Skeptical

I didn't say every desire was a need, I said desire implies you lack something. Please address my comments as I wrote them.

<strong> Again, I didn't say that every desire was a need. I didn't think it was necessary to elaborate on the idea that it is paradoxical to claim something is "unchanageable" and "infinite" and yet "lacks something" (i.e. desires something). If you have a specific argument that "unchangeable" and "infinite" _are_ compatible with "lack", then please make it. This particular assertion of mine has nothing to do with whether or not desire is equal to need, nor did I make such a claim.

<strong> You are addressing statements I did not make. My statements have nothing to do with humans and/or their free-will and desires or lack thereof. My statements are regarding hypothetical attributes of a hypothetical God. I am participating in a thought exercise regarding whether the attributes you claimed such a being has are compatible with the attribute of desire. I am not concerned at this point to address particular desires of the being in question, only the general idea of such a being even having desires to begin with. Again, please address the statements as I wrote them.

<strong> Again, you seem to be addressing statements that I did not make. I said nothing whatsoever about humans and free-will and I am not concerned about those arguments at this time. Your comments have not addressed in any way the questions I have raised about whether the attributes you claim of God are compatible with desire in the general sense.

If you would like to directly address these questions, please do so, but do not assume I am interested in the question of humans and free-will as I am not nor did my comments contain anything regarding those topics.

I'll try to state my argument more clearly:

You have stated that God has the attributes of "unchanging" and "infinite". I claim that if this is true, the idea that this being desires _anything_ is paradoxical because desire is exactly equivalent to lacking something, one can only want what one does not have. To me it is unintelligible to claim something is "infinite", yet "lacking". It is irrelevant for this argument what the desire is, so the idea of humans and free-will plays no role in my claim. I hope that makes it clearer what my argument is.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Skeptical
But doesn't the desire for something imply imperfection? In other words, if I want something, I desire something because I am lacking something. If God is (as has been claimed) unchangeable, infinite, etc, it seems silly to say that such a being _desires_ something.
I agree entirely. Desire being: a wish, a want or a longing.
Existence of desire means existence of an unfulfilled need. Anyone with a desire is unfulfilled.
Therefore God is unfulfilled.

WJ
As I mentioned earlier, even God makes mistakes. And regrets them.

I was interpreting from the bible (Noahs flood etc)
Dont you find it a bit arrogant of humans to think they know what their creator thinks?
Now this is me speaking
I just asked some questions. That implies I am all-knowing?
To answer myself: NO.
To answer you, No self-contradiction.
It remains arrogant for created items to claim to know the mind of their creator. Even the creator would not desire it. Because it would mean his mind can actually be used by others.

I think there's a big dependance in what we mean when we say "omnipotence". I think omnipotence does not allow for logical impossibilities, although I could be wrong. With that limitation, it may turn out that it's not possible to make an entity which is genuinely free, but always does the right thing... so you might *want* a free entity which always does the right thing, but there's no logically consistent way to produce such a thing.
Therefore the idea of God existing is illogical. Thank you I am glad we agree on that point.

Theli
Its the same begging his creation to change. You also haven't given me a explaination to why he would want us to worship him unless he would need approval from his lesser beings.
The only answer you gave me is "his character", wich is merely an extension of my question. How can his nature be this needy (and clearly unsatisfied) but still be allpowerfull?
Great point.

When I gaze on all this from a prespective it doesn't seem like god created the humans to begin with, but merely rules them.
Control freak with a huge temper. That much is evident in Exodus.

Theli: "If you crawl at my feet and submit to my will, I'll forgive you for being yourself. If you don't, I'll beat you to death." Do I love you?
Sotzo: Are you seriously going to propose that the above statement is the Gospel message presented in the Bible??
There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Jesus said.

sotzo

Hi Theli:

I will use the words "desire" and "want" interchangeably.

Are you pretending that wants aren't based on needs? If he wants people to worship him (wich not all people do) then he ultimatly desires a change in the world outside of him. And why would a omnipotent god do this?

See my post previous to this regarding the issue of wants vs. needs. There are clearly times when a want is not based on a need...no pretending...

Yes, he desires a change in the world if you mean by that he desires that all men love him out of their own freewill. An omnipotent God would want this because an omnipotent God can want this. But your question is off-subject because a "why" God would want something is different than an analysis of "what" God indeed wants. (see original challenge by Intensity).

If he's desires/wants can just be blinked into existence/happening?

Since the objects (mankind) of his love are operating in space/time, blinking things into existence would be a violation of how he has created the world. (If your next move is to point out the miracles of the Bible, then we can go there if you wish. But remember that those were done in the context of specific revelation whereas we are talking about the desire of God for man to love him which is not specific revelation.

Listening...

What?

There's that desire again. Remember, everything he want's can just be blinked into existence.

No it can't unless we're talking about specific revelatory situations where God is validating his claim to be God (see above.) God cannot violate his own nature. He has set his context with man as a space/time setting. This notion that runs through the thread that questions God's omnipotece because he can't do things like make square circles is not taking into account Christian theism. I readily understand that Intensity asked his questions of "theism" and didn't specify the Christian God. But, the Christian God, as I've, made clear, is the God to which I'm referring.

I don't see why he should create an undesirable (for him) world, and then pine for it to change by itself.

I don't either, but speculation about things we'll never know isn't going to progress this discussion. Further, he did not create an undesirable world. The world was made undesirable because man exercised his free-will against God.

Fellowship between a ruler and his subjugated prisoners. This sounds really weird.

More correctly, fellowship between a ruler who gets hung on a cross over a trash heap outside Jerusalem and the ones who wrecked the design. That's a whole different ballpark than what you are describing. Which view would you say the Gospels better represent. (Remember, this is an internal critique of theism. You need to found your critique based on the principles of the system you are critiquing.)

He obviously didn't do a very good work.

Fine. Your entitled to your opinion.

Anyway... Its the same begging his creation to change.

On the one hand you above cite God for being a forceful ruler and now he's a beggar pleading with his creation to change. Which "God" are you going to go with? You're not being consistent.

You also haven't given me a explaination to why he would want us to worship him unless he would need approval from his lesser beings.

Here's the explanation: He wants us to worship him because that is the only context within which we can love him. Love is not possible if we believe we are on par with him or if we do not render the worship he is due. So, no worship, no love...no love, no relationship...While he desires such a relationship from us, it will still be a fullfillment of his design if there are some who do not enter into that relationship with him! Why? Because he wants us to not just love hiim, but love him out of free-will. He is not wanting worship for worship's sake (as your "needing approval" imples)- he is desiring a relationship which cannot proceed without worship.

The only answer you gave me is "his character", wich is merely an extension of my question. How can his nature be this needy (and clearly unsatisfied) but still be allpowerfull?

It's not "this needy". In fact it's not any needy. Refer to my paragraph above.

1. As people has stated before. He (the church?) wants us to have faith in his existence, without questioning it (the church again?).

Wrong. I questioned his existence as an agnostic for years. As a believer, I still do on some occasions. But rationalism and rational are two different things. What God requires is that we understand the tools of the latter without bowing down to the former (idolatry).

2. He wants people to quote-- worship him --end quote.

Yes he does. But not as quote-- zombies --end quote. Please re-read the specific part of my post to which you are replying.

3. He wants us to go againsts our (potentially evil) nature.

What's this have to do with my question of why you think we were designed to be "worshippinh zombies"?

When I gaze on all this from a prespective it doesn't seem like god created the humans to begin with, but merely rules them.

You mean God the beggar or God the forceful ruler.

Omnipotence + Omniscience + Omnipresence. It seems more to me that god was not any of those omni's and indeed failed in his creation.

You've faulty views of these attributes, particularly the first...specifically in that you have not seen man's free-will as part of defining God's omnipotence. I've detailed the results of such a view above.

And now he's screaming and barking at his humans to fall into line, like a desperate man with a gun.

He's already pulled out the gun on his Son, but it wasn't at you or me. The guns are down and he welcomes. Will this sound like sappy Trinity Broadcasting Network shows when it fall on skeptical ears? Probably. But it is the theological system you're critiquing.

This is my problem, why did god make such a fuss about making us potentially deceptive (is this a word?).

Because loving someone out of free-will (which is what God wants) presupposes the possibility that man would choose to be deceitful.

And now screams (through the bible) with his fingers pointing in all possible directions, "go over there!".
Getting mad and punishing us for our deception, and wrong steps. Wich was in the first place so important for us. And for some reason important to him.

Out of which Bible are you getting this information? Please explain, from your knowledge of God's redemptive plan (ie, the Gospels), how you figure God is pointing his fingers (I realize you don't mean this literally):

1. in all possible directions
2. getting mad and punishing us for our wrong steps

It seems to me that he has taken the burden off of us by taking the burden on himself. Particularly, in the cross.

You aren't resorting to barking yourself now, are you?

No. I'm trying to keep this post on track since it is easy to get sidetracked unintentionally. I'm not excluded. If you find I am straying off topic by all means call me on it.

Speaking from personall reference. I would rather follow my own "potentially dumb" decitions than blindly following a blueprint.

Even assuming the truth of Christian theism, which is a part of this internal critique?

The dangers of following your own heart (poetic speaking) is insignificant to the loss of not doing it.
Wasn't that pretty?

Yes.

I don't care how he would do it.

Okay.

I guess it all comes down to trust. I would assume that the blueprint he gives you to follow is more fitting his own needs (or was it desires?) than your own.

That is precisely correct and to reverse that order by trumping his blueprint by our own autonomous blueprint is the very reason the originial design was broken. And, yes, it comes down to trust, but is there a worldview which ultimately does not come down to trust? I am not suggesting that all worldviews are equally valid. I am suggesting that we are subjective interpreters of reality and, as such, we must start our investigation with a set of assumptions in which we trust.

Ok, we leave that part.

Agreed.

What is perfect knowledge? really?

Objective knowledge of reality. For God this includes objective knowledge about himself which is ultimate reailty.

I can understand (to a degree) omniscience. Does perfect knowledge mean he knows the best choice to everything?

Since God's charcater defines what is the "best choice to everything", yes he knows it.

Best to who?

Best to him since he is the ultimate reality. He is reference point against which all "choices" are measured.

I'm sorry, I thought hell was mentioned in the bible as a punishment.

It is. And it is necessary because some will exercise their free-will against God and God, bound by his character will have to carry out the just decision for exercising one's free-will in that direction. But this is to miss the point of the post to which you have replied. Intensity stated ""If you crawl at my feet and submit to my will, I'll forgive you for being yourself. If you don't, I'll beat you to death." Do I love you?".

God is not forcing anyone to come to him. He's laid out a simple (though profound) plan of redemption in Christ and he says "I'll take the beating for you." I'm asking that you give a justification for how that equates with God requiring us "to crawl at this feet and submit to his will". We are to submit, but it is as children out of love, not out of fear as Intensity is implying.

And ALOT of christians believe nonbelievers will go there to.

Yes.

But I guess it all comes down to wich parts of the bible you leave out when reading it. I also thought god wanted us to woship him.

No. It depends on whether or not you interpret the text systematically or in isolation. The former is typically considered sound for the interpretation of literature, the latter is not.

I've always found this strange.

I understand that. But granting its truth for the sake of argument I'm trying to show that the folks on this thread are not critiquing something other than Christian theism when they use the "crawl at his feet" verbiage.

Where did Jesus go after his death?

I don't know.

And where did he come from?

From the Father. If you asking for a location, there is none because we are talking about God who is immaterial.

Most christians will say heaven. With that knowledge, one can argue that his sacrifice was not so great after all.

And that would be a poor argument on two counts:

1. Jesus could have avoided experienceing physical pain, torture and being human in general. A loose analogy to your statement would be to not see it as a great sacarfice for a human king to leave his throne and live among the poor in streets.

2. Seeing as how the atonement provides redemption for us to God (eternal life, inheritance of all things, communion with God etc.) it seems that making your statement is analgous to treading water in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and upon spotting a Naval boat saying, "ah, they've got it too easy, their in a boat! I'm not gonna take help from those who have it so easy!"

Jesus came from heaven, and to heaven he returned. Where was the sacrifice?

The sacrafice is in that he didn't have to do it. He could have avoided becoming man and still been well within his rights to reject every one of us.

And wich sins did he die for?

The sins of those who accept him.

The sins commited by man, or the sins that will be commited?

Both, for those who accept him.

And how does his sacrifice change my position in terms of salvation/damnation - heaven/hell?

Because by my freewill, I have rejected God. I can't restore that relationship via my own reckoning. If there is to be salvation, God must reckon it for me. The cross is the reckoning - it satisfies God's justice and it satisfies God's mercy. He kills his Son (justice), we are saved (mercy).

Once again, it all comes down to wich parts of the bible you leave out, and wich you don't.

No, it depends on a thorough, complete reading, taking it all into account.

Are you out of ammo?

I don't need ammo when there is no target available

He didn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And how do you know?

Because assuming otherwise would result in absurd arguments based on the assumptions that things such as cows can dwell on concepts such as theology.

What kind of human was created in god's image? Homo erectus? Neanderthal? Homo Sapiens? Our future speices (if we survive)?

I actually have never answered this question for myself so I plead ignorance. I hold to evolution but I've never worked out the implications regarding your question. I need to think on that!

And I need to pick the rest of this up later.

thanks for the dialogue

cheers

jkb

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: sotzo ]</p>

advocate_11

advocate_11...
...
Is god really this vain?
Is it just me, or is god suffering from low selfesteem?
He needs humans to remind himself of his own power, just like a bully needs his victims.

I will leave this discussion be for the moment as this thread already contains a number of overlapping converstions (and my adding to it will just lessen the experience for others) beyond this:

I do not believe that there is any reason to attribute these motives to the God that I have described. Should a person believe a God consistent with my (hopefully consistent) description to exist, I do not suspect that anger or abhorence would be their response, but rather mayy accept that God could not do other than necessarily act as he has; and thus it would be as meaningless to hold a grudge against him as it would against an indescriminate Godless universe.

Ted Hoffman

This post needs a response:
Theli: Read my post above. Why didn't god create cows in his own image?
Sotzo responded "Because he didn't."
Any other theists out there having a serious answer?
And this one:
Theli: What kind of human was created in god's image?
Homo erectus? Neanderthal? Homo Sapiens? Our future speices (if we survive)?
This particular question makes it clear that "image" is physical ie limbs, head, torso.
Some say the "image" referred to mans' intelligence, creativity and love. But mans "image" also includes hate, fear, lust and ignorance. There is a need to explain why this "image" only encompassed the positive attributes of man.

And this questions theists have been avoiding like hell: let me also give it a shot:
Q: "What would you do if you were omnipotent?"
Intensity: For starters, I would make the world in such a way that earthquakes, typhoons, cyclones, floods and other "natural disasters" don't take place.

What kind of world would be that then?

Theli: How can one from a brief observation of a being reach the conclution that, that being is allknowing? In order to do so, you must practicly ask every question that could possibly exist. And for you to verify the answers given to you, you must be omniscient yourself.
Or He must reveal it so that it can be understood by us. (We're nearing a discussion on Scripture.) You are assuming that man must autonomously arrive at all conclusions for truth to be known. I would ask that you defend such an assumption.

Sotzo: If someone tells you god is omnipotent, you must arrive at the conclution that he is telling the truth...

Ok, I am telling you that God is not omnipotent. Do you arrive at the conclusion that I am telling the truth?

Sotzo: At any rate, you must in some way go from point A (not knowing something) to B (knowing something).
No, you move from A (never having heard a claim), To B (having heard a claim). If its an untestable claim (which it is) we will never know.
But logically, we can disprove it. Logic helps us transcend the limits of empiricism.

This doesn't excacly hold water when discussing with someone who doesn't believe in god.
Are you saying God is not manifest? Why is belief in God necessary to discuss God is it because the concept of God is incoherent? Is the belief based on unverified claims? If that is so, Is it rational? What distinguishes your thinking approach from the doomsday cult members?

We must assume. And its not a small assumption. How do you know god exists on jupiter for instance? (omnipresence)
The tail is trying to wag the dog. We dont have to assume a damned thing. We should be asking you this question because you are the one that believes God is omnipresent.
Are you emphasizing the fact that your belief system is built entirely on a foundation of assumptions?

Theli: It doesn't work, but that is because your assumptions are wrong.

Sotzo: What assumption? That we need to move from point A to point B in order to get to point B?

All the assumptions.

Theli: How can you from a brief observation reach the conclusion that a being is timeless?

Sotzo: Because my brief observation came from an infallible, all-knowing source...
Circular and self-referencing argument.
This is like a kid that says
"My dad knows everything" and he is asked: "How do you know that?" and he answers confidently
"He told me so himself"

Or better yet:
"The bible was written by men inspired by God"
How do you know that?
"The bible says so"

Its the hallmark of mindlessness.

We can thank your infallible source for the earrhquakes, floods and cancer that kill people each year.

Theli: How can you observe that a being is infallible and allknowing?
It reminds me of the story of the personified houseflies and the stories they pass on to generations:
A housefly lives for 7 days. Now if a housefly observes you and then tells its offspring that it was told by its ancestors that for 1000000 housefly years, you have been alive and not aged one bit, the houseflies that have lived in your house can conclude that you are immortal.
Are you therefore immortal?

But even the housefly analogy is much better because at least they can see you. Can you see God? Or even his actions? Dont tell us we have to assume again Sotzo because we dont have to do anything.

Advocate
Yes, if we have programmed them to do so then, but not necessarily only then we should expect them to worship us at the time and in the manner which we programmed them to.
Great answer.

God is to be worshipped because he has provided that you (if you are elect), through no merit of your own thoughts or actions will be spared eternal torment and be brought into paradise for all eternity at the day of judgement when God visits upon each their rightful dues
Worship me or die. Beautiful answer.

God will be worshipped by the elect because he has foreordained that they will do so.
Mindless zombies, great answer.

I am not sure what you intend by "best". Do you mean the choice which will, over the being's life, maximize the amount of pleasure it will experience?
Best for the creation
Gos knows this choice on the basis that he is omniscient.
I almost thought you meant GOHS which means wizard, deceiver, charlatan etc. Anyway, if its in that basis, don't you find it self-centered?
Even if you are omniscient, does that mean you rubbish the thoughts of everyone else?
If thats the case, why let them even have any thoughts? Why not just make objects that bend to your will without question?

Some may "expect" God to love his creation, while others may not. God does "love" his creation in that in considering the mechanism whereby God has an emotional state, the emotional state as it corresponds to God's creation is in part one of love.
You have not answered the question.

God created man as a necessarily forthcoming manifestation of God's glory.

"necessarily"? from whose perspective? Yours or Gods? Manifestation for what purpose? Why does his Glory have to be manifested?
What is Gods Glory? Did God create his Glory or did we create Gods Glory?
If he did not create it, who created it?
If he created it, can it rightfully be called Glory? (Glory is earned isn't it?)

God has foreordained that some should "fellowship" with himself because it was by nature necessary for him to do so
By nature? whose nature? Are you saying God couldnt help it?

Yet, as I am seemingly neither omniscient nor omnipotent, I do not feel entirely qualified to respond to your hypothetical
We made it hypothetical to accomodate you.

However, it does not seem to me that my possessing omniscience and omnipotence alone entail it being logically necessary for me to create a being of one particular sort even if it is given that I will necessarily create a being of some sort.
The word "necessary" is contra-omnipotence. Its a constraint. Omnipotence assumes total absence of constraints.

Then, yes, if I wished beings to worship and fear me, it seems that one possible situation in which this might arise is if these supposed beings were a great deal less knowledgeable and powerful than myself
So by design, our inferiority serves Gods purpose perfectly. He cannot claim to love us if all he wants is to be worshipped. He is fulfilling his needs.

In what sense do you suggest that a being possessing omniscience might "pose a challenge" to God?
He might not be very willing to abase himself before God and praise him. God wouldn't like that.

Respect is given to God by man insofar as God has foreordained it to be given.
So we represent Gods Glory. And we should always acknowledge it.
If God does not respect us, should we respect him solely on the basis that he created man?

Are you saying that we have no choice but to respect him? (you use the word "foreordained") You are implying our actions are deterministic?

If its foreordained, is it "true" respect? If we have been designed to respect him, has he "earned" that respect or manipulated the situation to get it?

Finally, why does God has to "foreordain" anything? Is he wary of things going contrary to his will?

Ted Hoffman

Sotzo,
Rather, it is his desire that man loves Him of his own free-will. In this context, God can have a desire, that desire can be "unfullfilled" (ie, man does not love him out of free-will) and God retains his attributes wihtout limitations.
If the desire is unfulfilled, then God remains unfulfilled if the desire is fulfilled, then God is fulfilled. The existence of this desire thus implies two "states" God can have. Fulfilled and unfulfilled. The condition of a being depends on the status of its needs. We need air. Without air, we suffocate. We need food, wothout food we starve. So, with unmet needs, our condition changes. Things that do not chance cannot have needs because when a need arises, stasis has to be sought and that will involve change from a state of need, to a state of no need.

If God changes, then he operates within time. Meaning he is part of the universe.

If he operates within time, he can not be omnipotent because he can't change the past for example.


Not every desire is a need. Think of kids at Christmastime.

Please provide an example of a desire that is not a need. Clearly bifurcate a need and a desire.

Are you pretending that wants aren't based on needs? If he wants people to worship him (wich not all people do) then he ultimatly desires a change in the world outside of him. And why would a omnipotent god do this?
I believe a desire is a need and a want is an expressed need. (This is the working distinction under Abraham Maslows hierarchy of needs)

An omnipotent God would want this because an omnipotent God can want this.
Why does he even have to want anything? For example, we need things to improve/ make possible other things. If everything was in place, I would NOT want anything.
Why does God want to want anything?
Does he enjoy wanting things? (ie wanting for wantings' sake?)

Further, he did not create an undesirable world. The world was made undesirable because man exercised his free-will against God.
What do you mean by "the world"? The trees and mountains? If we have anal sex in the open, do the trees and seas and antelopes and giraffes and monkeys and rivers become undesirable?
So, what was undesirable was mans' behaviour in Gods eyes. You think the wisest thing to do in order to change the behaviour of one species is to flood the whole planet? Is that what you call omniscience?

When you say he excercised his free-will against God, don't you find that nonsensical? Its like someone releasing a dog then when it runs to the right, he angrily jerks it back then when asked why he is angry, he says says "Aargh!, I want it to run to the right but I want it to do that by itself!".

Its like he had no idea what the results of bestowing free will would be yet he had expectations. Otherwise, why would he get mad and claim man has excercised free will "against" him? Why put some unpredictable thing to meet specific needs? Is that the nature of omniscience?

Theli: On the one hand you above cite God for being a forceful ruler and now he's a beggar pleading with his creation to change. Which "God" are you going to go with? You're not being consistent.
Great point. Sotzo, please respond to this.

Theli later asked:
You also haven't given me a explaination to why he would want us to worship him unless he would need approval from his lesser beings.
And you explained:
He wants us to worship him because that is the only context within which we can love him.
So he can only get love from inferior beings?
Worship translates to love for your omniscient God?
So even you, if you held all the keys and had all the cards and the purses and the future, you could actually believe that a bunch of ignorant and poor mortals kneeling at your feet begging for "blessings" love you? And that would make you feel loved?

WTF would you expect them to do under those circumstances? Follow their free-will?

You make inferior beings then ask them to follow their free-will? To either worship you (and get blessed - eternal life) or not worship you and face eternal hellfire? (The Bible describes it as weeping (Matt 8:12), wailing (Matt 13:42), gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:50), darkness (Matt 25:30), flames (Luke 16:24), burning (Isa 33:14), torments (Luke 16:23), everlasting punishment! Jesus Christ says in Matthew 25:41, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING FIRE, prepared for the devil and his angels."

In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.")

he is desiring a relationship which cannot proceed without worship.

What is hell for? For enforcing this relationship based on pure love?

But rationalism and rational are two different things. What God requires is that we understand the tools of the latter without bowing down to the former (idolatry).
And what are the tools of the latter? Love? If love can make someone create an eternal fore for eternal torment for those who do not love him, then love is a bad thing indeed.

Yes he does. But not as quote-- zombies --end quote. Please re-read the specific part of my post to which you are replying.
Only quote-- zombies -- end quote can worship a being without questioning the existence and motive of that invisible being.
And while you are at it, a zombie that worships an invisible being and one that worships an inexistent being, is the former zombie more rational?

Did God create mountains by the way?
If he did not, why believe he created the oceans and the seas?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Theli

Sotzo...

Give me an example where a want isn't based on a need.
I want to post on this board because I need both information and intellectual stumulence.

Yes, that's a change and a need. Although it's not my lot to bring forth a need for our obidience, it's yours. I can't see a reason for god wanting us to woship him, but obviously you do.

An ability doesn't justify an action, and it doesn't explain it. You should know this.

Surelly, you don't think you own this thread, do you?
And you're in no position to govern the discussions inside. If you find it uncomfortable to answer me on this thread (for some reason unknown) then by all means start a new thread and post the answer there.
Or...
Say that you don't have an answer, if this is the case.

So you are saying that his actions within our universe would cause side-effects?
But surelly a omnimax god could easily fix those, couldn't he?

That was going to be my next move, yes.

1st of all, how do you reffer to drowning the world as a good way of displaying his love?
2. This was not the only time he interveined to punish people.
3. Those events were very spread out (timewise), and when gazed at from a perspective doesn't seem to have a common purpose.
4. The only effect his supposed interventions in the past had was to form a belief/worship for him, what other side effects have you observed?
5. How can an unchangable being intervien in the universe, or let alone create it, when that would be considered a change?
6. Don't you believe miracles (faith-healing, and such) happens today?
7. Don't you believe god intervien by speaking to people who pray?

huh?



moving on...

What?

I never said anything about the square circle, or about the rock he cannot lift/create. I said that a beings powers must be limited for him to even exist. Since existence brings limitation.
I agree that christian theism has pretty much taken "omnipotence" back as the mistake it is. I wonder what that will do to the rest of the omni's.

I think we have already made that clear, yes.

It is progress for me. As your atheistic oponent it's my lot to poke your theories with needles and turn over every rock. If I see something that doesn't make sense, I'll say it.
And the powerfull (not omni anymore) god that want the lesser beings (wich he designed) to make the world pleasing for him doesn't make sense.

So the world is perfect, but humans are small evil-doers who destroys it with their awfull free will.
I've never heard of an ideology that detests humans as much as yours do.

I'll leave this part of the discussion, as it just get's longer and longer with more and more repetitive aguments.

This is not my god. I'm morely pointing out the inconsistency, I didn't create it.

From one assumption over to another one...
Why would he need love?
And why would he need it from us?

Now you're getting really weird.
So, a being can't love another being that is "on par" with it? So no human has ever loved another human?

Is this really the only type of relationship you know? Master and slave.

So, why does he even need us, if "the design" will fullfill it.

This is really getting nowhere. You have already obandoned his omnipotence, and now you're trying to tell me that the only relationship he can possibly have is with some tiny humans. It would be like me having ants for friends, who I killed if they didn't do what I wanted them to.

Didn't he need love, and companionship?
Doesn't that sound like social needs to you?

1. God himself as you describe him, doesn't sound like a rational being.
2. Does he want us to believe in his existence based on reason or not?

As I see it, they are the same.

I don't think I have to post every inconsistency in the bible, I'm sure you have heard them

Hell.


I'll continue this post later on, kind of in a rush now (and a headache).

Theli

Intensity...
Excacly my point. It's a very strange notion of love.
And also, if god is unchangable/omniscient, meaning that he knows every event that is going to happen (including our future actions), doesn't that refute his love for us?

This is ofcourse only a problem for people who believe god is timeless... it doesn't apply to all christians.

When he created our universe, he also constructed our future/actions/fate. It would be like recording your own voice on a tape, listening to the tape, and then fall in love with yourself.

Weird!

Almost perverse...

Ted Hoffman

Ok, the theists have all fled. Maybe next time I shouldnt ask 2 many questions.

Theli

Sotzo...

And what about me?
I'm living my "horrible human life", wich hopefully will be longer than Jesus'.
Should living and dying be considered such a big sacrifice that it require gratitude and worship from the survivors?
What is a lifetime of, well life compared to an eternity of bliss in heaven?
My big complaint about Jesus crucifiction is that people claim that "god sacrificed his own son for our sins", and then they say Jesus still lives in heaven.
Have I missed something here?

Should I feel gratitude for a king, just because he for a very brief moment stepped down from his throne to live like other humans. Only to return to his throne, leaving me with nothing but guilt.

You can believe that if you like. Frankly, I don't care.

How great of him.
It still doesn't explain the "great sacrifice".

What is this pointless drooling?
God sacrificed his son (?) so that god could send the rest of us to heaven?
Why did he have to sacrifice his son to do so?

ERROR!!!!

He send his son home. All he killed was the body containing christ's soul(spirit).