Kenny

Answerer,

The subject matter you raise is interesting and important, but it is way off the current topic. I will address your points in this post, but I don’t have the time to commit to multiple discussions at once, so, after this, I may not continue to address your points insofar as they are not directly related to the original topic. Thanks in advance for your understanding. In addition, I note that your allusions to the Judeo-Christian conception of God means that you are trying to critique that concept from within by arguing from Christian premises. Consequently, I will also take those premises for granted in this post.

I agree that human beings can make moral judgments because we all have an innate moral sense (though one that has been twisted and distorted by the presence of sin) which has been placed within us by God. I agree that we do not have to have infinite wisdom to judge whether a particular action is right or wrong; yet, because we are fallible and have limited knowledge, we also often have to struggle with moral judgments and reevaluate our moral stances as new information becomes available. God, as an omniscient morally perfect being never finds Himself in that position, however.

It is still God Who is the source of that innate moral sense which we posses, it is still God’s nature which defines what is right and what is wrong, it is still God and not humanity Who is the rightful judge of the universe, and it is precisely God’s infinite wisdom and goodness that make God, and not us, qualified for that position. We aren’t qualified to judge God’s actions because a) it is not our rightful place to do so, and b) we don’t have sufficient knowledge to do so. Just because we do not understand something that God does, it does not follow that God doesn’t have a morally sufficient reason for doing it.

I don’t know if you have ever had to help restrain a child so that the doctor could administer a painful medical procedure. I have, for one of my younger brothers, and it is not a pleasant experience. The child has no idea what’s going on or why such pain has to be inflicted, and it may even seem to the child that those performing this procedure, the very ones who the child has trusted for love an protection up to this point, are suddenly acting in a horribly cruel manner. Yet, it is the very ones inflicting pain who are acting in the child’s best interest, though the child is incapable of understanding how this is so.

I believe that God is a God of justice and that He has the right to punish evil. I do not believe that God ever inflicts unjust punishment on the innocent, but I also believe that since God is the giver and sustainer of life, that God (but God alone) has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Of course secularists usually find statements like this offensive, but it nevertheless follows from the initial premises.

In fact, it is precisely God’s goodness that is a terror to us. Since God is good, He is just and He will not allow evil to go unpunished. Yet, we are beings who commit evil and, as such, are subject to the penalties of God’s justice. Unless we can find a way to rid ourselves of the moral debt we’ve accumulated, God’s goodness is a threat to us. And yet, God, in His goodness, without violating His justice, has provided a means by which we can discharge that moral debt – in the atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross -- by placing our trust in that means.

I said that we could not understand everything that God does fully, not that we cannot understand certain things about God, such that God is good and that God will never commit evil or injustice. We also understand that God is truthful, that God does not lie, and that God always keeps His word.

Well, I don’t see where you are getting that from. God doesn’t change His mind and His character is unchanging.

We are not ignorant of God’s true characteristics. We know that God is good and just.

Again, I don’t know where you are getting that from. God’s plan of redemption, according to Scripture, was formulated “before the foundation of the world” and God reveals Himself as a God of redemption starting with the very first pages of Genesis to the very last pages of Revelation.

God Bless,
Kenny

Answerer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kenny:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subject matter you raise is interesting and important, but it is way off the current topic. I will address your points in this post, but I don’t have the time to commit to multiple discussions at once, so, after this, I may not continue to address your points insofar as they are not directly related to the original topic. Thanks in advance for your understanding. In addition, I note that your allusions to the Judeo-Christian conception of God means that you are trying to critique that concept from within by arguing from Christian premises. Consequently, I will also take those premises for granted in this post. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, to be fair, I will post for the last time as well. I hope the topic starter won't mind as we share the same purpose.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that human beings can make moral judgments because we all have an innate moral sense (though one that has been twisted and distorted by the presence of sin) which has been placed within us by God. I agree that we do not have to have infinite wisdom to judge whether a particular action is right or wrong; yet, because we are fallible and have limited knowledge, we also often have to struggle with moral judgments and reevaluate our moral stances as new information becomes available. God, as an omniscient morally perfect being never finds Himself in that position, however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems to me that the above is a popular method used by the theists to lower their own moral capability while enhancing that of their God. However, it is not necessary true, in some cases, the christian God resorted to very violent acts which it doesn't take a person with infinite wisdom to know that those actions are wrong. And its not that God never find himself in a moral dilemma circumstance but rather He did not seem to bother about the moral aspects of His actions at all and at the same time, bask Himself in endless self-righteousness and glory.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is still God Who is the source of that innate moral sense which we posses, it is still God’s nature which defines what is right and what is wrong, it is still God and not humanity Who is the rightful judge of the universe, and it is precisely God’s infinite wisdom and goodness that make God, and not us, qualified for that position. We aren’t qualified to judge God’s actions because a) it is not our rightful place to do so, and b) we don’t have sufficient knowledge to do so. Just because we do not understand something that God does, it does not follow that God doesn’t have a morally sufficient reason for doing it.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If everyone thinks like you, then there would not be any law courts or government left in this world as the church will be in control of everything. According to your reason (a), it seems to imply that you joined christinity out of fear and awe more than respect and joy. As for (b), I think that I had already explained on the above. Some actions like the flood, shattering of tower, mass killings and slavery curses, don't need a person with infinite wisdom to say that its wrong. Furthermore, God's refusal to create morally perfect human(with free will) is another example of His foolishness or uncaring attitude(just pick either one).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t know if you have ever had to help restrain a child so that the doctor could administer a painful medical procedure. I have, for one of my younger brothers, and it is not a pleasant experience. The child has no idea what’s going on or why such pain has to be inflicted, and it may even seem to the child that those performing this procedure, the very ones who the child has trusted for love an protection up to this point, are suddenly acting in a horribly cruel manner. Yet, it is the very ones inflicting pain who are acting in the child’s best interest, though the child is incapable of understanding how this is so. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I think you give a wrong example. Your God don't just inflict pain and suffering on His worshippers or creations. Instead at times, He even resort to mass killings, so how do you expect people to repent if they are all dead? Obviously, you can't. Furthermore, your God had never explained His actions or the reasons for doing them at all, so what do you expect those sinners to learn about?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that God is a God of justice and that He has the right to punish evil. I do not believe that God ever inflicts unjust punishment on the innocent, but I also believe that since God is the giver and sustainer of life, that God (but God alone) has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Of course secularists usually find statements like this offensive, but it nevertheless follows from the initial premises.

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

Well, this argument can work both ways, just think of who allows evil to be there in the first place? Your God, no doubt. But irony, in the end, He seem to regret His own previous actions and began cleaning up the mess by killing lives to make up for His previous mistakes. And now, you are trying to justify His actions even though they are damn morally wrong. By the way, if your God is fair, why do He make some of his people to be born as beggers while a few as princes?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, it is precisely God’s goodness that is a terror to us. Since God is good, He is just and He will not allow evil to go unpunished. Yet, we are beings who commit evil and, as such, are subject to the penalties of God’s justice. Unless we can find a way to rid ourselves of the moral debt we’ve accumulated, God’s goodness is a threat to us. And yet, God, in His goodness, without violating His justice, has provided a means by which we can discharge that moral debt – in the atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross -- by placing our trust in that means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you can lessen your preaching a little. Nevertheless, if your God is good or wise, He should not have created morally-flawed humans in the first place( which ended up doing more works) or send Jesus to Earth with Adam and Eve at the same time, wouldn't that be much better? But the problem is, he didn't, instead He waited for several centuries before sending His own son to Earth. What a hypocrite He is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said that we could not understand everything that God does fully, not that we cannot understand certain things about God, such that God is good and that God will never commit evil or injustice. We also understand that God is truthful, that God does not lie, and that God always keeps His word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't feel that anyone could claim that he or she could understand certain things about a person perfectly without looking at his entire characteristics. To put it in other way, if the theists just look at one of God's characteristics(lets assume kindness or honesty) and take it for granted, most of them will just stop understanding their God further. But for what I know, your God may have another characteristics like being inconsistent or temperamental and if this is true, then your assumption of God being kind, truthful and wise will not hold anymore. And since you theists always claim that humans can't have a complete understanding of God, there is some possibility that things will turn out not to their expectations(theists).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I don’t see where you are getting that from. God doesn’t change His mind and His character is unchanging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, thats you assumption as you never understand fully about God's characteristics. And in addition, there are several examples in the old testatment that shows His inconsistent attitudes in dealing with His chosen ones(jews), well, I think you know about this.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not ignorant of God’s true characteristics. We know that God is good and just.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well again, you just look at half of His face and assume the rest of it. There is no such things as independent characteristics.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I don’t know where you are getting that from. God’s plan of redemption, according to Scripture, was formulated “before the foundation of the world” and God reveals Himself as a God of redemption starting with the very first pages of Genesis to the very last pages of Revelation.

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

According to historical facts, Jesus only come about 0 B.C. which was no special date to me. It seems to be rather foolish and unfair to send Jesus only after thousands of years had passed(after the fall of Adam and Eve). Furthermore, your God appears to be intenting on creating a sinful world, if not, why do He have to formulate any redemption plans? Seem crap to me, what do He take us for? Some kind of toys?

braces_for_impact

In response to all these lengthy posts I'll say something very short about this fascinating subject.

The mental contortions some people will go through in an attempt to make sense out of an incoherent premise never fails to amaze me. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: braces_for_impact ]</p>

Answerer

Are you trying to be sarcastic?

Kenny

If the premise is, in fact, incoherent, which is what the debate is about.

Xixax

Ok, you can't MAKE a decision without time elapsing. There must be either a time where there was no decision, or the being must be outside of the confines of time, which makes the term decision meaningless. Which was sort of my original point.

I totally disagree. Unless you couple infinite wisdom with infinite knowledge of all possible outcomes of those actions ( again, a word that infers a passing of time ).


Meaningful in what way? You're again applying terms that require the passing of time to something for which there could have been no passing of time. To want is a change of state even. Wants, choosing, being, all three have a component of time that can't be ignored without making them nonsensical.

Because you say so?


You cannot make a decision or a choice into a logical priority. It doesn't fit, at all. The process of making a choice or decision requires the passing of time. Having foreknowledge makes absolutely no sense outside of the concept of time either. It's a pointless term, as there is no fore or post division of time.


No difficulties? Except that the entire theology of Christianity rests upon the idea of reserved judgement, forgiveness, and asking God to change circumstances ( as it says in Scripture, to move him ), when in order for him to have the attribute of omniscience he cannot do so.

The mental gymnastics you must go through to reconcile theology with reason is why eventually most fall back on him being "Unknowable". It would save you and all others a lot of energy just stating that in the first place and not even bothering to try to make reality and theology converge.

galiel

Trying?

Kenny

Xixax,

Why? If a choice or a decision is merely the actualization of a state of affairs through an act of volition (at least, that's a definition which seems pretty close to capturing the essence of what a decision is to me), then what is there about this that necessitates some sort of temporal element? If you assert that there must be some sort of temporal separation between one’s knowledge of one’s options and one’s choosing in accordance with them, how long does this temporal separation need to be – a nanosecond, a plank time, why not zero?

Again, I see no necessary connection between the notion of an action and the passing of time since an action is merely a cause resulting in the actualization of a state of affairs. Again, how much temporal separation must there be between a cause and its effect for that causal event to qualify as an action? Is there a logical contradiction in saying that the temporal separation is zero?

To want is desire that some end be brought about prior, in some sense, to its coming about. I see no reason why the priority involved has to be temporal, however, and why it could not be strictly logical. Again, what’s the logically necessary duration between wanting something and seeing its fulfillment?

Because no one has demonstrated any sort of logical contradiction inherent in this idea. I could just as easily make the same comment with respect to your insistence that choice must involve temporal duration.

How does it not fit? Why does making a decision require the passing of time? How much passing time is required?

The prefix fore just means prior in some sense. I do not see why this sense can only be taken temporally.

The fact that God’s actions originate outside the context of space-time does not mean that their effects cannot be manifested within space-time, nor does it mean that there can be no sort of causal relationship between God’s actions and actions which occur within the context of space-time. As I stated earlier, God conditions His choices in accordance with His natural knowledge. Thus, if God knew that I was going to pray a prayer for a certain outcome, for instance, then God took that prayer into consideration in making His decision whether or not to actualize that outcome. Thus, there is a casual relationship, via God’s natural knowledge, between my prayer and God’s decision whether or not to bring about that outcome, without the requirement, from the divine perspective, of any temporal duration

God Bless,
Kenny

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Xixax

Kenny,

Each word you continue to use as a replacement for another still has an infered passing of time. "Cause" is one example.

We will just continue to talk at each other instead of with if we go back and forth on it, so if you don't mind I'll just ask:

Please explain how a decision can be made without a passing of time, as logical priorities. Explain the process of making a decision outside of time, how does one come about.

Amos

Human thoughts require opposites because they are extrapolated from omniscience.

For example, love and hate are extractions of Love (agape), eternal/temporal are extractions from infinity in that infinity has no beginning and no end while eternity has a beginning but no end and temporal has both a beginning and an end.

Free and determined exist only because our dual mode of existence. If we are of "one mind" we cannot be free nor determined but only "be" as we "are."

So God has no opposite in and of itself but the opposites exist only because of our incompletenes in God.

The "Word is God" describes the essence of existence that has entered the imagination in that first the "Word was with" and later became "God." So the essence perceived becomes the existence later and existence "is" and therefore "is God."