Freethought & Rationalism Archive

phlebas · 01-24-2002, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
I'm not convinced that an infinite being would show no interest in us.

I didn't think you would be

You are a Christian, correct? Or did I totally misread you in previous postings?

Quote:

This would seem to imply that his interest in things is limited. And if that is the case, how can he be described as an infinite being? Are you claiming he is infinite in just some things and not others? Or his he just infinite in everything but his interest?

If you prefer to think of him as "infinitely interested," then that's fine. (Would that be omnicurious?) It doesn't change anything, though. It simply changes the argument to "why would an infinite god be more interested in us than in an individual grain of sand?"

If something is equally interested in everything, then the word "interested" loses its meaning.

I have another related question -- if God created the entire universe (and I mean the whole thing, all the way out to galaxies that we can't detect with our most precise tools), why should he be concerned if a few billion insignificant bipeds love him with all their hearts?

The so-called infinite nature of God creates nothing but problems in the Christian mythos. You guys might have a better chance at consistency if you go back to the Roman gods.

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]

cosmicDust · 01-24-2002, 07:14 AM

OK, My reply to this post and some previous discussions of freewill in heaven

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
phlebas,
I would suspect that God would create this world because she viewed it's existence as a good thing. Do you believe that it would be better if the world did not exist?

--------------------------------------------------
Better for whom?

If we didn't exist, it's difficult to say I would be "worse." I wouldn't be anything. Since I do exist, I enjoy existing and want to keep doing it, but it's not like a remember a lot of discomfort or unhappiness before I was born.

In what possible way could the existence of a finite place be good for a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, gender-neutral God?

If the world was more like what Heaven is conceived to be, maybe you could argue it's a good thing. But ask those folks in the Congo who suddenly have to wade through magma if they think volcanoes are a good thing. No volcanoes in Heaven, right? But still those angels manage to thrive.

It seems to me that theists assume that it is OBVIOUSLY a good thing because God OBVIOUSLY did it and God is OBVIOUSLY good albeit frustratingly INSCRUTABLE sometimes. This seems, at best, circular reasoning.

That is absolutely wrong, having to exist means to experience everything from pain to pleasure. MEaning to say to have memory, experience and develop thoughts and growth in the duration of the process (so called living, as a part of creation). No No...the better choice is not to exist at all. In the state of void where neither good nor evil can manifest. If you say human is created neutral it is damn wrong, human is created to choose by default it is destined to be sided. Therefore the freewill gift and its ultimate decision based on those accumulated memories of pain, sorrow, happiness, and experiences in living or going against it at all cost.
Given the choice at my concious I rather choose not to exist in this case, count me out of this so called Godly struggle.
But since I am born, I rather choose to abandon the christianity for its narrow mindedness scope in defining our purpose of existence.

Talking about freewill as the cause of sin, are we all then the fallen angels?
We are simply the byproduct of the faulty creation if we all were to believe in Christianity. Check the revelation; ONLY 144000 were saved and therefore lives in Heaven. So what does it tell? Isn't it simply based on common sense about natural selection and survival?
I had better spend my energy elsewhere. Why bother with all these doctrines anyway? It won't answer our deepest quest for the ultimate purpose of our existence anyway.

phlebas · 01-24-2002, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosmicDust:
It won't answer our deepest quest for the ultimate purpose of our existence anyway.

Oh, that one we can answer easily -- there is no external purpose for our existence, and life has whatever meaning we hammer out for it.

Welcome to the boards, although from the posts I've read from you, I'm not sure why you're here

You seem to be talking an awful lot about how pointless it is to talk about all this.

DRFseven · 01-24-2002, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Lady Shea: Belief is not a choice! I cannot suddenly just start believing in God because I choose to....I tried that.

Exactly, Lady Shea. This is why the "free will problem" is relevent to almost every argument in here. The kind of free will where people would get to choose whether or not to believe in something simply does not exist because of the way the human brain works. And physics, though interesting, matters diddly-squat in behavioral descriptions of human choices.

IF there were such a thing as true free will and IF there were a thing that could insert it into our psyches, thereby divorcing us from the decision-making workings of our brains, then there would be no "us" for the question to apply to. And whatever creature might employ such a "gift" would be operating counter to its own nature. That could hardly be called "free."

The Loneliest Monk · 01-24-2002, 08:31 AM

phlebas,

You did misread me. I am an atheist.

As for the individual grain of sand remark, grains of sand are not conscious. As far as I know, the majority of the universe is nonconscious. So at the very least, the 6 billion or so "insignificant bipeds" are unique among the matter in the universe. This attribute would also give us something in common with god. And there would be more to look at when dealing with a conscious being. Also, a being of infinite knowledge would be very much aware of the differences between persons and grains of sand. So claims that we would be viewed equally by god do not follow. That would imply that he would not be able to recognize such differences, which would be a limitation on his knowledge.

phlebas · 01-24-2002, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
As for the individual grain of sand remark, grains of sand are not conscious.

Once again, it's all comparisons. We are much closer in consciousness to a rock or, even moreso, a flower, than we would be to the Christian god. We have much more in common with a mosquito larva than with the Almighty.

We are definitely going in circles now. Unless you can start making something more than simple assertions to the contrary, I don't think there's much point in our continuing.

The Loneliest Monk · 01-24-2002, 02:18 PM

phlebas,

The relative differences between god and ourselves would not matter. If god is omniscient he would recognize the difference between a rock and a person. To claim that god could not discern this difference simply because his abilities are so far beyond ours is to place a limit on his knowledge. If he is omniscient, he would recognize distinctions no matter how small and no matter how much greater he is than the things he is comparing.

Transworldly Depraved · 01-24-2002, 02:27 PM

phlebas:

You wrote:

Quote:

However, my whole point is to show that the Christian view of God is internally inconsistent. They may claim a personal, in-your-face God when saying that he made us in his image, but when they talk about his infinite characteristics, they are describing a different, incompatible God.

You seem to be saying that any personal being must necessarily be finite.

Why do you believe this?

phlebas · 01-24-2002, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk:
The relative differences between god and ourselves would not matter.

You keep saying this, and I keep disagreeing.

If god is omniscient he would recognize the difference between a rock and a person.

I'm sure he would. I'm not saying he would confuse the two. I'm saying that, in comparison to all his infinite whatever, the differences are negligible.

If you don't believe me, try dividing any number by infinity.

To claim that god could not discern this difference simply because his abilities are so far beyond ours is to place a limit on his knowledge.

For the fourth time, I'm not placing a limit on his abilities. It's his infinite abilities that are the problem.

If he is omniscient, he would recognize distinctions no matter how small and no matter how much greater he is than the things he is comparing.

Forget the rock. Think of a human and a chimpanzee. God is apparently indifferent to the state of a chimp's soul. But the differences between humans and chimps are almost negligible to us.

It's not that God wouldn't realize that's we're conscious. It's that our consciousness is of such a low order compared to his infinite self that it's inconceivable that it would matter to him.

phlebas · 01-24-2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Transworldly Depraved:
You seem to be saying that any personal being must necessarily be finite.

Yup. Assuming by "personal being" you're talking about a god of some sort.

Why do you believe this?

Well, I've spent the better part of three pages on this thread explaining my POV. It would save me a lot of retyping if you would read them.

The problem is the inability of the finite and the infinite to have any sort of "relationship." I don't know how many other ways I can say it.

Try an experiment. Get a piece of soap and carve it into something, it doesn't matter what. Now, see how much you care about its well-being. Notice how much interest you take in what it believes, and how worried you are about its soul once it finally dissolves in the shower.

Can you not see how similar that situation is to that of an infinite creator and a finite creation?

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]

01-24-2002, 02:32 PM	#59
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	<strong>Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk: The relative differences between god and ourselves would not matter.</strong> You keep saying this, and I keep disagreeing. <strong>If god is omniscient he would recognize the difference between a rock and a person.</strong> I'm sure he would. I'm not saying he would confuse the two. I'm saying that, in comparison to all his infinite whatever, the differences are negligible. If you don't believe me, try dividing any number by infinity. <strong>To claim that god could not discern this difference simply because his abilities are so far beyond ours is to place a limit on his knowledge.</strong> For the fourth time, I'm not placing a limit on his abilities. It's his infinite abilities that are the problem. <strong>If he is omniscient, he would recognize distinctions no matter how small and no matter how much greater he is than the things he is comparing.</strong> Forget the rock. Think of a human and a chimpanzee. God is apparently indifferent to the state of a chimp's soul. But the differences between humans and chimps are almost negligible to us. It's not that God wouldn't realize that's we're conscious. It's that our consciousness is of such a low order compared to his infinite self that it's inconceivable that it would matter to him.

01-24-2002, 02:40 PM	#60
phlebas Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Metropolis Posts: 916	<strong>Originally posted by Transworldly Depraved: You seem to be saying that any personal being must necessarily be finite.</strong> Yup. Assuming by "personal being" you're talking about a god of some sort. <strong>Why do you believe this?</strong> Well, I've spent the better part of three pages on this thread explaining my POV. It would save me a lot of retyping if you would read them. The problem is the inability of the finite and the infinite to have any sort of "relationship." I don't know how many other ways I can say it. Try an experiment. Get a piece of soap and carve it into something, it doesn't matter what. Now, see how much you care about its well-being. Notice how much interest you take in what it believes, and how worried you are about its soul once it finally dissolves in the shower. Can you not see how similar that situation is to that of an infinite creator and a finite creation? [ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

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

01-24-2002, 07:14 AM	#52
cosmicDust New Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2	OK, My reply to this post and some previous discussions of freewill in heaven Originally posted by The Loneliest Monk: phlebas, I would suspect that God would create this world because she viewed it's existence as a good thing. Do you believe that it would be better if the world did not exist? -------------------------------------------------- Better for whom? If we didn't exist, it's difficult to say I would be "worse." I wouldn't be anything. Since I do exist, I enjoy existing and want to keep doing it, but it's not like a remember a lot of discomfort or unhappiness before I was born. In what possible way could the existence of a finite place be good for a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, gender-neutral God? If the world was more like what Heaven is conceived to be, maybe you could argue it's a good thing. But ask those folks in the Congo who suddenly have to wade through magma if they think volcanoes are a good thing. No volcanoes in Heaven, right? But still those angels manage to thrive. It seems to me that theists assume that it is OBVIOUSLY a good thing because God OBVIOUSLY did it and God is OBVIOUSLY good albeit frustratingly INSCRUTABLE sometimes. This seems, at best, circular reasoning. That is absolutely wrong, having to exist means to experience everything from pain to pleasure. MEaning to say to have memory, experience and develop thoughts and growth in the duration of the process (so called living, as a part of creation). No No...the better choice is not to exist at all. In the state of void where neither good nor evil can manifest. If you say human is created neutral it is damn wrong, human is created to choose by default it is destined to be sided. Therefore the freewill gift and its ultimate decision based on those accumulated memories of pain, sorrow, happiness, and experiences in living or going against it at all cost. Given the choice at my concious I rather choose not to exist in this case, count me out of this so called Godly struggle. But since I am born, I rather choose to abandon the christianity for its narrow mindedness scope in defining our purpose of existence. Talking about freewill as the cause of sin, are we all then the fallen angels? We are simply the byproduct of the faulty creation if we all were to believe in Christianity. Check the revelation; ONLY 144000 were saved and therefore lives in Heaven. So what does it tell? Isn't it simply based on common sense about natural selection and survival? I had better spend my energy elsewhere. Why bother with all these doctrines anyway? It won't answer our deepest quest for the ultimate purpose of our existence anyway.

01-24-2002, 08:31 AM	#55
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	phlebas, You did misread me. I am an atheist. As for the individual grain of sand remark, grains of sand are not conscious. As far as I know, the majority of the universe is nonconscious. So at the very least, the 6 billion or so "insignificant bipeds" are unique among the matter in the universe. This attribute would also give us something in common with god. And there would be more to look at when dealing with a conscious being. Also, a being of infinite knowledge would be very much aware of the differences between persons and grains of sand. So claims that we would be viewed equally by god do not follow. That would imply that he would not be able to recognize such differences, which would be a limitation on his knowledge.

01-24-2002, 02:18 PM	#57
The Loneliest Monk Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 96	phlebas, The relative differences between god and ourselves would not matter. If god is omniscient he would recognize the difference between a rock and a person. To claim that god could not discern this difference simply because his abilities are so far beyond ours is to place a limit on his knowledge. If he is omniscient, he would recognize distinctions no matter how small and no matter how much greater he is than the things he is comparing.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.