![]() |
![]() |
#761 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
I think I managed less than 10000 keystrokes in those last two messages. That's a personal best for conciseness.
![]()
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
![]() |
![]() |
#762 |
Elven Warrior
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 479
|
Yes, Wayfarer the Insufferable. You really earn your moniker.
![]() To everyone else, I think I also remember reading about those experiments. Typical science. Not more answers, but more questions. ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#763 | |||||
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The creation of the potential for evil and the creation of an angel capable of evil (could it be... SATAN?) is self defeating for an omnibenevolent god. If man is supposed to choose god by free will why introduce an element designed to influence the individual to make the wrong choice? Quote:
Quote:
The brain chemistry thing is an iteresting idea but it will be a while before a non-subjective anaylsis could be constructed. I read some of the author's other work. He is a ghostbuster. Something about geophysical magnetism causing people to see ghosts. Ummmm.... ok. I am sure there is a biochemical state of mind that is functionally unique to heightened religious awareness. Is it a cause of the experience or a symptom of a particular thought process? the personality of one's DNA and the life experience work in unison to respond in a unique neural confirguration to produce a unique response. FINALLY If god is truely omnibenevolent and omniscience then even if I feel I can't believe; when I die he will be understanding, having given me free will and I having exercised it, will be a good sport, forgive me, and lauching me to heaven provided that I have done my best to be a decent person (is there an entrance exam? does god grade on a curve?). This has the added benefit of allowing me to sleep in on Sundays. I'm not sure what I would do for eternity in heaven; after the first billion or so years I could see it becoming a bit tedious, unless Tolkien is still cranking out new material. ![]()
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary Last edited by Cirdan : 04-19-2002 at 01:02 AM. |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#764 | ||
I am Freddie/UNDERCOVER/ Founder of The Great Continent of Entmoot
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Plainsboro, NJ
Posts: 9,431
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Come back! Come back! To Mordor we will take you! "The only thing better than a great plan is implementing a great plan" - JerseyDevil "If everyone agreed with me all the time, everything would be just fine"- JerseyDevil AboutNewJersey.com New Jersey MessageBoard Another Tolkien Forum Memorial to the Twin Towers New Jersey Map Fellowship of the Messageboard Legend of the Jersey Devil Support New Jersey's Liberty Tower Peacefire.org AboutNewJersey.com - New Jersey Travel and Tourism Guide |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#765 |
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
I will respond to Wayfarer's post shortly, but before doing so I just want to mention something briefly.
If God is omnibenevolent, he acts benevolently 100% of the time. Take "His" judgement. If we pass the requirements (whatever the bible claims they are...), we enter Heaven. If we fail, we enter Hell. Now here is the important part: Is the "banishment" to hell, a benevolent action? I submit No. Is the action just? According to Christianity, yes it is. But, is a just action equatable with a benevolent action? A just action is a neutral action, in my opinion; it is the action performed resulting from the position of the subject in accordance with the law. If someone commits a crime, that person is held to the law, as punishable. This punishment is in just accordance with the crimes commited - the person will get what he/she deserves. So we can see that a just action, is on neither side of the fence, neither lenient, nor overly harsh. Thus, if God sends someone to Hell, for not meeting the requirements, according to scripture that is a just action. Once again, it is neither lenient, nor overly harsh (by Christian theology). But now lets come back to the omnibenevolence of God. God acts in a benevolent manner 100% of the time. Is the action of sending people to Hell, benevolent. Of course not!! It is probably the most evil thing to do, and the most evil punishment to receive! What are the possibilites? If God was trully omnibenevolent, he would HAVE to act benevolently to everyone, all the time. He would not be able to send anyone to Hell, at all, because that very action is non-benevolent. And what does this all tell us? It brings us to the conclusion that God is either just (non-omnibenevolent), or he is omnibenevolent, in that he cannot perform a just punishment/reward. Last edited by Andúril : 04-19-2002 at 03:19 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
#766 | |||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Wayfarer (1)
Quote:
Are you alluding to the nature of God? His attributes, such as omnipotence, cease to change, but he is an entity that does exhibit change in certain ways, such as 1) thought and 2) actions? We have read many instances in the bible, where God does (a), then he does (b), then (c), and so on. None of these actions are eternal. And when looking at his thoughts, once again the bible is a clear indication of these (God being angry, then God being jealous, then God being pleased (by the smell of burnt flesh)). Once again, none of these emotions (and his thoughts) are eternal; they all have limited time-spans. So God, when describing his thoughts and actions, is definitely not changeless. Perhaps you might be able to show how God can make an eternal choice, regarding for example, killing a person, or not killing that person. I don't think you can do it. Besides all this, there are still problems when it comes to his omniscience - he already knows, therefore no choice is necessary... Ahh, omniscience, a wonderful subject. Remind me one day to reconcile this divine attribute with some of God's actions, depicted in the bible, alright? Fascinating reading, that will be... Quote:
But there is still a problem here: how is it even coherent to think of a time-dimension as a spatial-dimension? Because that is what the Flatland analogy is all about. The only way it can get its point accross is by demonstrating the interaction between entities of differing amounts of spatial-dimensions. But a time-dimension is, as you already know, is directly related to all three spatial-dimensions. If there is spatial change, there is time. You can't demonstrate a theory regarding a non-visible plain, by showing a visible plain. It just makes no sense. Quote:
It seems that if you want to stick with the concept of an entity that is outside of time, it becomes neccesary to label him as changeless, as eternal. This is, in my opinion, the only reason why you keep going back to your points about God being in a state of constant causation. Because clearly, from the bible, we can see that it is not the case. On a less strict note, I am thinking that those who wrote Genesis actually were not as intellectually adept as we are today, where they would not have known the implications of the being they were describing. A being that creates a universe, would the authors have known that that being would have to necessarily exist at least partially outside of the time-dimension of that universe? I don't think so at all. Just a (very) loose and unsubstantiated thought... |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#767 | |||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Wayfarer (2)
Quote:
But, even if God did create the potential of evil, why? The scale of morallity has good on one side, neutrality in the middle, and evil on the other side? My question would be, why did God structure it in such a way? Why does the scale go any further (negatively) than neutral? One could say that evil is necessary, but I submit that that assertion (while in my opinion incorrect) is only applicable because we inhabit a universe where "evil" is part of the realm of possibility. It is incorrect because for the quality of "goodness" to be shown, comparison with a different quality, "neutrality" is adequate to show the separate nature of the two. Also, one could say that if there was no possible evil, that would be hindering one's free-will. But again, that is only applicable if God created beings with the possibility of performing evil actions, and if the existence of evil is possible. If there is zero possibility for evil to exist, or any evil actions to be performed, then "evil" is a non-concept in the light of free-will. I might need to explain myself further, but I hope you see my point. Quote:
How could Adam and Eve have been "perfect" if they did not adhere to God's will perfectly? They must not have been created perfectly. How could Satan have been created by a "perfect" being? That is one incredibly imperfect creation, if you ask me... Quote:
Does the possibility of an evil act performed by an omnibenevolent being, exist? No. Is an evil act a logical action? Yes. Can an omnipotent being perform any logical action? Yes One being cannot be both, it is logically impossible. Saying that evil "is outside his character", is basically stipulating the limits of one of his defining attributes, omnibenevolence. He has an omnibenevolent character, the bible claims. But what is the "boundary" there for? It is the extent of the definition. If definitions had no boundaries or limits, every concept would have the same meaning as every other concept, which would be everything (if that is even possible). Likewise, a concept cannot be defined with two contradictory ideas (only good actions + only bad actions). What I am saying is that it is obvious that evil is not beyond the power of an omnipotent being. But, if that being is also omnibenevolent, it can't exist. Or if I put it another way, a being with those two attributes cannot exist. |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#768 | |||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Wayfarer (3)
Quote:
1) Perfection is a measure of both what God can and does do. They should by definition both be exactly the same. 2) Its seems that you are overlooking parts of the entire bouquet of possible acts that a omnipotent being can perform. Once again, an omnipotent being can perform an action that is not necessarily perfect. If an omnipotent being cannot perform any actions of varying imperfection, it is not omnipotent, because then there are some logically sound actions which this being cannot perform, which is contradictory to an omnipotent being's nature. You are saying that out of all logically possible acts, some of those acts would not be performed (ie imperfect actions), and I am saying that such actions cannot be performed. It is contradictory to a perfect being's nature to behave imperfectly. 3) I am one person who does not desire to perform all actions with perfection, thus not all people desire to perform perfect actions. Additionally, the concepts of Christian perfection and perfection in general are subjectively different. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#769 | ||||
The Original Corruptor
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,881
|
Wayfarer (4)
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is, if God chose someone to carry out instructions, and perform actions, there is absolutely zero possibility for that person to choose otherwise, if God really desired it. If God has a desire, and he is omnipotent, that desire will be achieved. Now, if the bible says that God chose people, and they did not do his bidding, what does that tell you about his omnipotence? Or the truthfulness and accuracy of the bible? Honestly, the whole "choosen one" concept is ridiculous. Enter omniscience. God knows before a being is created whether or not that being would adhere to his will, or would not. So why go through with it? What is the point of going from point (a), the knowledge, to point (b), the actuality. God, through his divine knowledge, would know the outcome of any human's life (saved/damned). Why go any further than that? An example: I have a thought in my mind, involving a coin flipping. I wonder which side the coin will land on. I already know with zero doubt, what the outcome will be. So why actualise the event? Why flip the coin, and act surprised, or angry, when it doesn't land on the side I want? It is just incredibly silly, I'm sorry to say... Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#770 |
Hoplite Nomad
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,931
|
__________________
About Eowyn, Does anyone know what her alias Dernhelm means? She was kown as dernhelm because of her exclaimation when she realized that the rider's headgear was heavy and obscured her sight. 'Dern Helm" Culled from Entmoot From Kirinski 57 and Wayfarer. |
![]() |
![]() |
#771 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Mirrelle: Thanks. ]: )
![]() Cirdan: God is the ultimate cause of events, but there are others which he chooses not to excercise complete control over. Like Humans. Evil is nescessary for free will. It is not your choice to do good if you could not do anything else. The rejection of God is in itself an evil act, and the basis of all subsequent evil acts. If God had made us without the choice to reject him, they would have likewise been unable to serve of our own free will. And that's what he's wanted all along. The same situation exists with angels. He gave them free will so that they could freely choose to serve him. Some chose otherwise. But whatever they (angels or humans) have chosen, they are intent on bringing other to the same choice. Science, by definition*, cannot tell us about the ultimate origins of the universe. The past is outside the realm of science, in the realm of history. Likewise, science cannot tell us what the meaning of life is, that is the realm of philosophy. *Science: a)The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. b)Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. C)Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. Since the origin of the universe cannot be observed, identified, expirimented with, theoretical explainations are completely useless. As far as a lack of evidence, you've been given plenty. You still haven't answered my challenge to explain the universe in naturalistic terms. I still say you can't. And as far as brain chemistry: there are different brain states that accompany eating, sleeping, sex, and anything else we do. They fact that the brain states could be reproduced artificially does not change the fact that those are real things.
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
![]() |
![]() |
#772 | ||||||||
the Shrike
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Francisco, CA <3
Posts: 10,647
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wayfarer
[B]Mirrelle: Thanks. ]: ) ![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Naturalistic. Do you EVEN know what you are talking about?! Or have you got some outmoded literature to whap me with? Quote:
I'm in a GREAT mood this morning!! ![]()
__________________
"Binary solo! 0000001! 00000011! 0000001! 00000011!" ~ The Humans are Dead, Flight of the Conchords |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
#773 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Jaydee:
You'd be surprised how much of what the catholic church believed and believess is a heresy in itself. The entire idea of the preistly heierachy is a heresy in itself. The doctrine of praying to saints is another. The scandal that's rocking the church stems in part from of the heresy that priests aren't allowed to marry. Rosaries and the (now defunct) insistance that the bible must be in latin. The church believing that it was above government. It might interest you to know that I have less faith in the church than you do. Even in the short amount of time i've been an 'insider', I've discovered that most churchgoers, and quite a few church leaders, do not behave as christians should. I do believe that athiests can't be good people, because of this simple provision: People can't be good people. If we could, through effort, make ourselves good, salfvation would be unnescessary and christianity would be pointless. But there is a way that we can be saved anyway.
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
![]() |
![]() |
#774 | |||
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Naturalistic: pertaining to the origin of all things from either this universe or an Omniverse containing all universes. One could say Materialism instead of naturalism, but Omniversism is rather hard on the jaw. ]: ) Anyway, what I mean by nature is simply one of the two possibilities which I've been stating all along. Now, since none of us can come up with a system that is not reliant on a self existant entity-be that God or the Omniverse (a fact the only posters to address at all have agreed with) it seems sensible that we should try and work out how either of these might be true. I've given two examples of difficulties with an Omniverse system, and I'd like to see if we can get around them and set up a rational philosophy. Is that really so much to ask? You may recall that most literature is made from acid based paper? Obviously outmoded books are two corroded to suffice for whapping. That's why I make do with my staff. ]: ) *bap*
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
|||
![]() |
![]() |
#775 | ||
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
__________________
We are not things. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#776 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Anduril:
God is Benovelent in his judgement. He has made it quite clear that no human can pass on thier own merit, and he has made it equally clear that anybody can pass if they ask ahead of time. We can see this more clearly not by looking at it in relation to crime but to debt (btb, did you just use a metaphor? For shame! ![]() Choice: By without change means without change. If that troubles you, I'm certain you can find a definition of both words in an available dictionary. It is not a matter of god doing a, b, and c in order. He does them all at once, but we see them in that order. I.E. God did not 'create light on day one' he created 'light on day one'. A small distinction, to be sure, but an important one. God is not at point XYZT when he is pleased with event N, he is simply pleased that event N is happening at point XYZT. Is that clear as mud? ![]() I'll say that you have a point-those who wrote genesis did not look at things in the same way as we do. But it's not something that matters. They perhaps did not fully realize the implications of what they were saying. But if, let's say, they had sat down and studied and tholught about it, they could have understood them. Would that have nescessarily undermine their belief? I think not. Would they likely have stated things differently? Perhaps. Evil: Since evil is against god's will, then for god to have created a universe in which no creature could perform evil actions would be to force every creature in accordance to god's will. Since God wishes that we would all choose to do his will, he cannot force us, and thus he allows evil to exist. Actually, adam, eve, and satan were perfect up to the point where they chose to defy god's will. Then they stopped being perfect. But I must try and explain this... Satan did not become the Devil he is now because god created him to be a filthy creature, but because he was in the beginning the most powerful created thing. And the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Angels are better or worse than men, and adults are better or worse than children. The greater the stature, the more potential to do either good or evil. Omnibenevolence: What you seem to have is an idea rather like that which I once heard was a muslim belief: God does X simply because he can, and for some reason must fulfill all possibilities. You realize that if you have a series of mutually exclusive possibilities, even if both are within your power, you cannot do both. So if I do AAAAAAAAAA, I cannot do BBBBBBBBBB. if we say that A is benevolent, and B is evil, then a being that chooses A can no longer choose B. God has done A in all situations. He could have done B, but he did not. What i am trying to say, is that evil is not beyond god's power, but he has not performed evil acts. I'll agree with you that god could not be omnibenevolent and perform evil acts, because omnibenevolent is the state of having not done any evil acts. Since he could have done B but did A, he is omnibenevolent. Just because I Can fail does not mean that I have Failed or even that I will fail. These are what I think you're confusing. Force and Free will: You continuously neglect the fact that god wants everybody to choose to do his will. If they had no choice, they would not be choosing, and would not in fact be doing his will. faith: A great example of faith would be Job. Satan's entire argument was that Job only had faith because he had been blessed, but we see that he believed even after all that was taken away. He didn't forget in suffering what he had learned in prosperity.
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
![]() |
![]() |
#777 |
The Insufferable
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,333
|
Earniel... I think I just misspelled your name, but you're hilarious!
__________________
Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned |
![]() |
![]() |
#778 | ||||
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Why not allow a choice between positive action and non-action with the benefit of heaven for those who are true to god and to those who exhibit benign action, simple death? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#779 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
...oh, and BoP, pardon my manners. Thanks for the welcome back. I've been deep into remodeling and gardening as it is spring here and there is much work to be done. I was only able to sneak in for a quick post before I was back at it.
I'm glad to see the thread didn't get of topic. We should thank Wayfarer for his relentless proselytizing and insufferability as it seems to be the spark that prompts us to refine and better define our views. I was more of an agnostic when we started, but after all the great input, logical analysis, and research by all the posters my doubt is quailing and I'm solidly atheist. God is a concept lost in the politics of formal religions.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
![]() |
![]() |
#780 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
We are not things. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Religious Knowledge Thread | Gwaimir Windgem | General Messages | 631 | 07-21-2008 04:47 PM |