Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 08-05-2003, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Goober
theophilus,

You have already told me the purpose of the universe - "The purpose was for God's glory". Remember saying that? Why should I have to be omniscent to understand what grants glory? The creation of a universe that contains many poorly designed objects does not grant glory to its creator, yet you think that the universe is perfect for the task it was created for, as already stated. The creation of a universe in which beings suffer and are unhappy does not grant glory if it is within the creators power to reduce this happiness. If imperfections in the universe were fixed, it would make god look like a better designer and hence be better at providing glory to god. But imperfections exist, so it is not perfect at providing glory.

Once again, you are confusing yourself with God (the root of atheism) by declaring what can and cannot bring God glory. Since your understanding of the nature of things is both finite and fallible and you cannot possibly know the ultimate outcome of things, you're judgement is meaningless.

Another false analogy. They law is clearly set out and easily available to anyone, which is why there are no excuses for breaking it. Evidence for god is totally lacking.

Another false claim. In order for evidence to be "totally lacking" you and your budies would have had to examine not only all of space and time but all other dimensions. Since you haven't (or have you), your just expressing your ignorance.
Again, God has declared that there is adequate evidence to hold you accountable, so when you are judged, you can't use ignorance as an excuse; hence the law analogy is not false.

[bYes, and all I said was that I hoped you didn't use FWD. Let me get this straight though before I continue: you think god is not omnibenevolant, right? [/B]

Since God is creator, he is the determiner of all that exists within his creation. "Good" is only meaningful as it reflects the fulfillment of God's purpose in his creation. There is no standard apart from himself by which he can be judged since goodness is determined by what he does.

theophilus · 08-05-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar
[B]bd-from-kg:
You can�t have it both ways.Either human standards of �goodness� are reasonably close to God�s standards or they aren�t.

"Human standards" are only meaningful if they are based on God's law. God's law is prescriptive for his creatures and they will be judged by that. It does not follow that God is, in turn, to be judged by his creatures according to the law he has given for them.
That is not to say that he acts inconsistently with his law, since it is a reflection of his absolute perfection. The law is a standard for man; there is no "standard" for God since there is no one to whom he is accountable.

If they are, we are in a position to judge how things measure up to God�s standards � not perfectly, but reasonably well. In particular, a desire to glorify oneself is very far from being a virtue or even an admirable quality by human standards, so if these standards are reasonably similar to God�s it�s not an admirable quality by God�s standards either.

You see what happens when you confuse yourself with God; all kinds of nonsense occurs. Seeking one's own glory is not an admirable trait in a human because we have nothing to glory in. Our very existence is dependent on another; we are imperfect in all our doings and our hearts are corrupt.
God, on the other hand is absolutely perfect in his being and in all his doings. He "is" glorious and deserving of all glory and honor.

Similarly, if making (or allowing) everyone after Adam to be born unimaginably depraved and debased because of Adam�s sin is cruel and unjust by human standards, it�s cruel and unjust by God�s standards unless His standards are monumentally different from human standards.

Well, since your judgement of "cruel and unjust" is just that, your opinion, and not a reflection of God's justice, your statement is meaningless. Unless God has declared that "making everyone after Adam, etc." you have no basis for claiming that it violates ultimate justice.
It might "appear" to be unjust because you have limited perspective, but then, appearances, as we all know, can be deceptive.
And besides, is it any wonder that one who has been declared to be a ruined sinner would object to that judgement?

I think this one paragraph is an inescapeable argument for strong atheism concerning the Biblical God.

bd- :notworthy

and I think your evaluation is wishful thinking.

theophilus · 08-05-2003, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Sometimes, I just can't help myself.

Now, what are the implications of that statement for Free Will?

theophilus · 08-05-2003, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Just to be clear then, god wanted sin?

Well, "wanted" is an imprecise term. God's eternal purpose was not to have sin. Sin is a condition, i.e., the result of disobedience. God ordains all that comes to pass. I have no problem saying that God is the ultimate "ground" of human disobedience, yet he is not the immediate cause of it.

I agree with this, but it creates much conflict (which was why I previously refered to behavioural expectations). If everything is as planned, then why banish Adam and Eve? If that too was part of the plan, why do we supposedly still carry that sin?

It's genetic, i.e., spiritual heredity.

There is no doubt that evey alleged event from the bible can be explained away by saying "god wanted it that way" but that raises a host of questions.

Au contraire, it answers a multitude of questions, most notably why are things the way they are and what does it all mean.

By this logic, any way I behave is the way god wants it, so why is my behaviour (anyone's behaviour) ever an issue?

By what logic?
1. God declares all men to be sinners under judgement.
2. You are a man.
3. Therefore you are a sinner under judgement.

Consequences are meaningless in terms of choice if everything occurs as god intends.

Ah, but you are free to choose and you do choose; it's just that your choices are always consistent with your sinful nature. God does not force anyone to sin.

I say "nonesense" because it is not consistent with the Christian concept of prayer or forgiveness. For reasones noted above, if everything is part of a plan, than no one is at fault, as it is all part of a plan.

Well, as I showed by my "spy" analogy in a previous post, it is possible to use the free, sinful actions of an individual to carry out a plan without being responsible for those actions.

The accountability, to be honest, doesn't even have to reside with god (if, as you imply, he is watching everything unravel in perfection).

The issues, then, go back to the biblical writers and the theologicans centuries afterward for, apparently, getting their signals crossed with reagrds to free will, responsibility and sin.

Have you ever read either Luter or Calvin on free will?

I'm sorry but this is really just "double speak". The use of the word "ordained" is simply meant to remove accountability from god.

And just whom would God be accountable to? (actually, it should be "to whom would God be accountable," but that sounded awkward). You see, God is not on trial.

I believe this was pointed out elsewhere, and I think this concept represents the chief problem with this line of reasoning - like a mafia boss who says "take care of him" then claims uninvolvement, and even outright innocence, when his henchman has a guy whacked.

I see this as being relevant to nothing I've said or that Christian theology teaches.

The Romans can hardly be held accountable (in fact, should be praised) for carrying out god's ordained plan.

Well, of course they, and you,. can be held accountable and God has declared that it is so. To whom will you appeal his verdict?

theophilus · 08-05-2003, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth
Yes, I suppose I did break the rules.

Theophilus, I'm sorry I called you a theopithicus and made the baboon reference. That was an ad hominem fallacy on my part, and if I hurt your feelings, I apologize.

Sometimes, I just can't help myself.

I can't seem to locate your little "jibe," so I guess I can't take offense. In any case, it's just a reflection of your evolutionary brainwashing.

Jobar · 08-05-2003, 08:33 PM

Well, will wonders never cease!

theophilus:
Now, what are the implications of that statement for Free Will?

I can't seem to locate your little "jibe," so I guess I can't take offense. In any case, it's just a reflection of your evolutionary brainwashing.

I don't think I have ever seen a single sentence from you that wasn't completely humorless- and here you make two jokes, however small, in the same thread! Why, perhaps one day we'll have you laughing at Monty Python's Life of Bryan.

But, then again, perhaps I'm over-optimistic.

-------------------------------

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
"Just to be clear then, god wanted sin?"

theophilus:
Well, "wanted" is an imprecise term. God's eternal purpose was not to have sin. Sin is a condition, i.e., the result of disobedience. God ordains all that comes to pass. I have no problem saying that God is the ultimate "ground" of human disobedience, yet he is not the immediate cause of it.

Jobar: theo... honestly, can't you see just how this short paragraph contradicts itself twice?

If "God's eternal purpose was not to have sin" and "God ordains all that comes to pass", that can mean *nothing but* that God is powerless to prevent sin, or else desires it.

If God is the "ground" of human disobedience, how can he be anything *other* than its cause?

Wyrdsmyth · 08-06-2003, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Now, what are the implications of that statement for Free Will?

About the same as when a theist says, "the devil made me do it." Usually its more metaphorical than metaphysical.

Quote:

I can't seem to locate your little "jibe," so I guess I can't take offense. In any case, it's just a reflection of your evolutionary brainwashing.

"The human tailbone is the thorn in the flesh of creationism." Sometimes, I just quote myself. "I'd brainwash everyone in the entire world to think for themselves, question, and criticize, if I could." Look, there's another one by yours truly.

Wyz_sub10 · 08-06-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Well, "wanted" is an imprecise term. God's eternal purpose was not to have sin. Sin is a condition, i.e., the result of disobedience. God ordains all that comes to pass. I have no problem saying that God is the ultimate "ground" of human disobedience, yet he is not the immediate cause of it.

I'm not sure why "wanted" is imprecise. At the end of the day, god allowed/created/ordained sin - he still remains the "allower", if not the creator. Sin exists because god allowed there to be sin for immediate purposes.

Quote:

It's genetic, i.e., spiritual heredity.

Okay, so let's say I accept this - that we carry the hereditary sin of our ancestors. What purpose does theis serve, and of what relevance is it to address this sin? It makes little sense to have sin necessarily passed down only to have it necessarily erased.

You may have guessed that I neither believe in "spiritual genetics" or that Adma and Eve were ancestors of ours, but for the sake of argument let's say this is true. My original point remains - if banishment was part of the plan, what "sin" is there to pass down? It sounds like what happened, happened for a reason. So what is there to carry and what purpose could that serve?

Quote:

Wyz_sub10: There is no doubt that evey alleged event from the bible can be explained away by saying "god wanted it that way" but that raises a host of questions.

theophilus: Au contraire, it answers a multitude of questions, most notably why are things the way they are and what does it all mean.

This is obviously too vague a question with too vague an answer. Let's use a specific example - Judas betraying Jesus is part of the plan, Jesus dying is part of the plan, Judas suffering horrifically is part of the plan. That's one convoluted plan (that really creates a bad situation for Judas, I might add).

"God wanted it that way" is problematic because it sends confusing messages about god's nature and about the value of humanity in god's eyes. If babies dies in Noah's flood (a flood brought about supposedly by sin), and one responds that this is so because god wanted it that way, then what does that say about god's nature? That he hates sin? Maybe. That he loves us? Not really. That he values the lives of the innocent? Definitely not.

Quote:

Wyz_sub10: By this logic, any way I behave is the way god wants it, so why is my behaviour (anyone's behaviour) ever an issue?

theophilus: By what logic?
1. God declares all men to be sinners under judgement.
2. You are a man.
3. Therefore you are a sinner under judgement.

No, I'm not looking at god's declaration on my nature. I am saying that if any way I behave is the way god wants it, then any way I behave is the appropriate way to behave.

Therefore, I am acting according to god's will, no matter how destructive my behaviour. If I'm doing what god "ordains" then how can I be criticized by anyone, even god? After all, I am doing his will.

It makes no sense to say: "I ordain your sin." And then when I sin say, "You are a sinner and it is bad!" Hey, I thought he was ordaining this? That it was all according to his plan? Sounds like it's his fault (i.e. plan) not mine.

Quote:

Ah, but you are free to choose and you do choose; it's just that your choices are always consistent with your sinful nature. God does not force anyone to sin.

How's that? It's all part of the plan he has ordained. This conversation began with the idea that the world was operating perfectly for its (his) purposes. If that's the case, then my choices are as irrelevant as my sins, as they all contribute to the perfection of this plan.

You say god does not force me to sin, yet insist that all is well and perfect. Can you not see the paradox withing this view? If my actions contribute to "the way things should be", then not only are they good, but they are essential to the master plan. The concept of "choice" becomes very muddy with this view.

Quote:

Well, as I showed by my "spy" analogy in a previous post, it is possible to use the free, sinful actions of an individual to carry out a plan without being responsible for those actions.

The problem with that analogy was that it lacked an omnipotent being reponsible and aware of everything. It also did not imply a "perfect" situation. Your view of our existence does.

I have to run at this point...my wife is on her way to pick me up, but I will continue this later on.

Milton · 08-07-2003, 05:50 AM

SOCRATES: What sort of pot would you get if it were made by a perfect pottter?

WYRDSMYTH: That's easy, Socrates. You'd get a pot, perfectly made and without flaws.

Milton: WYRDSMYTH, what is a "perfectly made and without flaws" pot? Is it made of clay? How big or small is it? What is it's shape? How long will it remain in this "perfect" form? Can it ever be broken?

And SOCRATES, what is a "perfect potter"? Is it a man who is perfect and happens to be a potter? or is it an imperfect man who happens to make "perfect pots"? What is perfection?

Wyrdsmyth · 08-07-2003, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Milton
what is a "perfectly made and without flaws" pot? Is it made of clay? How big or small is it? What is it's shape? How long will it remain in this "perfect" form? Can it ever be broken?
what is a "perfect potter"? Is it a man who is perfect and happens to be a potter? or is it an imperfect man who happens to make "perfect pots"? What is perfection?

All valid questions. I'm sure you would have been a gadfly to Socrates. "Perfect" is an abstraction, that seems to often be what people want it to be, at any given time. I don't know how the ancient Greeks would answer your questions... They might say the pot is perfect if it perfectly fulfills the function of a pot. But as you might point out, a perfect pot for a big family that needs a big pot isn't necessarily perfect for a single old man who only needs a small one. Perfect would mean perfectly suited to the task it is needed to do to those using it. And also, if an iron pot is better than a clay pot, than how could a clay pot be perfect, if it could be improved upon by the use of better materials? Certainly, improving the durability of a pot is improving the pot. And if something is perfect, how can it be improved upon? How can it be made "more perfect"? There doesn't quite seem to be a way to completely separate the abstract idea of 'perfection' from subjective considerations.

08-07-2003, 05:50 AM	#89
Milton Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Atlanta,GA,USA Posts: 172	perfect? SOCRATES: What sort of pot would you get if it were made by a perfect pottter? WYRDSMYTH: That's easy, Socrates. You'd get a pot, perfectly made and without flaws. Milton: WYRDSMYTH, what is a "perfectly made and without flaws" pot? Is it made of clay? How big or small is it? What is it's shape? How long will it remain in this "perfect" form? Can it ever be broken? And SOCRATES, what is a "perfect potter"? Is it a man who is perfect and happens to be a potter? or is it an imperfect man who happens to make "perfect pots"? What is perfection?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2003, 08:33 PM	#86
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Well, will wonders never cease! theophilus: Now, what are the implications of that statement for Free Will? I can't seem to locate your little "jibe," so I guess I can't take offense. In any case, it's just a reflection of your evolutionary brainwashing. I don't think I have ever seen a single sentence from you that wasn't completely humorless- and here you make two jokes, however small, in the same thread! Why, perhaps one day we'll have you laughing at Monty Python's Life of Bryan. But, then again, perhaps I'm over-optimistic. ------------------------------- Originally posted by Wyz_sub10 "Just to be clear then, god wanted sin?" theophilus: Well, "wanted" is an imprecise term. God's eternal purpose was not to have sin. Sin is a condition, i.e., the result of disobedience. God ordains all that comes to pass. I have no problem saying that God is the ultimate "ground" of human disobedience, yet he is not the immediate cause of it. Jobar: theo... honestly, can't you see just how this short paragraph contradicts itself twice? If "God's eternal purpose was not to have sin" and "God ordains all that comes to pass", that can mean nothing but that God is powerless to prevent sin, or else desires it. If God is the "ground" of human disobedience, how can he be anything other than its cause?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.