, if they had no concept of Good or Bad? why would they consider death to be a Bad Thing, if there was no Good or Bad? and if death were not something they could identify as a Bad Thing, how would they judge it to be a punishment? why would they assume that disobedience was bad, if they didn't know that death was supposed to be a negative outcome for them?

There was another tree in the garden.

(*tries to inject some sanity*)

There was another tree in the garden.

(*tries to inject some sanity*)
dude, we are discussing a theory that eating an apple gave people the power of moral consciousness. sanity has no place in this thread.

They did nto even know what death was really ... she did not know that disobeying or not believing god was bad either try to see beyond the knoledge that you now have that they wouldent have had

If God told them these things were bad, explained that death is ceasing to exist, they had enough information to make, in medical terms, informed consent. Perhaps they didn't know all of the details, but they knew enough for Eve to have acknowledged that she didn't want to touch the fruit because she didn't want to die. Maybe they didn't know what that meant as well as we do maybe they did, but that is something we won't know until we get to heaven. What I do know is that she knew enough to know she didn't want to die and that she believe a lie when the truth had been given to her by God. She is/was without excuse, just like you and me.

why should they obey, if they had no concept of Good or Bad?

Who says they had no concept. They just didn't have experience. There is a difference.

If God told them these things were bad, explained that death is ceasing to exist, they had enough information to make, in medical terms, informed consent.

if God explained the concept of "bad" to them beforehand then they already must have understood the difference between Good and Evil when they ate the apple. if they already had a concept of what "bad" actions are, then why would knowledge of Good and Evil have been something that got them thrown out of the garden? especially if God himself told them about it?

Perhaps they didn't know all of the details, but they knew enough for Eve to have acknowledged that she didn't want to touch the fruit because she didn't want to die. Maybe they didn't know what that meant as well as we do maybe they did, but that is something we won't know until we get to heaven. What I do know is that she knew enough to know she didn't want to die and that she believe a lie when the truth had been given to her by God. She is/was without excuse, just like you and me.
so, again, you are claiming they already knew the difference between good and evil BEFORE they ate the apple.

Who says they had no concept. They just didn't have experience. There is a difference.
so why would eating from the Tree of Knowledge make any difference, if they already had that knowledge? did God just decide to mess with them, and say "don't do this or else" as some kind of random hazing ritual?

why should they obey him?

Because He created them, provided every necessity for their happiness and well being and had shown Himself to be completely benevolent towards them. He was their teacher and guide in life who displayed His love for them in all of creation and in spending time with them as a father with his children. They had many, many reasons to trust Him.

Who says they had no concept. They just didn't have experience. There is a difference.
The problem is people learn through experience ... while there is no doubt that god could have done so to compleatly inform someone tothe opint of no question would really be removing free will

Because He created them, provided every necessity for their happiness and well being and had shown Himself to be completely benevolent towards them. He was their teacher and guide in life who displayed His love for them in all of creation and in spending time with them as a father with his children. They had many, many reasons to trust Him.
(now I know you go with the god told them version) but they had no reasons to distrust anything as all was good no was bad ... so all things were really "trusted"

if God explained the concept of "bad" to them beforehand then they already must have understood the difference between Good and Evil when they ate the apple. if they already had a concept of what "bad" actions are, then why would knowledge of Good and Evil have been something that got them thrown out of the garden? especially if God himself told them about it?

so, again, you are claiming they already knew the difference between good and evil BEFORE they ate the apple.

They had conceptual knowledge, not experiential knowledge, which is what they gained when they ate.

dude, we are discussing a theory that eating an apple gave people the power of moral consciousness. sanity has no place in this thread.
Well, actually, you all are discussing the symbolism of such. Symbolism is what humans do best.

The problem is people learn through experience ... while there is no doubt that god could have done so to compleatly inform someone tothe opint of no question would really be removing free will

So it is impossible to learn from information? I've never experienced weightlessness, but I understand the concept.

They knew who God was and so they know that he is not lying to them, only God would have been able to change that command.

Who said they would ever have to even consider God was lying to them? THAT would involve knowledge of good and evil as well.

As already pointed out, the only scenario left after you strip away all the ones that would require them to have knowledge of lying (and thus of evil) before they eat the fruit is that they must conclude that what God told them was the truth when he was speaking... and then later when the serpent was speaking also conclude he is telling the truth. Thus, the situation had changed and the serpent was simply letting them know.

If you disagree provide an alternate scenario which does not require Adam and Eve to conclude that the serpent is doing an evil thing (lying) before they acquire knowledge of evil by eating the fruit.

The bible doesnt make it clear why it was there,

Well gee, I wonder why. Possibly because it's existence is inexplicable?

only that it was. But think about it. Had it not been there, Adam and Eve would only have obeyed out of ignorence, not love.

Umm... what were they supposed to be doing by obeying without any knowledge that obeying was any more a good act than disobeying if not obeying out of pure ignorance?

How were they supposed to know that disobeying wasn't the good thing to do, and thus an act of love?

I have allready explained this. They did not need to know Good and Evil to obey.

You have not explained it, you have asserted it. I will consider it explained when you present a scenario within which they could conclude the information the serpent provided them with was a lie without them possessing knowledge of lying or deception.

Thats stupid. For the rest of the arguement your happy to debate within Christian logic. Look at what a sin is.

I know what sin is defined to be, but it is a purely religious concept.

I'm not in any way religious. You can believe that according to whatever criteria YOU hold up as sinning I have sinned, but I don't accept it's existence in any meaningful form.

Morality: Yes.
Sin: No.

God did not chose this.

Who created things such that evil and death could enter the world through the single wrong decision of a single person, and then remain there and be inflicted upon people for generations to come?

God did choose this.

We did. Everyone has sinned. All sin.

Really? Everyone?

How about... oh... this guy:

http://www.indianchild.com/baby_pictures5.htm

Sinner? What sin do you suppose he's committed? If none, I assume he's immune to pain or evil or suffering... unless of course it's being inflicted upon him simply because he was born into a world which God has allowed those things to be inflicted upon because of the actions of people who lived and died long before that little guy ever even existed.

(now I know you go with the god told them version) but they had no reasons to distrust anything as all was good no was bad ... so all things were really "trusted"

As far as I'm concerned, anything God says is to be trusted above anything else anyone else says and I think that is the problem... people don't want to trust God. They'd rather trust themselves, hence sin.

They had conceptual knowledge, not experiential knowledge, which is what they gained when they ate.

Which brings us back to why the serpent was roaming around the garden. He sure as heck had experiential knowledge.

Face it, this little story has plot holes you could pilot an aircraft carrier through.

Sinner? What sin do you suppose he's committed? If none, I assume he's immune to pain or evil or suffering... unless of course it's being inflicted upon him simply because he was born into a world which God has allowed those things to be inflicted upon because of the actions of people who lived and died long before that little guy ever even existed.

Who said that being sinless would mean that one doesn't suffer pain? Christ was sinless and He suffered more pain than all humanity put together.

Which brings us back to why the serpent was roaming around the garden. He sure as heck had experiential knowledge.

Face it, this little story has plot holes you could pilot an aircraft carrier through.

Yes, he did. He is a lier and the father of it and wasn't roaming around. He was restricted to that tree and if Eve had obeyed God and not gone near it she need never have even been exposed to his lies.

As already pointed out, the only scenario left after you strip away all the ones that would require them to have knowledge of lying (and thus of evil) before they eat the fruit is that they must conclude that what God told them was the truth when he was speaking... and then later when the serpent was speaking also conclude he is telling the truth. Thus, the situation had changed and the serpent was simply letting them know.
The serpent simply told Eve the truth, that eating of that fruit would make them as knowledgeable as God. Her decision to eat was not based on any misconception that the situation had changed; she was still aware that she should not eat of that fruit.

Who said that being sinless would mean that one doesn't suffer pain?

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Now, if you can be sinless and still have pain and suffering inflicted upon you... why does that happen? It has just been denied that God visits the sins of Adam and Eve on anyone else and that we only have pain and death and suffering because WE are sinners, every single one of us.

So if one of us isn't, why are they suffering anyway?

The serpent simply told Eve the truth, that eating of that fruit would make them as knowledgeable as God. Her decision to eat was not based on any misconception that the situation had changed; she was still aware that she should not eat of that fruit.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

At one time you're told that eating the fruit will KILL YOU. Then later you're told eating the fruit will make you knowledgeable... and you're expecting us to believe that they had no reason to think this represented a change in the situation assuming they cannot know of lying?

So it is impossible to learn from information? I've never experienced weightlessness, but I understand the concept.
No but to understand it I am sure your mind makes a comparison ... what it feels like to be out of water... I guess there is a difference between KNOWING and UNDERSTANDING

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
Well, I just re-read the story now. That's how it is related.

At one time you're told that eating the fruit will KILL YOU. Then later you're told eating the fruit will make you knowledgeable... and you're expecting us to believe that they had no reason to think this represented a change in the situation assuming they cannot know of lying?
Why should this represent a change of situation? The second bit of knowledge does not contradict the first.

Yes, he did. He is a lier and the father of it and wasn't roaming around. He was restricted to that tree and if Eve had obeyed God and not gone near it she need never have even been exposed to his lies.
The serpent did not lie. He was falsely accused later by Eve of "deceiving" her, but there is no evidence of that related in the earlier story. There is also no mention that he was restricted to that tree --you are introducing story elements from somewhere else?

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Now, if you can be sinless and still have pain and suffering inflicted upon you... why does that happen? It has just been denied that God visits the sins of Adam and Eve on anyone else and that we only have pain and death and suffering because WE are sinners, every single one of us.

So if one of us isn't, why are they suffering anyway?

I know of someone who was sinless and suffered extremely. Jesus

I know of someone who was sinless and suffered extremely. Jesus
You know of someone that suposedly was sinless :-D and he suffered bout what a lot of theves did in their day (inosent or not) really was not all that unusual of punishment

I know of someone who was sinless and suffered extremely. Jesus

You didn't answer the question... I was asking about people who were sinless (not deities in human form who are defined as sinless no matter what), specifically that little baby I posted the picture of, and WHY they suffer pain and suffering and various other evil things if they aren't catching it in the teeth just because of what Adam and Eve did.

And really, you don't even want to get me started on the silliness of Jesus the poster boy "love thine enemy, turn the other cheek" guy also being God, the very same guy who is apparently so incapable of forgiveness that he requires a blood sacrifice of... himself (the Son part of himself anyway, gotta love that wacky trinity)... in order to forgive sin and who will consign anyone who doesn't buy into this insane setup to eternal torment or oblivion or whatever it is your particular flavour of Christianity says happens to the 'unsaved'.

You know of someone that suposedly was sinless :-D and he suffered bout what a lot of theves did in their day (inosent or not) really was not all that unusual of punishment

Fine, you go through it before you pass judgement. Go crucify yourself before you belittle what Jesus did.

The serpent did not lie. He was falsely accused later by Eve of "deceiving" her, but there is no evidence of that related in the earlier story. There is also no mention that he was restricted to that tree --you are introducing story elements from somewhere else?
Bound to the tree - Not Biblical. The fact that he was in the tree is probably because that's the tree he was trying to tempt her with...Just doesn't work well goin', "Hey, see that tree waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there? You should go eat from it!"

Oh, and my Bible doesn't say he was in the tree at the time...Just says he tempted her with it. So he might have been goin', "Look at that tree waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there." Come to think of it, that would probably have been a prudent move, seeing as how God was probably paying close attention to that particular tree. If I were Satan, I would want to stay away from it.

Satan is, in fact a liar, but no, he does not always lie. He did lie in this case, saying, "You will not die..." which is a lie...they would and they did.
But, he also told the truth, "You will be like God, knowing good and evil!"

This is how Satan works, he tells half-truths. He tells you something true, so you trust him, and then he tells a lie. Truth - the fruit was good, it made you smart, it probably tasted really good...She could see that, it's not rocket science. So she figures, eh, well, this guy is pretty smart. Then he lies, saying, "But you won't die..." Well, he was right before, and he's pretty smart, so I should listen to him on this one, too.

Notice that when Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, he never lied. Not once. He told him to make bread out of rocks...Jesus can do that. That just wasn't the proper time. He told him to leap off the building so God would catch him and all the people would see the great miracle. This is true, God would have caught him, and the people would have seen a great miracle...But it wasn't the right time, and it would be testing God, which is wrong. Then he told him he'd give Jesus the world if Jesus would worship him. This isn't a lie, per se, more lie-by-omission...the fact is that the world was not for Satan to give.
Granted, Satan probably wouldn't have given him the world, but it's a moot point.

So no, Satan does not have to lie specifically to deceive. In this case, however, he did. Just once, though, and it was a "little white lie."

You know of someone that suposedly was sinless :-D and he suffered bout what a lot of theves did in their day (inosent or not) really was not all that unusual of punishment
1) he was innocent. He didn't deserve it.
2) there is also the belief that he descended into hell. Which, yes, plenty of people have done that too.
3) See #2. He didn't deserve it, which makes all the difference in the world.

Would you think God could make a square circle because the laws of logic don't necessarily apply to him?

Well if God's all-powerful, I really don't think it'd be that much of a problem for him.

Of course, this assumes that God is in fact all-powerful, which he may or may not actually be. I'd be breaking all the laws if I could do anything.

But to find out if he really is all-powerful, let's ask ourselves if God can, in fact, sin.

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Now, if you can be sinless and still have pain and suffering inflicted upon you... why does that happen? It has just been denied that God visits the sins of Adam and Eve on anyone else and that we only have pain and death and suffering because WE are sinners, every single one of us.

So if one of us isn't, why are they suffering anyway?
I reeeeeeeaaaally don't want to have to go into the long explanation for the theology of this. Can we please just take my word that it has a very good explanation?

And if you happen to be innocent (which you aren't, so it's a moot point), life ain't fair. Get over it. And I don't know for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if you are innocent, you won't suffer.
On the plus side, IF you happen to be perfectly innocent, which again is a moot point because no one is...But if you happen to be perfectly innocent, you can get into heaven on your own.

Well if God's all-powerful, I really don't think it'd be that much of a problem for him.

Of course, this assumes that God is in fact all-powerful, which he may or may not actually be. I'd be breaking all the laws if I could do anything.

But to find out if he really is all-powerful, let's ask ourselves if God can, in fact, sin.
He can, but because he is perfect, he chooses not to. Personally, I believe he can make a square circle. But that's me.

You also have to think about these things in more than three dimensions, which isn't really possible for us three-dimensional beings (not counting time...)

Come to think about it...If you took a square and turned it into a circle, and then made it exist at both points in time at the same time, you'd have a square circle....I think....I don't know quantum physics all that well :D