NationStates Jolt Archive

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

I always thought that if he exists, he must be one of the nastiest beings in the univers. Either that, or he has a really bad sense of humour.

I like to think of God as an 11-year-old kid and we're His science project.

A life without risk, danger, the unknown would be a greater suffering than the life we have now.

You have a child - do you keep them indoors never letting them go out and play because you don't want them to get hurt, or do you let your child play in the garden with their friends? Which would be more cruel? Confining the child to your house for their entire life or letting them play outside, to take risks, to live?

well humans are driven by necessity if we lived perfect happy lives we wouldn't be too bothered with technology and thus we would be children forever relying on God for everything...

but no parent will have this and so we have suffering and such so that we move out and have kids

I vote God for the single parent of the year award

you are not all knowing so how do you know that God is doing a bad job? :p

A life without risk, danger, the unknown would be a greater suffering than the life we have now.

You have a child - do you keep them indoors never letting them go out and play because you don't want them to get hurt, or do you let your child play in the garden with their friends? Which would be more cruel? Confining the child to your house for their entire life or letting them play outside, to take risks, to live?

I'd let my child play in the garden, but I wouldn't make my garden have spewing lava, dangerous animals, tsunamis and tidal waves.

A life without risk, danger, the unknown would be a greater suffering than the life we have now.

You have a child - do you keep them indoors never letting them go out and play because you don't want them to get hurt, or do you let your child play in the garden with their friends? Which would be more cruel? Confining the child to your house for their entire life or letting them play outside, to take risks, to live?

Yes, but my point is, an all-powerful god would be able to make a universe where the opposite was true.

One of the standard, flawed arguments of the "I hate the fact that you have faith and want to destroy it" brigade is that they try to assign human feelings and emotions to the immortal. There are many reasons why suffering is 'allowed' beyond 'so we know joy', not least the fact that if we are to truly have free will, then we must live with the consequences of our actions. Most suffering is man made, not God made.

Ultimately, though, you have to put aside the arrogance of humanity and the belief that you can know everything, and just trust His judgement.

I'd let my child play in the garden, but I wouldn't make my garden have spewing lava, dangerous animals, tsunamis and tidal waves.

Tsk. No sense of humor.

One of the standard, flawed arguments of the "I hate the fact that you have faith and want to destroy it" brigade is that they try to assign human feelings and emotions to the immortal. There are many reasons why suffering is 'allowed' beyond 'so we know joy', not least the fact that if we are to truly have free will, then we must live with the consequences of our actions. Most suffering is man made, not God made.

Ultimately, though, you have to put aside the arrogance of humanity and the belief that you can know everything, and just trust His judgement.

Yup. But you've missed my point. An all-powerful god could make the illogical logical, and create a universe where we can have free will and not suffer.

I'd let my child play in the garden, but I wouldn't make my garden have spewing lava, dangerous animals, tsunamis and tidal waves.

well there is a slim chance all of this could happen in your garden along with a good chance of nasty bee stings!!!

And volcanoes and such are needed to keep the Earth habitable its not Gods fault if you happen to build a house next to a volcano and have a habit of digging

you are not all knowing so how do you know that God is doing a bad job? :p

Well, if he existed, I for one would have a list of complaints...

Yup. But you've missed my point. An all-powerful god could make the illogical logical, and create a universe where we can have free will and not suffer.

That wouldn't be free will. That would be blind robotics.

We need to make our choices, make our mistakes, and learn from them. What you are suggesting is little more than a guided path, where the 'eureka!' thought pops into our head at random points along the journey to keep us moving. If that is what God had wanted, then yes, He could have done so; but I'm not certain it is a life that would have much value.

Well, if he existed, I for one would have a list of complaints...

I would assume that everyone does, I think it's neither wise or productive to complain to God though.

What you have just described is often refered to as the god fallacy.

That wouldn't be free will. That would be blind robotics.

We need to make our choices, make our mistakes, and learn from them. What you are suggesting is little more than a guided path, where the 'eureka!' thought pops into our head at random points along the journey to keep us moving. If that is what God had wanted, then yes, He could have done so; but I'm not certain it is a life that would have much value.

Then your god isn't all-powerful. I say again: an all-powerful god, by definition able to do ANYTHING, would be able to make a universe with free will, where there was no suffering, and where it wasn't blind robotics. Irregardless of how illogical that sounds, an all-powerful god could make it so it wasn't illogical.

Yup. But you've missed my point. An all-powerful god could make the illogical logical, and create a universe where we can have free will and not suffer.

so you expect an all powerful being to move all this shit around so some tiny specks he created as a rough draft can have it a little easier

he may be all loving but he’s not all taking the piss:p

And volcanoes and such are needed to keep the Earth habitable its not Gods fault if you happen to build a house next to a volcano and have a habit of digging

if God is all powerful, he could have made an earth that did not require volcanoes.

well there is a slim chance all of this could happen in your garden along with a good chance of nasty bee stings!!!

And volcanoes and such are needed to keep the Earth habitable its not Gods fault if you happen to build a house next to a volcano and have a habit of digging

Pfft. God could make a planet which didn't need volcanoes to be habitable.

That wouldn't be free will. That would be blind robotics.

We need to make our choices, make our mistakes, and learn from them. What you are suggesting is little more than a guided path, where the 'eureka!' thought pops into our head at random points along the journey to keep us moving. If that is what God had wanted, then yes, He could have done so; but I'm not certain it is a life that would have much value.

Ok, given that he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he lets us live in misery, partly of our choosing, partly of other people's choosing, partly because that's the way this all-powerful being allegedly created the world.
Yep, sounds very much like love to me.

It's a bit like telling your kids that the ovenplate is hot, and not interfereing when your older kid presses the younger kids hand on the plate.

if God is all powerful, he could have made an earth that did not require volcanoes.

See, we're like.. that, you and I.

I would assume that everyone does, I think it's neither wise or productive to complain to God though.

True. He had been known to turn complainers into nasty things...

Then your god isn't all-powerful. I say again: an all-powerful god, by definition able to do ANYTHING, would be able to make a universe with free will, where there was no suffering, and where it wasn't blind robotics. Irregardless of how illogical that sounds, an all-powerful god could make it so it wasn't illogical.

No, you're not saying He could make it so it wasn't illogical. You're saying He could make it so that the illogical didn't appear to be illogical.

Changing the illogical to the logical doesn't necessarily make the illogical logical. :)

One of the standard, flawed arguments of the "I hate the fact that you have faith and want to destroy it" brigade is that they try to assign human feelings and emotions to the immortal. There are many reasons why suffering is 'allowed' beyond 'so we know joy', not least the fact that if we are to truly have free will, then we must live with the consequences of our actions. Most suffering is man made, not God made.

Ultimately, though, you have to put aside the arrogance of humanity and the belief that you can know everything, and just trust His judgement.

...but you're assuming god exists.

That wouldn't be free will. That would be blind robotics.

We need to make our choices, make our mistakes, and learn from them. What you are suggesting is little more than a guided path, where the 'eureka!' thought pops into our head at random points along the journey to keep us moving. If that is what God had wanted, then yes, He could have done so; but I'm not certain it is a life that would have much value.

Then god is not all powerful. All powerful being can do anything. Our life could be infinitly pleasurable and of extreme value, if god wanted it that way.

That's what all powerful means. All powerful means that you can not make ANY claims about the way things "would have to be" or "would end up being", since they simply do not have to, once an all powerful entity is introduced into the equation.

God did create a 'perfect' world, devoid of suffering. But instead of creating people that were mindless robots he gave them free will. Why give them free will? Well if they were never given an a choice whether or not to be 'good' then they would carried on ignorant of any other possibilities of the world. As is, God gave them guidelines, a choice, whther to follow his instructions or to disobey them. Man disobeyed; so ever since the world has been full of disease, suffering, hatred etc. God doesn't create the suffering; we do - he simply allows it to happen; it was the consequence of Man's sinful nature.

Right, I'm not very good at explaining, as you can see. And there's the whole concept of 'original sin', that evil was always there in some form or other. In instructing Adam and Eve, therefore, I guess that he gave them warning to stay away from Satan; something that they would not have known had he not told them.

As for god swatting Satan aside, then yes, he does actually intend to. And Satan knows that. But since Satan only has to do with the present he'll continue doing his nasty work. In being benevolent he's also given Satan due warning. Satan is the kind that would plot behind your back; God's told Satan his plans to be fair.

God didn't choose suffering, we did. And having made that decision do you think that God would quickly turn around and say 'You silly people; look what you've done!' and then just as soon put the world back to it's perfection. That would kind of defeat the purpose; and plus man would probably mess up again. No, since this world has been tainted God is letting it run it's course until he sees fit to end it, and then a new earth will be created. Besides, earth isn't meant to be a perfect, carefree place since 'The Fall'. Rather, man was supposed to follow him and thus gain admittance into heaven which is now the place that is devoid of suffering. That's why he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross, so that he might provide a way to heaven. Jesus, in being made human, experienced suffering as we humans do and in doing so gained an understanding of what humans have to go through on earth. That selfless act of suffering is proof of God's benevolance.

No, you're not saying He could make it so it wasn't illogical. You're saying He could make it so that the illogical didn't appear to be illogical.

Changing the illogical to the logical doesn't necessarily make the illogical logical. :)

it does if god wants it to. That's what all powerful means.

Ok, given that he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he lets us live in misery, partly of our choosing, partly of other people's choosing, partly because that's the way this all-powerful being allegedly created the world.
Yep, sounds very much like love to me.

It's a bit like telling your kids that the ovenplate is hot, and not interfereing when your older kid presses the younger kids hand on the plate.

You would prefer it if God interfered?

Do you have the slightest idea how different life would be if He did so?

Yup. But you've missed my point. An all-powerful god could make the illogical logical, and create a universe where we can have free will and not suffer.

Perhaps Jewish authors of the time didn't think that far ahead?

As someone said previously, the reason we have pain and suffering in the world, according to Christianity, is because we fucked up. Our collective ancestors listened to a snake and ate an apple, and so God decided to fuck humanity over forever.

Interesting when you think about it...brings up the whole old testiment god vs. new testiment god debate and the fact that they are entirely different...

But really, the Christian god is whatever you say it is. Do you read the bible and try to come up with something from that? Do you listen to the pope instead? Do you simply come up with an idea in your head of what god is?

No one really knows...so I'm sure there are other, more productive things to debate or ponder...

I'd let my child play in the garden, but I wouldn't make my garden have spewing lava, dangerous animals, tsunamis and tidal waves.

The world didn't have all those things in the beginning. It wasn't a dangerous place. In fact animals that we now know as carnivorous were herbivores. Man brought in all those horrible things as a result of the fall.

God did create a 'perfect' world, devoid of suffering. But instead of creating people that were mindless robots he gave them free will. Why give them free will? Well if they were never given an a choice whether or not to be 'good' then they would carried on ignorant of any other possibilities of the world. As is, God gave them guidelines, a choice, whther to follow his instructions or to disobey them. Man disobeyed; so ever since the world has been full of disease, suffering, hatred etc. God doesn't create the suffering; we do - he simply allows it to happen; it was the consequence of Man's sinful nature.

Let me ask you one quick question. You say god created the world, and when he created it, gave man free will. Man using that free will disobeyed.

So my question is this. Did god know that mankind would disobey before he made mankind?

In other words, did god know EXACTLY what would happen? Did he know that mankind would disobey?

If yes, then it's not free will, god created the enviornment in such a way where he KNEW THE RESULT. In other words, the result occured exactly as the way god KNEW it would occur, and since he KNEW it would happen, he COULD have done it differently, he chose to have it happen. Thus mankind disobyed because god CHOSE to have them disobey. That is not free will.

If no, then god is not all knowing.

An all knowing god and free will are inherently impossible to coexist. Either god knew exactly what every SINGLE PERSON would EVER do, before they ever did it, and CHOSE to let that happen, or he didn't know.

it does if god wants it to. That's what all powerful means.

I have the power to tear a piece of paper in two. I have the power to place one half on one side of the room and the other on the other side of the room. I have the power to write on one half of the paper, then walk over and write on the other half of the paper. Using glue, I can put the two back together.

I have made the illogical logical. But it doesn't make it any less illogical. :p

You would prefer it if God interfered?

Do you have the slightest idea how different life would be if He did so?

Isn't Christianity telling us that he does interfere? All the time?
Does the word "miracle" ring a bell?

The world didn't have all those things in the beginning. It wasn't a dangerous place. In fact animals that we now know as carnivorous were herbivores. Man brought in all those horrible things as a result of the fall.

same question, did god know that mankind would fall? If so then god chose to let them fall, because he knew that there was no other choice. God knew it was going to happen, was absolutely 100% CERTAIN it would happen, could it from happening, chose not to.

You would prefer it if God interfered?

Do you have the slightest idea how different life would be if He did so?

I think shoving Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden was interfering, and giving us rules to live by, and then flooding the earth..

if God is all powerful, he could have made an earth that did not require volcanoes.

ah but being underwater and devoid of igneous rocks (along with Geothermal power) would hinder mans development a tad

maybe God wants equals instead of happy tree friends after all an eternity is a long time if you know everything (and have probably done everything anyway)

I have the power to tear a piece of paper in two. I have the power to place one half on one side of the room and the other on the other side of the room. I have the power to write on one half of the paper, then walk over and write on the other half of the paper. Using glue, I can put the two back together.

I have made the illogical logical. But it doesn't make it any less illogical. :p

What part of any of that is "illogical"? It might be foolish, it might be a waste of time, it might serve no practical purpose, it might not be RATIONAL, but there's nothing illogical about it.

I think you're using the word illogical here, where "irrational" would be more proper. Nothing about what you've done is inherently contrary to logic.

Isn't Christianity telling us that he does interfere? All the time?
Does the word "miracle" ring a bell?

:rolleyes:

Interfere in a way that even the firmest unbeliever could not deny it. Better?

ah but being underwater and devoid of igneous rocks (along with Geothermal power) would hinder mans development a tad

Only if he wanted it to. If he didn't he could have made mankind in such a way where we did not need them to develop.

Once again I think you misunderstand the concept of "all powerful".

What part of any of that is "illogical"? It might be foolish, it might be a waste of time, it might serve no practical purpose, it might not be RATIONAL, but there's nothing illogical about it.

I think you're using the word illogical here, where "irrational" would be more proper.

And behaving in the way you describe, by making the illogical logical, isn't irrational?

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

For me, the "solution" to this "problem" was rather obvious. Just admit that God is not omnipotent. But that's probably because I don't think that God is omnipotent. I think of God's power in the same way I do the size of the universe, (ie. not infinite, just great enough that we cannot "see" the end of it with our own perceptual and/or conceptual mechanisms).

Yes, but my point is, an all-powerful god would be able to make a universe where the opposite was true.

Very true. Just keep in mind that if he is omnipotent he would also be able to make a universe where it would look like he was either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent, while still retaining both of those qualities. Omnipotence is a quality whose possession allows for the resolution of whatever problems it generates for itself. That's why I don't see attacking it as particularly useful.

:rolleyes:

Interfere in a way that even the firmest unbeliever could not deny it. Better?

And that would change what, exactly?

Perhaps Jewish authors of the time didn't think that far ahead?

As someone said previously, the reason we have pain and suffering in the world, according to Christianity, is because we fucked up. Our collective ancestors listened to a snake and ate an apple, and so God decided to fuck humanity over forever.

Interesting when you think about it...brings up the whole old testiment god vs. new testiment god debate and the fact that they are entirely different...

But really, the Christian god is whatever you say it is. Do you read the bible and try to come up with something from that? Do you listen to the pope instead? Do you simply come up with an idea in your head of what god is?

No one really knows...so I'm sure there are other, more productive things to debate or ponder...

Exactly. In Judaism, God isn't all powerful, all-knowing, or all-loving. That's Christianity. And I'm cooler than both versions anyway.

I have the power to tear a piece of paper in two. I have the power to place one half on one side of the room and the other on the other side of the room. I have the power to write on one half of the paper, then walk over and write on the other half of the paper. Using glue, I can put the two back together.

I have made the illogical logical. But it doesn't make it any less illogical. :p

Your god defines logic. If it wished it, it could change that definition. If your god wanted 1+1 to equal 659.1, it could make it so.

And that would change what, exactly?

Everything.

Why should we learn, why should we work, why should we care if we screw up, if we know that God will just fix it on demand?

Humanity could not survive in such a situation. The only reason stopping it from behaving like a two year old child, dependent on parents for everything, is the fact that it doesn't realise it's a two year old child.

Humanity could not survive in such a situation.

God could make it so.

True. He had been known to turn complainers into nasty things...
someone arrogant enough to complain to God is already a nasty thing ;)

Let me ask you one quick question. You say god created the world, and when he created it, gave man free will. Man using that free will disobeyed.

So my question is this. Did god know that mankind would disobey before he made mankind?

In other words, did god know EXACTLY what would happen? Did he know that mankind would disobey?

If yes, then it's not free will, god created the enviornment in such a way where he KNEW THE RESULT. In other words, the result occured exactly as the way god KNEW it would occur, and since he KNEW it would happen, he COULD have done it differently, he chose to have it happen. Thus mankind disobyed because god CHOSE to have them disobey. That is not free will.

If no, then god is not all knowing.

An all knowing god and free will are inherently impossible to coexist. Either god knew exactly what every SINGLE PERSON would EVER do, before they ever did it, and CHOSE to let that happen, or he didn't know.

I don't pretend to know what God knows, I would assume an all knowing God would know that we would disobey, the first problem you have is you confuse knowledge with action. If I leave a steak on the floor I know my dog will eat it, I didn't make him do it.

The second problem you have is that you think you can possibly understand God.......you have no scope of reference.

And behaving in the way you describe, by making the illogical logical, isn't irrational?

Logic is a method of thought, it is a method of statements flowing from one to the other, it is based on the laws of the universe.

If god is all powerful, the laws of the universe, and thus the laws of logic are whatever god makes them to be.

In other words, in the concept of an all powerful diety, logic is whatever god makes it.

Your god defines logic. If it wished it, it could change that definition. If your god wanted 1+1 to equal 659.1, it could make it so.

'My god' doesn't define logic. 'My gods' sing good music, have great tits and/or entertain me without fail.

God, on the other hand, defines logic as he sees fit. He has defined it as it is, and thus we trust that he has done so in the best way.

Everything.

Why should we learn, why should we work, why should we care if we screw up, if we know that God will just fix it on demand?

Humanity could not survive in such a situation. The only reason stopping it from behaving like a two year old child, dependent on parents for everything, is the fact that it doesn't realise it's a two year old child.

So, you admit that god is not all-powerful, then?
Or do you try to claim that he set up this world and humanity with the deliberate intent to make it suffer?

someone arrogant enough to complain to God is already a nasty thing ;)


I couldn't care less, personally.
If he/she/it exists, it's apparently nasty and arrogant enough not to care about complaints.
If he/she/it doesn't exist, why bother.

Either way, it's pointless.

I don't pretend to know what God knows, I would assume an all knowing God would know that we would disobey, the first problem you have is you confuse knowledge with action. If I leave a steak on the floor I know my dog will eat it, I didn't make him do it.

Sorry, but you do not know that your dog will eat it. You can be reasonably sure. You can say with a high degree of probability that he will eat it, but you have no certain knowledge that he would eat it. God does.

Logic is a method of thought, it is a method of statements flowing from one to the other, it is based on the laws of the universe.

If god is all powerful, the laws of the universe, and thus the laws of logic are whatever god makes them to be.

In other words, in the concept of an all powerful diety, logic is whatever god makes it.

Logic is pretty subjective, I think it's a human invention of how we understand the world at any given time.

If I leave a steak on the floor I know my dog will eat it, I didn't make him do it.

This is true. It is true because you do not control the thoughts of the dog. You do not have power over its mind, or its body.

If you did have the capacity to control the dog, if you had the power to make the dog, to control every muscle, ever cell, every particle in its body, and you created that dog, and you created that dog with the full, 100% absolute knowledge that when you put that steak there the dog WOULD WITHOUT ANY DOUBT eat it, and in creating the dog KNOWING it would eat the steak, COULD have created him differently, CHOSE not to, CHOSE to create the dog so that it would, absolutly, with certainty, eat the steak...then yes, you did make him do it.

And that, according to the mythi, is what god did. He created humanity EXACTLY the way he wanted to. He could have done it differently, he chose not to. HE created mankind knowing mankind would be confronted with the steak, he created mankind knowing mankind WOULD eat the steak. He created mankind knowing that he could have created mankind differently so he would NOT eat the steak, and chose not to.

Therefore, he chose for mankind to eat the steak

I couldn't care less, personally.
If he/she/it exists, it's apparently nasty and arrogant enough not to care about complaints.
If he/she/it doesn't exist, why bother.

Either way, it's pointless.

okay, if that's how you feel.

I always thought that if he exists, he must be one of the nastiest beings in the univers.

And for some reason Final Fantasy games now make more sense.

Logic is pretty subjective, I think it's a human invention of how we understand the world at any given time.

perhaps. Either way, though our understanding of the world may be subjective, the world is objective. We may not KNOW the truth, but the truth still is. And in the concept of the all powerful god, the world is as god made it.

I don't pretend to know what God knows, I would assume an all knowing God would know that we would disobey, the first problem you have is you confuse knowledge with action. If I leave a steak on the floor I know my dog will eat it, I didn't make him do it.

Given that you created a carnivorous, quadrupedial mammal with limited cranial capacitiy otherwise known as dog, which in this case simply follows its instincts, then yes, you did make the dog do it.

Logic is a method of thought, it is a method of statements flowing from one to the other, it is based on the laws of the universe.

If god is all powerful, the laws of the universe, and thus the laws of logic are whatever god makes them to be.

In other words, in the concept of an all powerful diety, logic is whatever god makes it.

You reach your conclusion and then define to suit it. Your final point, that 'logic is whatever makes it', is absolutely correct; we are living in how God has made it. To claim that God is therefore illogical for defining logic how it is is to fall for the very argument that you are trying to make; remove the ability of God to define logic.

In other words - "God is acting illogically and therefore cannot be logical, because if God is logical then he could make the illogical logical."

perhaps. Either way, though our understanding of the world may be subjective, the world is objective. We may not KNOW the truth, but the truth still is. And in the concept of the all powerful god, the world is as god made it.

that's an interesting thought........

So, you admit that god is not all-powerful, then?
I'm extremely curious as to how you've reached this conclusion.

Or do you try to claim that he set up this world and humanity with the deliberate intent to make it suffer?
I make no claims on how He 'set up this world'. I can only offer you possible human explanations for his actions, as far as it is possible to explain something we cannot hope to understand.

You reach your conclusion and then define to suit it. Your final point, that 'logic is whatever makes it', is absolutely correct; we are living in how God has made it. To claim that God is therefore illogical for defining logic how it is is to fall for the very argument that you are trying to make; remove the ability of God to define logic.

In other words - "God is acting illogically and therefore cannot be logical, because if God is logical then he could make the illogical logical."


To be honest, there are so many logical contradictions in the montheistic god of the Abrahamic religions that you have to assume that God is able to exist beyond logic.

Logic is pretty subjective, I think it's a human invention of how we understand the world at any given time.

Indeed it is. Logic is rooted in the understanding of the universe that we gain from our very limited human perceptual and conceptual matrices, rather than an unlimited, structureless form of perception that would be required for genuine objectivity.

Therefore, he chose for mankind to eat the steak

And he deserves thanks for it. I do enjoy a good steak. ;)

I always thought that if he exists, he must be one of the nastiest beings in the univers. Either that, or he has a really bad sense of humour.
Just another silly person who judges Christianity on the evil of some Christians rather than the beauty of the word.

I've never understood your hostility to my religion. You are against violence, judgementalism, etc but you oppose the religion that has these same values in its doctrine. Why?

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

I think God is a sadist, and he doesn't like people. Especially me.

He hates me. :(

Just another silly person who judges Christianity on the evil of some Christians rather than the beauty of the word.

I've never understood your hostility to my religion. You are against violence, judgementalism, etc but you oppose the religion that has these same values in its doctrine. Why?

Violence? Drowning the world isn't violent, eh?

Judgemental? Deciding if you're going to spend eternity in torment or peace? Not judgemental?

It's easy enough for any religion to claim to be able certain values. It's another subject entirely for them to actually follow the values they spout off.

Just another silly person who judges Christianity on the evil of some Christians rather than the beauty of the word.

I've never understood your hostility to my religion. You are against violence, judgementalism, etc but you oppose the religion that has these same values in its doctrine. Why?

Consider that, according to the Bible, God has killed/sanctioned the killings of over 2,000,000 (http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html) people, and you begin to understand why we dislike it.
The (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/massacre_of_the_bashanites/nm21_33a.html) Brick (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/massacre_of_the_midianites/nm31_01p25_16p31_02.html) Testament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/instructions_for_genocide/dt05_01p07_01.html) has (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html) stuff (http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/seven_cities_massacred/jos10_28a.html) to (http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/120000_midianites_killed/jg07_02.html) say (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_peace/mt10_34a.html)too (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_family/lk12_51.html).

That wouldn't be free will. That would be blind robotics.

We need to make our choices, make our mistakes, and learn from them. What you are suggesting is little more than a guided path, where the 'eureka!' thought pops into our head at random points along the journey to keep us moving. If that is what God had wanted, then yes, He could have done so; but I'm not certain it is a life that would have much value.

You don't have to have opportunity to have free will.

I am not able to fly unassisted at will, does that mean I do not have free will just because something is beyond my physical ability?

One of the things that I haven't seen taken into consideration here is that the argument that is being made is that an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving god can't be all three when looking at the world now. Arguments have been made that an all-powerful god would be able to change the world, logic, etc. An all-knowing god would not be able to sit idly by and watch his children sin. A loving god would not let his children hurt.

The argument that if we didn't know misery, we would fail to appreciate joy can be backed up by looking at the three arguments above and saying that the issue is not if god can, but if god is choosing what to and not to do. What if god really does know all, has power over all, and loves all but chooses (like a parent letting their child play outside) to let us find out on our own?

Part of believing in god (a god) is faith in god. Will we, as humans, ever know all? I think that the point maybe that when we die we will then be able to know more or even all.

This is part of my faith. It is only faith, there is no way for me or you to really argue with any certainty that what we believe and have faith in is the absolute truth. I'm not saying that this shouldn't be discussed, but this is what I believe.

An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to.

Why?
Perhaps the suffering is of minor importance to something greater?

Isn't Christianity telling us that he does interfere? All the time?
Does the word "miracle" ring a bell?

All the time?
Nope, at a few select moments to a few select people scattered over a few thousand years.
We just tend to read about all of them at once.

Why?
Perhaps the suffering is of minor importance to something greater?

Then an all powerful being could make the something greater happen without suffering.

One of the standard, flawed arguments of the "I hate the fact that you have faith and want to destroy it" brigade is that they try to assign human feelings and emotions to the immortal. There are many reasons why suffering is 'allowed' beyond 'so we know joy', not least the fact that if we are to truly have free will, then we must live with the consequences of our actions. Most suffering is man made, not God made.

Ultimately, though, you have to put aside the arrogance of humanity and the belief that you can know everything, and just trust His judgement.

Ditto. Absolutely correct. Finite minds like ours can never hope to fully comprehend or understand the actions of an infinite God. His Word (yes I believe the Bible came from God) says "My thoughts are not your thoughs, neither are your ways My ways, saith the LORD."

"Why dost thou strive against him? For he giveth not account of any of his matters." - from the Book of Job

Even if He DID, our puny minds would never be able to grasp it, outside of what He HAS given us in His Book, the Bible.

Yup. But you've missed my point. An all-powerful god could make the illogical logical, and create a universe where we can have free will and not suffer.

God HAS made the illogical logical, and vice versa. Logic would say "If I live right and do enough good works, then God will weigh my good works against my bad, and He will let me go to heaven."

Now, THAT makes sense to the typical human mind. But that is NOT how it works.

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of DEATH." - from the Book of Proverbs

Romans 4:5 says, "But to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on Him" [meaning Jesus] "that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." [emphases mine]

God won't accept your works; He WILL accept the blood of His Son Jesus Christ.

Well, if he existed, I for one would have a list of complaints...

Yes, He does exist, and when you stand before Him, He will have a list of questions for YOU, and you will NOT be able to answer ANY of them, at least not to His satisfaction. "If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand." Job 9:3

I think God is a sadist, and he doesn't like people. Especially me.

He hates me. :(

He only hates people who reject His Son Jesus Christ. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

Those who believe on Jesus and accpet Him as their personal Savior, God LOVES them.

If you have not accepted Him as your Savior, I recommend you do so right now!

The blood of Jesus Christ is the ONLY way out from beneath God's wrath.

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

There's a saying that goes along with this. It was uttered by a Jewish Rabbi just after his concentration camp was liberated in WWII. It goes like this: "If God is good, then He is not God. If God is God, then He is not good."

One of the standard, flawed arguments of the "I hate the fact that you have faith and want to destroy it" brigade is that they try to assign human feelings and emotions to the immortal.
Like is done in the bible, you mean. Saying that god is loving or jealous. That's in the bible, you know. I guess the jews and early xers were of the "I hate the fact that you have faith and want to destroy it" brigade.

Logic is pretty subjective, I think it's a human invention of how we understand the world at any given time.
No, logic is related to propositions, the structure of arguments, and how to properly identify something as itself (i.e. without a contradiction).

Logic is based on axioms. There are different branches of logic, but the fundamental one stems from the Aristotelian triad: identity, excluded-middle, and non-contradiction.

:rolleyes:

Interfere in a way that even the firmest unbeliever could not deny it. Better?
Didn't god prevent Pharaoh from letting the Israelites go? Why yes, yes god did. And if you deny it, I'll post the 10 verses in Exodus saying that god did just that.

I'd say that if god interfered in someone's life like that, then god could of course and would of course interfere such that even the firmest unbeliever could not deny it.

I would assume that everyone does, I think it's neither wise or productive to complain to God though.

Because he's not all-loving.

This thread has an awful lot of complaining posts in it. It makes me think of the rich spoiled kid. The only child on the street to be given a brand new bike for his birthday but when out riding it for the first time he crashed and then blamed his parents and hated the bike and was mad at his parents for ruining his birthday by giving him a bike in the first place...

What do YOU think of the parent that makes their kid wear a helmet and elbow pads and knee pads before they can play in the back yard with a stuffed dog (a real dog being far too unpredictable to risk what harm it might do to the child?). Life is dangerous, life is unpredictable, life is good. I'm sorry for you that you don't like it. But if given the opportunity to go back and not be born, I would choose to be born, it's worth the risks. I think God is doing a fine job. But of course, I know his Son, maybe its a matter of getting an inside connection that makes all the difference.

I agree with the sentiments of the OP; this is something that confuses me.
This thread has an awful lot of complaining posts in it. It makes me think of the rich spoiled kid. The only child on the street to be given a brand new bike for his birthday but when out riding it for the first time he crashed and then blamed his parents and hated the bike and was mad at his parents for ruining his birthday by giving him a bike in the first place...

What do YOU think of the parent that makes their kid wear a helmet and elbow pads and knee pads before they can play in the back yard with a stuffed dog (a real dog being far too unpredictable to risk what harm it might do to the child?). Life is dangerous, life is unpredictable, life is good. I'm sorry for you that you don't like it. But if given the opportunity to go back and not be born, I would choose to be born, it's worth the risks. I think God is doing a fine job. But of course, I know his Son, maybe its a matter of getting an inside connection that makes all the difference.
I compare it to the kid who gets a brand new bike for his birthday but his parents decided it might be a good idea to only let him ride it on the freeway, rather than in a relatively safe environment.

This thread has an awful lot of complaining posts in it. It makes me think of the rich spoiled kid. The only child on the street to be given a brand new bike for his birthday but when out riding it for the first time he crashed and then blamed his parents and hated the bike and was mad at his parents for ruining his birthday by giving him a bike in the first place...
It couldn't remind you of that, since that's a false analogy, given that the parents didn't know exactly what the kid was going to do for his entire life. God supposedly does. And created us to do just that.

It couldn't remind you of that, since that's a false analogy, given that the parents didn't know exactly what the kid was going to do for his entire life. God supposedly does. And created us to do just that.

I agree with BWK. I feel so dirty now.

I agree with the sentiments of the OP; this is something that confuses me.

I compare it to the kid who gets a brand new bike for his birthday but his parents decided it might be a good idea to only let him ride it on the freeway, rather than in a relatively safe environment.

How does your mythic exaggeration of the risks of being born and alive, analogy, change my post's point? I don't think it does, as in, I already pointed out that I think the complaining is an exaggerated disproportionate lack of rationality of the risks and benefits of life and living, and you here simply expanded your point of thinking its too risky to be worth the risk. So apparently you think living itself is too risky to be worth living at all? IF that is not what you meant, then please rephrase your complaint... If that is your complaint, then I continue to be sorry for you. It's a shame that you have been given such a great gift (as life itself is) and yet you can't find a way to appreciate it.

It couldn't remind you of that, since that's a false analogy, given that the parents didn't know exactly what the kid was going to do for his entire life. God supposedly does. And created us to do just that.

Every rational parent in the world is 100% positive sure that their child WILL eventually crash the bike they give their child when they buy the bike anyway. It WILL happen, we know it will happen, and we buy the bikes for the children anyway. Do you want to know why? It's because riding a bike is worth the risks. We can live life afraid of the harm we might endure, or we can enjoy what we have as we can, for as long as we can, and be thankful even for the crashes as they occur. Life is good, life is fun, life is also hard, life is depressing, life is painful and deadly.

Being born has one simple guarantee, if you are born, you WILL die. The promise of death doesn’t mean we can't have a grand time getting there though. It’s a shame that people would spend so much time being angry that it’s not all they expected, as IF they could have expected anything at all if they weren’t provided the opportunity to be alive here and now. And they have the gift and all they want to do is complain about it… That’s sad, and like I said, it’s sad like the rich boy who doesn’t like his new bike anymore because he crashed it.

Every rational parent in the world is 100% positive sure that their child WILL eventually crash the bike they give their child when they buy the bike anyway.
But they don't know when. God does. Why? Because god created it that way.

snip
My life is worth living; it could always be better, but as lives go it's a good one. However, those people who get horrible diseases or dragged away at night by gunmen may not feel the same way. Of course, since God is all-knowing, he knows who those people are. I don't see that as being particularly nice, forgive the trite statement.

How does your mythic exaggeration of the risks of being born and alive, analogy, change my post's point? I don't think it does, as in, I already pointed out that I think the complaining is an exaggerated disproportionate lack of rationality of the risks and benefits of life and living, and you here simply expanded your point of thinking its too risky to be worth the risk. So apparently you think living itself is too risky to be worth living at all? IF that is not what you meant, then please rephrase your complaint... If that is your complaint, then I continue to be sorry for you. It's a shame that you have been given such a great gift (as life itself is) and yet you can't find a way to appreciate it.



Every rational parent in the world is 100% positive sure that their child WILL eventually crash the bike they give their child when they buy the bike anyway. It WILL happen, we know it will happen, and we buy the bikes for the children anyway. Do you want to know why? It's because riding a bike is worth the risks. We can live life afraid of the harm we might endure, or we can enjoy what we have as we can, for as long as we can, and be thankful even for the crashes as they occur. Life is good, life is fun, life is also hard, life is depressing, life is painful and deadly.

Being born has one simple guarantee, if you are born, you WILL die. The promise of death doesn’t mean we can't have a grand time getting there though. It’s a shame that people would spend so much time being angry that it’s not all they expected, as IF they could have expected anything at all if they weren’t provided the opportunity to be alive here and now. And they have the gift and all they want to do is complain about it… That’s sad, and like I said, it’s sad like the rich boy who doesn’t like his new bike anymore because he crashed it.
You limit God too much with that analogy. The parents, if you mean them to represent God, didn't just get a bike for their kid, they made it, the roads, and the rest of the world in such a way that it would be inevitable that the kid would crash.

The problem isn't that people fail to appreciate the ride, it's that the being that gave you that ride also made it so that the ride would end painfully. You may be content with the ride your given and don't mind shrugging off the pain, but many of us wonder why the ride has to end in pain in the first place. Why can't we ride forever, or at least ride without crashing? Why were we given pleasure in such a way that pain was inevitable? Why would a good, just, loving being make creation so incredibly bittersweet when it could have just made it all good?

But they don't know when. God does. Why? Because god created it that way.

That changes nothing. The crash doesn't ruin the joy of receiving the bike in the first place, even if the crash kills you. It doesn’t have to ruin the fun anyway, but some people will ruin their own joy even before they try to ride their new bike, for fear that they might crash on it they can’t enjoy it at all. And again, that’s too bad, that’s sad.

You limit God too much with that analogy. The parents, if you mean them to represent God, didn't just get a bike for their kid, they made it, the roads, and the rest of the world in such a way that it would be inevitable that the kid would crash.

Yes. Even with crashing, getting a new bike is great joy. Even with death, life is worth living.

The problem isn't that people fail to appreciate the ride, it's that the being that gave you that ride also made it so that the ride would end painfully. You may be content with the ride your given and don't mind shrugging off the pain, but many of us wonder why the ride has to end in pain in the first place. Why can't we ride forever, or at least ride without crashing? Why were we given pleasure in such a way that pain was inevitable? Why would a good, just, loving being make creation so incredibly bittersweet when it could have just made it all good?


Why can't we eat candy all day and never get cavities, even if we don't brush our teeth...

Whining is whining, some people will NEVER be happy enough to not complain. If life has no pain at all, then it seems that some people will begin to complain that the joy is not joyful enough….

Then an all powerful being could make the something greater happen without suffering.

Why though?
You're assuming that suffering is always and only negative.

My life is worth living; it could always be better, but as lives go it's a good one. However, those people who get horrible diseases or dragged away at night by gunmen may not feel the same way. Of course, since God is all-knowing, he knows who those people are. I don't see that as being particularly nice, forgive the trite statement.

Life is not fair, God never said it would be fair.

However, to your point, IF we did what God said we should do, be nice to each other, if we Loved our neighbors as ourselves, if we shared our good fortune with the less fortunate, if we recruited others to do the same as we do etc., the good Samaritans in the world would conceivable reduce by huge percentages the amount of needless suffering in the world and with that, who knows what world might be achievable.

I give you a model plane or a child's bike unassembled and you decide that you don't need to read the direction before putting the toy together, who's fault is it that the model plane falls out of the sky and bike's wheels fall off as you try to ride it...

Life is not fair, God never said it would be fair.

However, to your point, IF we did what God said we should do, be nice to each other, if we Loved our neighbors as ourselves, if we shared our good fortune with the less fortunate, if we recruited others to do the same as we do etc., the good Samaritans in the world would conceivable reduce by huge percentages the amount of needless suffering in the world and with that, who knows what world might be achievable.

I give you a model plane or a child's bike unassembled and you decide that you don't need to read the direction before putting the toy together, who's fault is it that the model plane falls out of the sky and bike's wheels fall off as you try to ride it...
Many people who are in a bad situation are not placed there by their own actions, funnily enough. It may not betheir fault someone hates them and wants to kill them. And what about natural disasters? What do you propose we do about those?

Yes. Even with crashing, getting a new bike is great joy. Even with death, life is worth living.
When life has no joy, or is nothing but pain, then it isn't worth living. For some, there is no joy, no new bikes.

Why can't we eat candy all day and never get cavities, even if we don't brush our teeth...
Why can't my friend move his legs and walk like everyone else, even though he hadn't done anything at age four to deserve paralysis...
Whining is whining, some people will NEVER be happy enough to not complain. If life has no pain at all, then it seems that some people will begin to complain that the joy is not joyful enough….

Some complaints are more than whining, you know. There are actual desperate hardships that can't be trivialized away as a rich kid crying. You seem to be saying that life is enough for us to be grateful to whatever created us. Life isn't all good, or even partly good for many of us. Sometimes, even the joy we experience is greatly overshadowed by our pain and despair.

Yes, you will have people with good life sweating the small stuff, but focusing on them won't make the rest of the people that get horrible lives go away.

Why though?
You're assuming that suffering is always and only negative.

You seem to be assuming that suffering could actually have a positive benefit. What could that be?

Many people who are in a bad situation are not placed there by their own actions, funnily enough. It may not betheir fault someone hates them and wants to kill them. And what about natural disasters? What do you propose we do about those?

We all die. Some live to be a hundred and never like themselves and never like their lives. Some people live to be four, and did nothing but love the company of others and bring joy to themselves and everyone around them.

The amount of time we have is not as important as the time well vested in sharing God's joy of the gift of life itself.

When we are given the opportunity to reduce someone else’s suffering, we should take it, always.

In five hundred years, will it make any difference if I live to be five or a hundred and five years old? No, it will not. The only important difference then will be if I am with God or not...

He only hates people who reject His Son Jesus Christ.

Ugh. See, this right here is the sort of comment that puts people off of organized religions. I refuse to believe in a God who is so petty as to "hate" people for holding one set of beliefs rather than another. That's idiotic. I somehow manage not to hate people just because they disagree with me, and what would be the point in worshipping a deity who's less virtuous than I am?

Life is not fair, God never said it would be fair.

However, to your point, IF we did what God said we should do, be nice to each other, if we Loved our neighbors as ourselves, if we shared our good fortune with the less fortunate, if we recruited others to do the same as we do etc., the good Samaritans in the world would conceivable reduce by huge percentages the amount of needless suffering in the world and with that, who knows what world might be achievable.

I give you a model plane or a child's bike unassembled and you decide that you don't need to read the direction before putting the toy together, who's fault is it that the model plane falls out of the sky and bike's wheels fall off as you try to ride it...
You do realize people are trying to work from more than one set of directions, right? Not to mention that no one has ever been able to follow the directions you mention and produce anything resembling what they promise in 2000 years we've had the directions. It definitely hasn't been for a lack of trying, almost as if the directions are defective...

When life has no joy, or is nothing but pain, then it isn't worth living. For some, there is no joy, no new bikes.

For some, they will say that even when other's say that they did have a new bike that they would have been grateful for.


Why can't my friend move his legs and walk like everyone else, even though he hadn't done anything at age four to deserve paralysis...

He can feel joy. He can know joy. To pretend that he can't be joyful because he can or cannot move his legs is simple self deception. If we can help him, we should. IF we can do something to lessen the pain or the suffering caused by the condition, we should. But can they know joy anyway? Yes, yes they can.

Some complaints are more than whining, you know. There are actual desperate hardships that can't be trivialized away as a rich kid crying. You seem to be saying that life is enough for us to be grateful to whatever created us. Life isn't all good, or even partly good for many of us. Sometimes, even the joy we experience is greatly overshadowed by our pain and despair.

I'll do you one better. Most times life is shadowed over by potential despair and pain. This changes nothing. We choose to be joyful, but we can only try to be successful. I didn't say we could be successful, only that we CAN choose to be joyful.

Yes, you will have people with good life sweating the small stuff, but focusing on them won't make the rest of the people that get horrible lives go away.

To some outlooks, all life is horrible lives. Who is to choose who has a life worth living? The rich boy who commits suicide because it's all just not good enough, or the poor Dakar five year old that plays as much as possible with a smile and starving stomach and dies before his sixth birthday by a gunshot or firing of his tribal town by enemies he does not even know... Who am I to determine who's life is worth living or not? Apparently the people that choose for themselves have less to do with outside riches than inward self joy with the creator.

You seem to be assuming that suffering could actually have a positive benefit. What could that be?

Well, IF God is real and IF there is an eternal life after this one, then any suffering we may experience here would be meaningless in Eternity, but the person we can forge and become from living a life that can include suffering might be the best person we can become.

To steal an oft spoken line, "It builds character son."

You do realize people are trying to work from more than one set of directions, right? Not to mention that no one has ever been able to follow the directions you mention and produce anything resembling what they promise in 2000 years we've had the directions. It definitely hasn't been for a lack of trying, almost as if the directions are defective...

The directions never end, we keep repeating the directions over every lifespan, every generation. My father can only tell me what he thinks, I still have to learn it to believe it for myself. I have to relearn what he learned, the process is not advancement in whole, it is advancement in cycles.

I learn to be joyful, and hopefully my children will learn to be joyful. I can not leave unto them an inheritance of joy, they must find it and accept it themselves.

The directions are/were fine, we choose to follow them or not, try to find our own way or learn what our ancestors tried to teach us. IF someone is NOT full of Joy as they live their life, living with the lord as their company, then I suggest that they are not successfully navigating life's perils at all. It's a shame and it's sad that they can't figure out where joy comes from. The directions are quite clear, and really simple too.

Well, IF God is real and IF there is an eternal life after this one, then any suffering we may experience here would be meaningless in Eternity, but the person we can forge and become from living a life that can include suffering might be the best person we can become.

To steal an oft spoken line, "It builds character son."

Agreed, it's a definite possibility.

Steel becomes a better, stronger, more durable steel, simply by beating it. It is possible that the most enduring of us are the best of us.

I still say there is a God. There had better be, because when I die, he and I are gonna have a little chat. In the words of Desi Arnaz, He's "got some 'splainin' to do".

Heh, get in line.

Agreed, it's a definite possibility.

Steel becomes a better, stronger, more durable steel, simply by beating it. It is possible that the most enduring of us are the best of us.

Or simply the most blockheaded.

But, on balance, I think you're mostly right.

Heh, get in line.

That's going to be a fantastically long line. It's a good thing he has eternity, ain't it?

"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours but I think that Gods got a sick sense of humour and when I die I expect to find him laughing..."
<3 Depeche Mode

That's going to be a fantastically long line. It's a good thing he has eternity, ain't it?

That, and the coming Apocalypse will remove 72.94% of us from the presence of God.

EDIT: Of course, I could be wrong.

Just another silly person who judges Christianity on the evil of some Christians rather than the beauty of the word.

I've never understood your hostility to my religion. You are against violence, judgementalism, etc but you oppose the religion that has these same values in its doctrine. Why?

We're talking about two different things here :

I don't particularly care for your organised religiion, that's true. For the simple reason that I made some very bad experiences indeed with people professing it.
But that's not what this topic is about, it's about the nature of god. And I think if god's nature is anything as described in the bible, he's cruel, unfair, judgemental, incredibly vain and unbelievably violent.

In short, if he exists and is like described in that particular book, I wouldn't like him.

Yes, He does exist, and when you stand before Him, He will have a list of questions for YOU, and you will NOT be able to answer ANY of them, at least not to His satisfaction. "If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand." Job 9:3

So what? I never claimed to be omniscient :rolleyes:

He only hates people who reject His Son Jesus Christ. "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him." John 3:36

Those who believe on Jesus and accpet Him as their personal Savior, God LOVES them.

If you have not accepted Him as your Savior, I recommend you do so right now!

The blood of Jesus Christ is the ONLY way out from beneath God's wrath.

*roflmao

I love it when people try to threaten me with the big pink pixie in the sky.... :D
Thanks for making my day!

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Christian theologers, since the times of St.Augustin, have debated this issue thoroughly, and found a lot of logical loopholes so they could fit the "omniscience-omnipresence-omnipotence and ultimate goodness" thingie. Way too long to post here, and I don't have the textes at hand.
If you're interested, you should begin reading the Confessions of St.Augustin, then St.Thomas of Aquino. Or at least, find some reduction of their works.
Before reading St.Thomas, make sure you've fully understood Aristoteles's logic.

This is why I don't believe that god is all powerful. I believe she'd love to rid the world of suffering, but can't quite manage it. I'm no Christian though.

Oh, before anyone asks, lack of omnipotence =/= powerless. She's still more powerful than us, but not all powerful. That's just my beliefs. Other people can figure it however they want. Or not. Whichever.

Yup. But you've missed my point. An all-powerful god could make the illogical logical, and create a universe where we can have free will and not suffer.

So we then see that this universe was the one that he desired. You automatically assume that this is his ultimate capacity. God created it like this to give us free will, but for our actions to have consequences.

My biggest problem with the whole omnipotence issue is why would God create the universe in the first place? If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, he would know the result of it all from the start. There would be no challenge and nothing unexpected. What would be the point?

My biggest problem with the whole omnipotence issue is why would God create the universe in the first place? If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, he would know the result of it all from the start. There would be no challenge and nothing unexpected. What would be the point?

42, I think, is the answer to that question ;)

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

Your whole stance is based on a single assumption: That there's no good reason to suffer.

Suppose there is. Suppose that a world where nobody suffered is not the sort of world God wants. Suppose that people living a truly blissful life lose something that God values. This being the case, God would recognize that while He doesn't want a world where people suffer, that we need to suffer to become what He wants us to become.

Of course, I have discovered the key to living a truly blissful life: I call them tacos. :)

Your whole stance is based on a single assumption: That there's no good reason to suffer.

Suppose there is. Suppose that a world where nobody suffered is not the sort of world God wants. Suppose that people living a truly blissful life lose something that God values. This being the case, God would recognize that while He doesn't want a world where people suffer, that we need to suffer to become what He wants us to become.

Of course, I have discovered the key to living a truly blissful life: I call them tacos. :)

Which would again contradict god's omnipotence.
But tacos are nice. :)

Ok, if we were to skip the fact that the notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniloving god is merely a fairytale born of wishful thinking and a human need for security, we can play around within the realms of the ridiculous.

Let us forget the fallacy of logic demonstrated in the OP, and further, let us overlook the omnipotence paradox (can god create a rock he cannot lift?). Instead let us look at the behaviour patterns of this god. First of all, he created the world in 6 days. Why not 1, or 10 seconds? Why take a week, before the notion of a 'week' existed? Also, God is heavily into retribution and revenge, however this contradicts his omniscience. How was it that God was surprised by the fact that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge? If he was omniscient, he would have known that they were going to do it in advance, or at the very least, known whilst they were doing it. However he didn't realise until he saw them in clothes. If he was omnipresent, he would have bbeen there anyhow!. If everything is indeed a predestined part of god's plan, then he actually planned it to happen.

We also hear a lot of what pleases (the scent of burning cattle carcasses) and displeases (Sodomy) the lord. We see God flattening entire cities in rage, flooding the globe even. Is this the behaviour of an all knowing all powerful supremely wise god? All indications seem to be pointing towards the idea that god is just like an extremely powerful human. He acts like one. He looks like one (if we were made in his image). He even sounds like one (in that he frequently contradicts himself).

So it occurs to me, perhaps God was just telling us that he is all powerful, ever-present, all-knowing, and all-loving, when in fact he was just very-powerful, frequently-present, extensively-knowing, and somewhat loving. So, christians, if you are happy to have unfounded belief in unverifiable superstition that he what he says, why not mix a little bit of rationalisation in with that and have unfounded suspicion that he could be pulling the wool over your eyes. Perhaps the entire bible is a book full of the things God DOESN'T like, and it was written by the devil, posing as god to prophets. Maybe the devil is laughing his arse off at how he has portrayed god to be this incredibly human, self-contradictory, hypocritical, hot head. Maybe everyone who professes the bible to be the highest truth is due for a sound roasting in hell by an indignant god.

All I am saying is that Christianity is 1 million times more stupid and presumptious than plain old deism. I mean, believe in a god if it gives you a hard on, but whats to say that the specific take on him in the bible isn't completely fraudulent, let alone accurate.

42, I think, is the answer to that question ;)

:fluffle:

That changes nothing.
No, it changes everything. God, unlike a parent, knows precisely when the bike will crash because god created it that way. There can be no joy or sadness on god's part because god made it the way it is. Joy or sadness can only happen if something happens to cause you to feel that way because you didn't know what was going to happen.

So we then see that this universe was the one that he desired. You automatically assume that this is his ultimate capacity. God created it like this to give us free will, but for our actions to have consequences.
That, of course, is impossible, given that god is omniscient and created everything.

God is a Good God, He is our Father and He is a Good Father.

God has given us the choice to live our own lives as we see fit. He doesn't interfere with our decision making. I'm sure from the very beginning of the creation, we were to live an everlasting life. Adam and Eve being Human and having brains of their own, were tested by temptation, which they failed miserably. After they fell for temptation we were given the knowlege between right and wrong.

God has empowered us to live our own lives, to make our own choices, and to do Right. He isn't up in Heaven using us as string puppets. A lot on here wishes that some governments would allow us to live our lives more freely, to allow us to do what we want when we want and that is exactly what God has done. As for the diseases and suffering, I will not blame that on God because I feel that mankind is the culperate.

I'm not going to blame it on Satan either. I feel that the religions use him as a scapegoat. People need to start taking accountablility for their own actions. People need to start taking on the Responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions.

Our God is an all Loving God for allowing us to live our lives as we please.
Our God is an all Powerful God for having the ability to make such a wonderful creation.
Our God is an all Knowing God for He knows that we are weak. He knows we have temptations. He knows that we sin. He knows our actions. He knows that He still Loves us.

God is a Good God, He is our Father and He is a Good Father.

God has given us the choice to live our own lives as we see fit. He doesn't interfere with our decision making. I'm sure from the very beginning of the creation, we were to live an everlasting life. Adam and Eve being Human and having brains of their own, were tested by temptation, which they failed miserably. After they fell for temptation we were given the knowlege between right and wrong.

God has empowered us to live our own lives, to make our own choices, and to do Right. He isn't up in Heaven using us as string puppets. A lot on here wishes that some governments would allow us to live our lives more freely, to allow us to do what we want when we want and that is exactly what God has done. As for the diseases and suffering, I will not blame that on God because I feel that mankind is the culperate.

I'm not going to blame it on Satan either. I feel that the religions use him as a scapegoat. People need to start taking accountablility for their own actions. People need to start taking on the Responsibilities and accept the consequences of their actions.

Our God is an all Loving God for allowing us to live our lives as we please.
Our God is an all Powerful God for having the ability to make such a wonderful creation.
Our God is an all Knowing God for He knows that we are weak. He knows we have temptations. He knows that we sin. He knows our actions. He knows that He still Loves us.


You don't believe in the Judeo-Christian god, then?

God is a Good God, He is our Father and He is a Good Father.
Then why didn't god want Adam and Eve to know good from evil? A good parent would teach his or her children about morality. God refused.

Then why didn't god want Adam and Eve to know good from evil? A good parent would teach his or her children about morality. God refused.

but they did know it was wrong, they had that much moral knowledge, they just hadn't experienced it yet, a good parent doesn't want their kids to have bad experiences.

I would rather tell my kid not to drive drunk, rather than see her do it and crash and kill someone.

Then why didn't god want Adam and Eve to know good from evil? A good parent would teach his or her children about morality. God refused.

You merely have to look at the world around you to know why. This world is the consequence of their knowledge of good and evil. God wanted to protect them from this

No, it changes everything. God, unlike a parent, knows precisely when the bike will crash because god created it that way. There can be no joy or sadness on god's part because god made it the way it is. Joy or sadness can only happen if something happens to cause you to feel that way because you didn't know what was going to happen.

We can not claim to know when and where and why God does or does not have Joy. But we can know joy ourselves and we can know that we have Joy when we are in God's company and we meet the credentials you described for finding joy (as we cannot see the future regardless if it is predetermined or chance). God can share Joy with us even if (conceivably) God is not equally made joyful at the same time. God's Joy cannot by our responsibility but it can be our concern. Even if God knows what is going to happen, WE do not and we can have serendipitous Joy all day long for the minutiae of everyday life events, or we can choose to find displeasure with even the grandest of jewels and the finest of possessions…

BTW: I am made truly happy just watching my child discover for the first time the things of the world that are mundane for me when I am not in the presence of my child, even when I am sure of the outcome of those events. I have no problem believing that the same situation can make God joyful over and over again for each and all of us.

You merely have to look at the world around you to know why. This world is the consequence of their knowledge of good and evil. God wanted to protect them from this

Right... but the all-powerful being couldn't, or was it rather the all-loving being that simply didn't care?

Right... but the all-powerful being couldn't, or was it rather the all-loving being that simply didn't care?

My eleven year old daughter accuses me of that sometimes when she gets mad about some perceived 'unfairness' or another. I know for a fact though that she is wrong about that accusation when she makes it no matter how strongly she feels it at the moment.

An all knowing god and free will are inherently impossible to coexist. Either god knew exactly what every SINGLE PERSON would EVER do, before they ever did it, and CHOSE to let that happen, or he didn't know.

It's true, that in being all-knowing he would've known what was going to happen. And with that logic, then why do it? But, think about it. Why hasn't God already stopped it? Why hasn't he already ended the world and taken all the righteous, or those who will be righteous and sent everyone else to hell? Because that wouldn't be very fair, would it. God isn't forcing us to do anything. We are choosing our own paths; he just knows what we will do. I guess that it's a bit like watching a film play out which you've already seen. I don't know everything; therefore I can't comprehend how God sees the world; or how we knows everything, just like somebody who has never seen can actually know what sight is really like. They can try to formulate a concept or idea, but they'll never know until they actually see for themselves. I'm confident that one day I will understand better what goes on in the world. But until then I can only trust that there are things bigger than me; that there are some things that are too broad for man's understanding.

Actually, I think Smunkeeville put it a lot better, but anyway.

This is true. It is true because you do not control the thoughts of the dog. You do not have power over its mind, or its body.

If you did have the capacity to control the dog, if you had the power to make the dog, to control every muscle, ever cell, every particle in its body, and you created that dog, and you created that dog with the full, 100% absolute knowledge that when you put that steak there the dog WOULD WITHOUT ANY DOUBT eat it, and in creating the dog KNOWING it would eat the steak, COULD have created him differently, CHOSE not to, CHOSE to create the dog so that it would, absolutly, with certainty, eat the steak...then yes, you did make him do it.

And that, according to the mythi, is what god did. He created humanity EXACTLY the way he wanted to. He could have done it differently, he chose not to. HE created mankind knowing mankind would be confronted with the steak, he created mankind knowing mankind WOULD eat the steak. He created mankind knowing that he could have created mankind differently so he would NOT eat the steak, and chose not to.

Therefore, he chose for mankind to eat the steak

God has the ability to control us like puppets, yes. But he doesn't. It's really complicated. I couldn't even begin to scratch the surface. But following that logic that God knew that mankind would disobey, then wouldn't he have known since his existence (which is eternal, I can't comprehend anything that doesn't begin and end) that he would create the earth. So, in that way, wasn't he obliged to do it?

He only hates people who reject His Son Jesus Christ. Actually, I don't agree with that statement at all. I know it was done with good intention, but I don't agree. God loves everyone! But it's our sin that he can't stand becasue he is perfect and that separates us from him so that we can't be with him, as sinners.

God has the ability to control us like puppets, yes. But he doesn't. It's really complicated. I couldn't even begin to scratch the surface. But following that logic that God knew that mankind would disobey, then wouldn't he have known since his existence (which is eternal, I can't comprehend anything that doesn't begin and end) that he would create the earth. So, in that way, wasn't he obliged to do it?


Doesn't that contradict his omnipotence again?

Actually, I don't agree with that statement at all. I know it was done with good intention, but I don't agree. God loves everyone! But it's our sin that he can't stand becasue he is perfect and that separates us from him so that we can't be with him, as sinners.

I seem to remember that we are born sinners... or something to the effect?

"I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours but I think that Gods got a sick sense of humour and when I die I expect to find him laughing..."
<3 Depeche Mode

Ain't it the truth? :headbang:

The Christian God just seems lazy and sloppy to me. He makes up some bullshit about how he can't do his job because it would violate free will, even though any idiot can see right through that line of crap, and then he turns around and blames his oversight on the very humans who are victims of his failures. Even if I had reason to believe the Christian God was real, I still wouldn't worship something as clumsy and dishonest as him.

.
Our God is an all Loving God for allowing us to live our lives as we please.
Our God is an all Powerful God for having the ability to make such a wonderful creation.
Our God is an all Knowing God for He knows that we are weak. He knows we have temptations. He knows that we sin. He knows our actions. He knows that He still Loves us.
Read the OP. The premise is, an all poweful, all knowing god could have created humans in such a way as not to suffer, and still achieve everything god needs to achieve as he is "all-powerful".

Either he's not all powerful, thus he created what he had the power to create, with all our flaws and failings, or Satan messed up his creation, and God can't squash Satan like a bug.

Either he's not all knowing, and he created humans in a way he thought would work, and got completely freaked out by the fall.

Either he's no all-loving and decided that our suffering is acceptable.

Any counter arguments of, suffering is needed to understand joy; you can't understand god; etc, fails the all-powerful and all-loving test. God could have made us understand god when he created us, or god could remove all suffering but still have us understand joy.

Sorry to the OP if I've misrepresented your basic argument in any way.

Has anyone mentioned the concept of free will? Not that I necessarily buy OP's argument but just to play Devil's Advocate (Angel's advocate?), I believe that most theists propose that suffering is the result of our free will; that we have made poor choices, and thus we suffer.

Also, I believe that from a sophisticated Christian's point of view, the bit about the tree is not about God forbidding humankind from having "knowledge of good and evil". When the serpent tempts Eve, he says that if you eat the fruit "YOU SHALL BE AS GODS". The crime is not knowing good from evil; it is putting onself in place of God; it is judging that something be good or evil on one's own, without reference to God, who made all things good. It is obvious that Christianity is not against knowing good from evil; what it is against is claiming that you yourself, as a creature, are the source of good and evil. It makes a distinction between creaturely knowledge, and the knowledge of a creator.

The notion that God "knows we suffer, and stands by and does nothing" is refuted by several Christian doctrines, notably 1.) The role of Jesus and 2.) the notion that God exists outside of time. The first doctrine states that the sacrifice of Christ was a response to man's actions, as for the second, insofar as he exists outside of time, God experiences time differently than we do (if we can even say he "experiences" time). He sees time as a continuous whole, not as a linear process; he does not "predict" events, he sees everything all at once.



Keep in mind I don't necessarily endorse any of these views.

Has anyone mentioned the concept of free will? Not that I necessarily buy OP's argument but just to play Devil's Advocate (Angel's advocate?), I believe that most theists propose that suffering is the result of our free will; that we have made poor choices, and thus we suffer.

Also, I believe that from a sophisticated Christian's point of view, the bit about the tree is not about God forbidding humankind from having "knowledge of good and evil". When the serpent tempts Eve, he says that if you eat the fruit "YOU SHALL BE AS GODS". The crime is not knowing good from evil; it is putting onself in place of God; it is judging that something be good or evil on one's own, without reference to God, who made all things good. It is obvious that Christianity is not against knowing good from evil; what it is against is claiming that you yourself, as a creature, are the source of good and evil. It makes a distinction between creaturely knowledge, and the knowledge of a creator.

The notion that God "knows we suffer, and stands by and does nothing" is refuted by several Christian doctrines, notably 1.) The role of Jesus and 2.) the notion that God exists outside of time. The first doctrine states that the sacrifice of Christ was a response to man's actions, as for the second, insofar as he exists outside of time, God experiences time differently than we do (if we can even say he "experiences" time). He sees time as a continuous whole, not as a linear process; he does not "predict" events, he sees everything all at once.



Keep in mind I don't necessarily endorse any of these views.

I addressed it in the OP. Free will is a choice of an all-powerful being, who could've made a universe where there was free will that was also devoid of suffering, because by definition, an all-powerful being can do anything.

I addressed it in the OP. Free will is a choice of an all-powerful being, who could've made a universe where there was free will that was also devoid of suffering, because by definition, an all-powerful being can do anything.
Furthermore, as I have frequently posted in this forum, I could do away with 99% of the harm humans inflict upon one another without messing up free will AT ALL. Just give me God-like powers for a moment or two.

If I can do it, then an all-powerful and all-knowing God most certainly could do it.

I addressed it in the OP. Free will is a choice of an all-powerful being, who could've made a universe where there was free will that was also devoid of suffering, because by definition, an all-powerful being can do anything.

An all-powerful being can only do anything that it is possible to do.

If a being with free will chooses, of his own free will, suffering, the all-powerful being must either allow free will or abolish suffering. Otherwise, the two contradict each other.

I'm not so sure people fully understand what is meant by "omnipotent". What is meant by omnipotent is that God can do all that it is possible for to do.

Furthermore, as I have frequently posted in this forum, I could do away with 99% of the harm humans inflict upon one another without messing up free will AT ALL. Just give me God-like powers for a moment or two.

If I can do it, then an all-powerful and all-knowing God most certainly could do it.

Really? I'm curious. How, exactly?

An all-powerful being can only do anything that it is possible to do.

If a being with free will chooses, of his own free will, suffering, the all-powerful being must either allow free will or abolish suffering. Otherwise, the two contradict each other.

I'm not so sure people fully understand what is meant by "omnipotent".

If he has limits he is by definition not omnipotent, just very strong ... thats not supposedly the mark of a god just an advanced being.


How so? they do not contradict each other, all things do not have to be a possibility for you to still have free will

Example: I choose to fly un-aded by technology, but thats not possible
Do I not have free will because there is something out there that is not phisicaly possible for me to do?

If he has limits he is by definition not omnipotent, just very strong ... thats not supposedly the mark of a god just an advanced being.


How so? they do not contradict each other, all things do not have to be a possibility for you to still have free will

Example: I choose to fly un-aded by technology, but thats not possible
Do I not have free will because there is something out there that is not phisicaly possible for me to do?

God is (according to Christian definition) able to everything it is possible to do. How is that not omnipotent?

"Omnipotent", if broken down, means literally "every potency". God has the fulfillment or actualization of every potency; if there is no potency for something, he does not have it, but if there is no potency for something, it does not exist.

I'm not sure I agree with your critique of free will; you must admit that it is a limitation placed on free will if one cannot choose a particular option. If I ask you to love me, but make it impossible for you not to do so, it's not much of a choice. You don't walk on the earth as opposed to flying because you choose to; you don't have a choice. It's just given that you are bound to the earth by gravity, etc. The most you can do is to wish that you can fly. Or you could maybe pull a Nietzche and say that you will a scale of values such that if you created the universe, you would have made everything as it is now.

i hate christians

I knew it!! :cool:

God is (according to Christian definition) able to everything it is possible to do. How is that not omnipotent?

"Omnipotent", if broken down, means literally "every potency". God has the fulfillment or actualization of every potency; if there is no potency for something, he does not have it, but if there is no potency for something, it does not exist.

I'm not sure I agree with your critique of free will; you must admit that it is a limitation placed on free will if one cannot choose a particular option. If I ask you to love me, but make it impossible for you not to do so, it's not much of a choice. You don't walk on the earth as opposed to flying because you choose to; you don't have a choice. It's just given that you are bound to the earth by gravity, etc.
But if there is something that is outside of its power to do then he is not all powerful, there are limitations on such a being then.

Free will is a property not an action basically . I agree that it would be a boring life to have no possibility but you would still have the WILL just not the ability

Now personally I have other issues with the punishment scheme as proposed rather then our ability to fail, but thats another issue

But if there is something that is outside of its power to do then he is not all powerful, there are limitations on such a being then.

Remember the definition of "omnipotent": "Omnipotent", if broken down, means literally "every potency". God has the fulfillment or actualization of every potency; if there is no potency for something, he does not have it, but if there is no potency for something, it does not exist.

The only things "outside his power" are things which don't exist. If they don't exist, what is there but nothing? Something that is nothing is no "thing" at all. Hence, there is nothing that is outside his power.



Free will is a property not an action basically . I agree that it would be a boring life to have no possibility but you would still have the WILL just not the ability

It is indeed a property; the property of being free to perform certain actions. If your will is constrained, you are unable to perform those actions; hence your will is not "free" in regard to said actions.


Now personally I have other issues with the punishment scheme as proposed rather then our ability to fail, but thats another issue

It's not so much a "punnishment" in the Christian view as much as it is simply the logical course of things. If you drop a pencil off a table, it will fall; if you turn away from God, you place yourself in hell. Hell isn't necessarily a firey pit of doom!!!!!!!1, but rather a state of being.

Again, keep in mind I don't necessarily endorse these views. I'm just playing devil's (or angel's) advocate.

snip (out of a lack of will to argue deffinitions right now .... sorry hung over)



It's not so much a "punnishment" in the Christian view as much as it is simply the logical course of things. If you drop a pencil off a table, it will fall; if you turn away from God, you place yourself in hell. Hell isn't necessarily a firey pit of doom!!!!!!!1, but rather a state of being.

Again, keep in mind I don't necessarily endorse these views. I'm just playing devil's (or angel's) advocate.

Either way it is an eternal punishment for a finite sin made by a fallible human. I don't find that particularly just.

Wow...146 posts or so and I have to be the first one to bring this one up.

I have to ask...could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he couldn't eat it?

That's kind of what I expected from this thread. Frankly, God, assuming there is a God, which is a definite possibility, is far beyond any of our comprehension and is in some kind of uber-dimension that we can't wrap our fragile little minds around. There. Now I've made a God statement that says virtually nothing but is hard to argue with.

Then why didn't god want Adam and Eve to know good from evil? A good parent would teach his or her children about morality. God refused.

They were told that they could have whatever in the garden they wanted except they were forbidden to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowlege.

God did NOT refuse. He offered them everything in the Garden with the exception of that tree. Both Adam and Eve did know that that was the forbidden fruit.

That was the beginning of learning that you must live with the consequences of your choices.

To take responsibility for your actions.

Either way it is an eternal punishment for a finite sin made by a fallible human. I don't find that particularly just.

Christianity also teaches that Christ died for one's sins; in truly accepting Christ, and repenting for one's sins, Christ removes one's sins. So there is "a way out".

You don't have to find it just, I'm just reporting on what Christians believe, generally. Personally, I don't share (many of) their beliefs, either, but it is a consistant position that can be argued for.

They were told that they could have whatever in the garden they wanted except they were forbidden to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowlege.

God did NOT refuse. He offered them everything in the Garden with the exception of that tree. Both Adam and Eve did know that that was the forbidden fruit.

That was the beginning of learning that you must live with the consequences of your choices.

To take responsibility for your actions.

It's not about knowing good from evil; it's about knowing as a creature of God, vs. knowing as God. The serpent tells them they shall be "as gods, knowing good from evil". The key part of that phrase is "as gods"; in other words, being able to choose what is good and what is evil, not knowing what is good and what is evil through God.

The "responsibility for one's actions" interpretation is actually rather recent, influenced by Rousseau's take on the Garden, not to mention existentialism's preoccupation with authenticity and responsibility.

Doesn't that contradict his omnipotence again?

Nope.
Are you one of those people that thinks it's some kind of mind blowing paradox that God cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it too??

Either he's no all-loving and decided that our suffering is acceptable.


Or maybe, He's capable of both allowing suffering and loving.

The OP brings up a goood point. However, the same argument can be taken a step further.

Stating that God could make a perfect universe with free will due to his supreme power is a logical statement. However, he could just as easily make this universe, and state that it is perfect, and because he is all powerful, it is perfect.

Something that is all powerful can do anything, even take the most basic of concepts and redefine them. Now I dont believe this, but I'm just saying, God can state that the universe as we know it is perfect, and because he holds the ultimate trump card, it is perfect.

Something that is all powerful can do anything, even take the most basic of concepts and redefine them. Now I dont believe this, but I'm just saying, God can state that the universe as we know it is perfect, and because he holds the ultimate trump card, it is perfect.

Unless, of course, you happen to take the Christian view, which is what I believe this thread was about. Christ is, let us not forget, the logos made flesh, according to the Gospel of John. Believe it or not, during the early years Christianity was the religion of reason (even Pope Benedict recently hailed Christianity as "The Religion of the Logos"). Given that God is the ultimate source of all intelligibility, the fact that he is omnipotent does not mean entail contradiction. Once again, omnipotent means "all potencies". If there is no potency for something (i.e. a contradiction), that thing cannot exist. God is able to do all that is possible, according to the Christian view.

Of course, if you want to take a stand that God is "all powerful" to the point where he can, say, make a circle that is not round, then you have no business trying to prove anything about God, or trying to reason about him.

An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to.

I would insist that this assertion is without basis. It is in fact a strawman.

Isn't the material universe the exclusive property of Eris Discordia?

It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

God defys logic and works in ways no humans can understand, except for maybe Myrth and Francos Spain so go ask them:p

I would insist that this assertion is without basis. It is in fact a strawman.

Yeah its illogical to think that if you love something or someone you dont want to see them in excess pain :rolleyes:

Nope.
Are you one of those people that thinks it's some kind of mind blowing paradox that God cannot create a rock so big that he cannot lift it too??

Nope.
I'm one of those people who really don't care if god exists or not, but can't help being fascinated why others would insist he/she/it does.

But saying that god is obliged to do something does suggest it's not an all-powerful being after all.

but they did know it was wrong,
They really didn't. Gen 3:22 says as much.

You merely have to look at the world around you to know why.
No, I don't.


This world is the consequence of their knowledge of good and evil. God wanted to protect them from this
So god didn't want them to know good from evil. Ok. What sort of parent does that make god?

And god is the one who created evil, anyway. There are several passages in the bible which state as such.

We can not claim to know when and where and why God does or does not have Joy.
Funny--the bible describes such in several places.


But we can know joy ourselves and we can know that we have Joy when we are in God's company and we meet the credentials you described for finding joy (as we cannot see the future regardless if it is predetermined or chance). God can share Joy with us even if (conceivably) God is not equally made joyful at the same time. God's Joy cannot by our responsibility but it can be our concern. Even if God knows what is going to happen, WE do not and we can have serendipitous Joy all day long for the minutiae of everyday life events, or we can choose to find displeasure with even the grandest of jewels and the finest of possessions…
That in no way detracts from the fact that this would all be god's responsibility.

They were told that they could have whatever in the garden they wanted except they were forbidden to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowlege.
...of good and evil. That's the full name of the tree.


God did NOT refuse. He offered them everything in the Garden with the exception of that tree.
Thus refusing to teach them good from evil.

Yeah its illogical to think that if you love something or someone you dont want to see them in excess pain :rolleyes:

It is not illogical to want. It is illogical to assume that that want implies that the action itself is the best course and that love would impel one to act on that action.

What parent wouldn’t want to wrap their own children up like a little Kenny, protecting them from all physical and emotional harm? Yes there is a degree of protection, but the child has to eventually learn on his or her own. Love doesn’t compel one to prevent at all costs suffering, but to share the burdens of that suffering, to take it on and proceed with it together. That is the core of Christianity. God’s response to suffering is not to eliminate it but to become one with us and share it with us. He shared our experience of suffering so that we too could share in his experience of non suffering.

Love is quite logical, but if you don’t look at love through love it’s like trying to explain the tides without considering that large object called the moon. It just doesn’t seem to make logical sense. To arbitrarily assert that love demands non suffering is illogical, because you have created an axiom that is completely arbitrary.

Have you not read your Book of the SubGenius? It's quite clear as to just who and what Jehovah-1 is.

Nope.
I'm one of those people who really don't care if god exists or not, but can't help being fascinated why others would insist he/she/it does.

But saying that god is obliged to do something does suggest it's not an all-powerful being after all.


Well, as far as I can see, this particular discussion isn't about anyone insisting God exists, rather, it's about what the nature of God would be, which doesn't require belief.

What do you think God is obliged to do? God choosing a particular path doesn't mean we can assume God was so obligated.

Well, as far as I can see, this particular discussion isn't about anyone insisting God exists, rather, it's about what the nature of God would be, which doesn't require belief.

What do you think God is obliged to do? God choosing a particular path doesn't mean we can assume God was so obligated.
True but in the end if the description of god differs enough from what I think a good guy why would I worship him?

In the end if god conflicts with my morals, my morals win. I have more personal evidence for them at least existing

It is not illogical to want. It is illogical to assume that that want implies that the action itself is the best course and that love would impel one to act on that action.

What parent wouldn’t want to wrap their own children up like a little Kenny, protecting them from all physical and emotional harm? Yes there is a degree of protection, but the child has to eventually learn on his or her own. Love doesn’t compel one to prevent at all costs suffering, but to share the burdens of that suffering, to take it on and proceed with it together. That is the core of Christianity. God’s response to suffering is not to eliminate it but to become one with us and share it with us. He shared our experience of suffering so that we too could share in his experience of non suffering.

Love is quite logical, but if you don’t look at love through love it’s like trying to explain the tides without considering that large object called the moon. It just doesn’t seem to make logical sense. To arbitrarily assert that love demands non suffering is illogical, because you have created an axiom that is completely arbitrary.
Yes the child has to eventually learn on their own, and the parent has to let some things get through the shield to teach the child.

Thats not what happens here, in the end the punishment is eternal. This is not a case of a parent letting a child learn or punishing a child so he learns this is letting a child fumble around in the dark and then punishing him with death so that he learns.

A good parent does not punish or let happen harm that is irreversible. A good parent only lets through learning experiences that have a temporary effect.

Yes the child has to eventually learn on their own, and the parent has to let some things get through the shield to teach the child.

Thats not what happens here, in the end the punishment is eternal. This is not a case of a parent letting a child learn or punishing a child so he learns this is letting a child fumble around in the dark and then punishing him with death so that he learns.

A good parent does not punish or let happen harm that is irreversible. A good parent only lets through learning experiences that have a temporary effect.

With regard to temporary and eternal effects...

Given Christian belief, all the suffering in this life would be a temporary effect. Which you seem to be okay with in light of the parental analogy. Now to explain why the eternal effect you also mentioned does not present a problem for some Christians, like oh, say, me. ;)

I believe that only those who actively choose to go to hell do so, and that hell is just eternal separation from God. So only those who actively choose eternal separation from God will receive it, and frankly, if that's what they prefer, then they are welcome to it. God will respect their choice. The rest will end up in heaven.

Well, as far as I can see, this particular discussion isn't about anyone insisting God exists, rather, it's about what the nature of God would be, which doesn't require belief.

What do you think God is obliged to do? God choosing a particular path doesn't mean we can assume God was so obligated.

It wasn't me who assumed that. That was your own statement.
I simply concluded that if god really is obligated to follow certain patterns, he cannot be omnipotent.

I simply concluded that if god really is obligated to follow certain patterns, he cannot be omnipotent.

Um...no. Obligations do not infringe on an entity's power.

I am obligated, for example, to not go around killing people. But should I wish to do so, I most certainly have the power to do it.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

What you say is not new, lot's of people have problems with this logical contradiction. However, I think there are two flaws in the argument:

You are assuming logic is true.
You are assuming God is bound by the laws of logic.


Logic is essentially a system of finding out what makes sense. Debate and discussion would be useless if it was impossible to tell whether or not a person's argument made sense. But it is still a creation of people, and nature itself has presented instances where common sense and logic fall through (for example, quantum mechanics, where contradictions abound).
But even if we assume logic is true, we cannot assume that an entity whose very nature is supernatural would follow the laws of logic. Thomas Aquinas examined the apparent contradictions between God and logic and basically said this: God cannot make something contradictory, that is, it is impossible for God to make a triangle with four sides. But there is something tricky that goes along with that: guess who decides what defines a triangle?
In other words, God cannot do illogical things (that's not the best word, but you get the idea), and that includes existing. However, if God does it, it is not illogical. So, is the existence of God a contradiction? Yes and no.

Aquinas was an idiot.

It's clearly true that God cannot be all three of omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. The problem of evil (or the problem of suffering) guarantees that. A typical response is this one:
Love doesn’t compel one to prevent at all costs suffering, but to share the burdens of that suffering, to take it on and proceed with it together.
Except, of course, that this assumes that the suffering has positive side-effects (like living in the world).

But that's only true because God made it so. If every aspect of the universe is so because God made it so, then God (being omnipotent) had the option of designing the universe differently. Plus (being omniscient), God knew what the consequences of his design would be, and knew it would cause suffering.

God could have designed the universe such that we appreciated the absence of suffering without ever having experienced it. But he didn't. Since God does have the option of changing anything at all about the universe without affecting any other aspect of the universe (a necessary consequence of omnipotence), God must therefore have chosen to make us suffer. Specifically. In the absense of all other considerations, God wanted us to suffer. Not for any other reason - just to make us suffer. The combination of omniscience and omnipotence requires it.

The only way to reconcile these is to disard one of them.

God is either of only finite power, finite knowledge, or simply doesn't care about us much.

As it happens, I'm not convinced the bible does claim that God is omnibenevolent.

And, God's omnipotence isn't necessarily eternal. If God is omnipotent, he must have the power to rob himself of that omnipotence. Maybe he already did.

If God isn't omniscient, maybe he doesn't know how to prevent suffering. Or maybe he removed his power to fix it by accident.

So, is the existence of God a contradiction? Yes and no.

Exactly. Well put. :)

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

Supposing God could create a universe where we were all joyful all the time and never had to suffer. How would we know we were joyful? How can we perceive without contrast?

I believe that God did not create the universe, not in the sense that we understand the word 'create' anyway.

"You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, "Doesn't the Bible say He created the world?" And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the [Hebrew word] baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos--chaotic matter, which is element... Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end." (from The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith).

So the elements of which the universe is composed existed from the time the God existed, or were co-existent with God. God's omnipotent power is that He can command the elements and they will obey Him, and organise or re-organise themselves according to his will. The elements cannot be created or destroyed, any more than God can be destroyed. So here we have a principle that is beyond even the power of God. It therefore stands to reason that there are other principles that are fixed, unchangeable, and co-existent with (or in other words not created by) God. Such as the dualism of joy and sorrow. One cannot exist without the other.

You would say, 'ah-ha! so you agree that God isn't all-powerful'. Not so, God does have all power over the things that lay within His dominion, the things that were organised and ordered by Himself. But there are certain principles that lay beyond power. If these principles were to be unravelled then the very nature of existence would unravel with them, as would God, and power. How can any being have power to act in a universe where there are no set principles of action and reaction? How can anything exist in such a system?

Some might say that this is simply 'one of the mysteries of God'. But I would counter that the mysteries of God are so simple as to be beneath our notice, rather than so complex as to be beyond our comprehension.

The universe its self testifies to the truth of this. For it is governed by an extensive set of simple principles, such as gravity, inertia, energy, mass, etc... that create very complex interactions. But if you comprehend all of the principles, you can predict the outcome of even the most complex interactions of those principles. And this is the omniscience of God: He understands all of the principles, and therefore knows how to subject the elements to His will, and because He can subject the elements to His will He has 'all-power'.

Which leaves the one final attribute of deity mentioned in your post (I'm rolling all-seeing and all-knowing into the same attribute, because they are basically the same thing to my understanding): How is God an all-loving God if he allows so much suffering to occur?

For the answer to that question I will refer you to Second Nephi chapter Two (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2), and most specifically to these two verses (though you need to read the whole chapter if you wish to fully understand the subject at hand):

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.
12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation...

If there was no distinction between joy and sorrow, which distinction is created by opposition, there would be no purpose in creation. Or in other words, God could organise a world in which there was no suffering, but there would be no purpose in such a world. God means to teach us, by our experience in this life, to be as He is. And being all-knowing, He knows that there must be some suffering involved in this process.

Could an all-loving God be content to watch His creations idle purposelessly in a meaningless existence, as an existence without distinctions would be? And if His purpose is not to make us as He is, how is he all-loving? How could He be content to create us with an inherent limitation? Surely we, as His children, would aspire to be like Him, therefore He must prepare a way that we can accomplish this thing, And He has, through His son, Jesus Christ (see 2 Nephi 2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2)). And He has also called prophets, in our day as He has in time of old, to help their fellow man to accomplish this objective. This I know, and I bear testimony to it, in the name of Jesus Christ, whose servant I am.

More information about this subject and many others can be found here: www.mormon.org

With regard to temporary and eternal effects...

Given Christian belief, all the suffering in this life would be a temporary effect. Which you seem to be okay with in light of the parental analogy. Now to explain why the eternal effect you also mentioned does not present a problem for some Christians, like oh, say, me. ;)

If the pain was a learning experience that taught the child something.
Allowing
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/family.torture/
To happen to their children that are not at a point to learn anything from is excessive and serves No purpose what so ever.


I believe that only those who actively choose to go to hell do so, and that hell is just eternal separation from God. So only those who actively choose eternal separation from God will receive it, and frankly, if that's what they prefer, then they are welcome to it. God will respect their choice. The rest will end up in heaven.


Yeah but unlike a good parent all the cards are not on the table. The decision is being made by a finite being with out all the facts.

Personally if god were a good parent he would sit down and talk with us one on one about the benefits and pitfalls of each decision rather then relying on a 2000 year old book that is partially symbolic partially vague. Has weird character plots and changes, has had a whole host of translation. And exists in difference to a thousand just as believable other faiths.

Specially if the rest of eternity is hanging on this decision.

(That was based on standard christian belief of salvation by faith if I misunderstood your beliefs I apologize)

A life without risk, danger, the unknown would be a greater suffering than the life we have now.

You have a child - do you keep them indoors never letting them go out and play because you don't want them to get hurt, or do you let your child play in the garden with their friends? Which would be more cruel? Confining the child to your house for their entire life or letting them play outside, to take risks, to live?

Exactly. The suffering/evil/bad shit happening arguement never holds any water. I dont believe in God but not for such petty reasons.

Assuming the existence of God, free will easily explains why there is suffering. and not just free will for people to do what they want, but for all things. the free will to commit a murder, or for a tree to fall down, or whatever. By stopping things happening god removes free will and makes existence pointless; we would be puppets, and that would be far greater suffering.

Next time theres some awful tragedy and you suffer a crisis of faith, wondering how God could let such a thing happen, imagine how much worse it would be if he didnt let things happen.

If the pain was a learning experience that taught the child something.

Allowing
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/family.torture/
To happen to their children that are not at a point to learn anything from is excessive and serves No purpose what so ever.

I certainly learned from my psychotic biological father's abusive behavior when I was very young. I learned very early that such things are harmful and wrong, and that fact has on many occasions kept me from being abusive to others, and continues to do so into the recent past.

Yeah but unlike a good parent all the cards are not on the table. The decision is being made by a finite being with out all the facts.

I really don't think that's a sticking point in the analogy. Children are generally far less informed than their parents, and in many cases are not developmentally at a point to understand what information their parents do have.

Personally if god were a good parent he would sit down and talk with us one on one about the benefits and pitfalls of each decision rather then relying on a 2000 year old book that is partially symbolic partially vague. Has weird character plots and changes, has had a whole host of translation. And exists in difference to a thousand just as believable other faiths.

Specially if the rest of eternity is hanging on this decision.

(That was based on standard christian belief of salvation by faith if I misunderstood your beliefs I apologize)

I do have a different view of salvation, yes. I'm not a proponent of the sola fide doctrine, or of sola scriptura. Salvation is not limited to those who believe in that book, as far as I'm concerned, because God is much more merciful than that.

I certainly learned from my psychotic biological father's abusive behavior when I was very young. I learned very early that such things are harmful and wrong, and that fact has on many occasions kept me from being abusive to others, and continues to do so into the recent past.



I really don't think that's a sticking point in the analogy. Children are generally far less informed than their parents, and in many cases are not developmentally at a point to understand what information their parents do have.



I do have a different view of salvation, yes. I'm not a proponent of the sola fide doctrine, or of sola scriptura. Salvation is not limited to those who believe in that book, as far as I'm concerned, because God is much more merciful than that.
Then your view of salvation,while I still do not believe in, Is about thousand times more just (in my personal view) then the standard salvation by faith so often espoused

Then your view of salvation,while I still do not believe in, Is about thousand times more just (in my personal view) then the standard salvation by faith so often espoused

I'll take that as a compliment. :)

...
That in no way detracts from the fact that this would all be god's responsibility.

Close enough. And because of that, some of us are thankful for the opportunity to try life, even if it doesn't turn out well. And others of us are unthankful and cannot be satisfied with anything or everything, unhappy and angry. Again, back to the rich kid to doesn’t like his new bike and even perpetual joy would not be joyful enough.

I'll take that as a compliment. :)

It is ... don't get me wrong there are plenty of things out there that my faith just falls short of. In the end I will do my best and hope things iron out in the end.

Don't get me wrong I like to argue on here but I don't disparage you your faith any more then I expect others to disparage me for my lack of faith.

It is ... don't get me wrong there are plenty of things out there that my faith just falls short of. In the end I will do my best and hope things iron out in the end.

Don't get me wrong I like to argue on here but I don't disparage you your faith any more then I expect others to disparage me for my lack of faith.

Very much agreed on both points. I took your comments as a friendly debate/discussion, not a disparagement of my faith.

And even when people do disparage my faith, I'm generally not too bothered by it.

Very much agreed on both points. I took your comments as a friendly debate/discussion, not a disparagement of my faith.

And even when people do disparage my faith, I'm generally not too bothered by it.

Awesome ... there are some really cool people with faith around here if we can look past the discussion. I have some really truly deep respect for people like LG and Depub and Smukee and a whole host of others.

(Sorry I am deviating but I get accused of being anti Christian ... what I tend to be is anti organized religion) and even as such I am also heavily libertarian (at least social libertarian)

We are choosing our own paths; he just knows what we will do.

If he knows the outcome, created the scenario that leads to the outcome, could have prevented the outcome, chose not to prevent the outcome, then he decided to let the outcome to occur.

if god knows the path of every entity in the world, knows what I was going to do, set the situation up so that i would do it, could have stopped me from doing it, and didn't alter the outcome, he made me do it

My free will isn't free if god decided what I would do.


God has the ability to control us like puppets, yes. But he doesn't. It's really complicated. I couldn't even begin to scratch the surface.

Yes he does, and no it isn't. He created the universe, right? He could have created it differently, right? If he could have created it differently and didn't, he chose to create it this way, right? If he created it this way, and knew with 100% certainty everything that would happen, and could have had them happen differently, he chose to have them happen right?

The only logical conclusion of an all knowing, all powerful god is that my life is exactly the way he wanted it to be. Because he knew how it would go, and if he wanted, he could have done it differently.

He knew what would happen, he could have had it happen differently, ergo he chose to have it happen. If god knows all and can do all then everything, EVERYTHING has happened because he CHOSE to have it happen. Period. If he KNEW what would happen every SINGLE instant of my life, he COULD have done it differently, and he CHOSE to have it happen this way, then my life is exactly the way god wanted it to be. He chose for every bad thing to happen to me, he chose for every good thing. He chose for every good thing I did, and yes, he chose for me to do every bad thing that I did as well.

If there is an all powerful all knowing god, I am but a puppet, my life is exactly what god wanted it to be, because he knew what it would be, and if he wanted it differently, he could have done so.


loves everyone! But it's our sin that he can't stand becasue he is perfect and that separates us from him so that we can't be with him, as sinners.

And an all powerful god could have made us without sin, could he have not? An all powerful god could do ANYTHING. So if sin seperates us, and god created sin (because he created EVERYTHING, that's what ALL POWERFUL means), then god chose for us to have the capacity to sin. Therefore god chose for us to be imperfect. That is therefore his fault.

Kind of stupid for an all powerful all knowing god to create something he doesn't like when he has absolulty no reason to, isn't it?

Close enough. And because of that, some of us are thankful for the opportunity to try life, even if it doesn't turn out well. And others of us are unthankful and cannot be satisfied with anything or everything, unhappy and angry. Again, back to the rich kid to doesn’t like his new bike and even perpetual joy would not be joyful enough.

it would be enough if god wanted it to be enough.

I don't think you're really grasping the concept of "all powerful" are you?

Lemme give you a hint, when discussing an all powerful diety, the words "must", "has to" "needed to" "is", "isn't" "did" "did not" and the like all become irrelevant.

If there is an all knowing all powerful diety then everything, EVERYTHING, is his whim, and there is NO situation which you can define that can not be altered.

If a rich kid is that way it's because god wanted him that way. If I sin it's because god wanted me to sin, if I die it's because god wanted me to die.

Everything, EVERYTHING in that scenario exists because god wants it to exist, otherwise it wouldn't.

Awesome ... there are some really cool people with faith around here if we can look past the discussion. I have some really truly deep respect for people like LG and Depub and Smukee and a whole host of others.

(Sorry I am deviating but I get accused of being anti Christian ... what I tend to be is anti organized religion) and even as such I am also heavily libertarian (at least social libertarian)

Understood. I've been accused of being liberal, anti-scientific, conservative, anti-religion, and a whole host of other things. None of which I am. Folks tend to start applying labels to others a little hastily in debates, unfortunately.

And I have a lot of respect for folks who don't share my faith, like Bottle, Bodies Without Organs, Grave_n_Idle, Muravyets(sp?) and yourself, among many others. :)

it would be enough if god wanted it to be enough.

I don't think you're really grasping the concept of "all powerful" are you?

Lemme give you a hint, when discussing an all powerful diety, the words "must", "has to" "needed to" "is", "isn't" "did" "did not" and the like all become irrelevant.

If there is an all knowing all powerful diety then everything, EVERYTHING, is his whim, and there is NO situation which you can define that can not be altered.

If a rich kid is that way it's because god wanted him that way. If I sin it's because god wanted me to sin, if I die it's because god wanted me to die.

Everything, EVERYTHING in that scenario exists because god wants it to exist, otherwise it wouldn't.

Again, close enough. I’ve not disagreed that everything is God’s fault.

I choose to thank God because of it and enjoy the life he has given, the gift he has given to us (by your description above you must agree that we can’t earn or gain it on our own), and additionally the salvation he gives us is purely through his grace and mercy. Salvation is not something we can earn, but is purely a gift of mercy and grace from him, as your description above must also agree with.

But others will choose to blame and condemn him and be unthankful for their lives and whatever they have or do not have. If it's not their fault you say, so what? Who assigned fault? It's still like the complaining child that doesn't appreciate the good things they have, they will blame their parents and if we think that it IS their parents fault for not raising them to be appreciative, perhaps it IS their parent’s fault that their child a what might be called a spoiled brat.

I cannot know the future, even if it is predetermined for me, so I have no choice but to behave and make my choices (fake choices as they may or may not be) as best I see fit as the occasions occur in my lifetime, because unlike God, I cannot see the end of the trail at the same time as seeing the beginning of the trip.

In the end, I thank God for all he gives and provides.

Again, close enough. I’ve not disagreed that everything is God’s fault.

I choose to thank God because of it and enjoy the life he has given, the gift he has given to us (by your description above you must agree that we can’t earn or gain it on our own), and additionally the salvation he gives us is purely through his grace and mercy. Salvation is not something we can earn, but is purely a gift of mercy and grace from him, as your description above must also agree with.

But others will choose to blame and condemn him and be unthankful for their lives and whatever they have or do not have. If it's not their fault you say, so what? Who assigned fault? It's still like the complaining child that doesn't appreciate the good things they have, they will blame their parents and if we think that it IS their parents fault for not raising them to be appreciative, perhaps it IS their parent’s fault that their child a what might be called a spoiled brat.

I cannot know the future, even if it is predetermined for me, so I have no choice but to behave and make my choices (fake choices as they may or may not be) as best I see fit as the occasions occur in my lifetime, because unlike God, I cannot see the end of the trail at the same time as seeing the beginning of the trip.

In the end, I thank God for all he gives and provides.

Yeah http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/04/family.torture/ (this) guy is nothing but a spoiled brat at not seeing the good part about his life and (if I were him) maybe having something against an all powerful being that did nothing to stop it.

If a human parent allowed this sort of shit to happen to their children they would be rightfully charged with neglect.

According to Christianity (well, at least, most interpretations), the god of Abraham has the following characteristics: it is described as all-knowing, all-seeing all-powerful and all-loving. However, I think that this is a logical contradiction. It seems that the Christian god cannot be all of these, because their natures oppose each other.

Let me try to explain why I think this. An all-loving god would not want its creation to suffer more than it has to. An all-knowing god would be able to fathom a universe where suffering was non-existent. An all-powerful god would be able to create this world. However, this world is far from free of suffering. The traditional Christian response to this is that without suffering, we would not know joy. However, an all-powerful god (defined as being able to do anything, even things that appear logically contradictory because it defines logic as part of its creation) would be able to create a universe where there is no suffering yet humans easily understand joy. An all-powerful, all-knowing god CANNOT be all-loving, because it's chosen to make suffering part of this world when it could've done otherwise.

Another response is that suffering and evil is the result of Satan's actions. However, an all-powerful god would simply swat a being such as Satan to the side if needed.

So, what is the Christian god?

If it's all-knowing and all-powerful, it's willingly allowing evil and suffering to exist when it need not to, if it's all-loving and empathises with us then it's powerless to change our circumstances or it would've already and is therefore not all-powerful. What is it?

Well, the problem with your argument is this:

God IS all loving. He loves you so much he has provided you with the choice of whether or not you wish to believe in him. God has also given you the choice of following what is considered the "right" path, which obviously includes believing in His existence. God is all knowing and all loving..and in turn God feels the pain of each of us but, like a loving parent, must at the same time provide you with wings to choose your own destiny. If you are incapable of choosing your own path in life, you are a slave...and no loving parent wants to willingly keep their child a slave.

Of course the argument you can give back is that there are diseases and pain outside of personal choice. And you would be right. However, Adam and Eve made their choice for all of humanity and they knew what they were doing when they did it. God would have known His children would eat the apple but still had to provide them with CHOICE.

The problem all comes down to choice and freedom vs. no choice and slavery.

The love is only in existence in first choice (choice and freedom)....


I'm agnostic...i can't believe i just defended this stuff...but I think you are wrong with your argument...too many before you have attempted that same argument.

it would be enough if god wanted it to be enough.

I don't think you're really grasping the concept of "all powerful" are you?

Lemme give you a hint, when discussing an all powerful diety, the words "must", "has to" "needed to" "is", "isn't" "did" "did not" and the like all become irrelevant.

If there is an all knowing all powerful diety then everything, EVERYTHING, is his whim, and there is NO situation which you can define that can not be altered.

If a rich kid is that way it's because god wanted him that way. If I sin it's because god wanted me to sin, if I die it's because god wanted me to die.

Everything, EVERYTHING in that scenario exists because god wants it to exist, otherwise it wouldn't.


But, if we are for the moment accepting that God exists, then clearly, God was desiring a world and people (us) that are not who we are simply because God wants us that way.

If all we are and all we do is because God wants it, then we do not have Free Will.
God chose a creation that DOES have free will.
Regardless of His omnipotence, He has relinquished his absolute control over our lives to allow Free Will and to allow us Free will, we must be just as free to suffer as to know joy.

It wasn't me who assumed that. That was your own statement.
I simply concluded that if god really is obligated to follow certain patterns, he cannot be omnipotent.

Hmm, perhaps our messages are getting mixed up.
I'm not stating God is obligated to do anything.
I don't believe God is, but I do believe God chose something.

If he knows the outcome, created the scenario that leads to the outcome, could have prevented the outcome, chose not to prevent the outcome, then he decided to let the outcome to occur.

if god knows the path of every entity in the world, knows what I was going to do, set the situation up so that i would do it, could have stopped me from doing it, and didn't alter the outcome, he made me do it

My free will isn't free if god decided what I would do.
That doesn't quite work, though. If God can flip ahead to find out how the book ends, but it doesn't mean he wrote the book.

If you have free will, then you're making decisions. God knows what your decisions are (and will be), but you're still in charge. This only precludes free will if you presuppose determinism, which is a question begging argument.

Well, the problem with your argument is this:

God IS all loving. He loves you so much he has provided you with the choice of whether or not you wish to believe in him.

The argument we are making that you are missing is if the outcome is predetermined it IS no choice. It is at best an illusion of choice.

That doesn't quite work, though. If God can flip ahead to find out how the book ends, but it doesn't mean he wrote the book.

If you have free will, then you're making decisions. God knows what your decisions are (and will be), but you're still in charge. This only precludes free will if you presuppose determinism, which is a question begging argument.

This makes even more sense if you happen to believe that God exists outside of time, as many Christians do. Actually, clarifying this particular notion solves a whole lot of problems posed by God's existance (what did he do "before" creation? Can there be a "before" and an "after" where there is no time?)

Not that this "proves" God's existence, it simply clears up some issues. I'm not Christian myself, but I'm certainly not anti-Christian, and I don't see anything contradictory about being Christian. A Christian position can be perfectly arguable and consistant, assuming it's not fundamentalist or otherwise insane.