Why did God create me?

[乳头的早餐谷物]

God created the world. The universe as we know it was created by God.

Wait, I understand it now. The gist of this post is that, since God created the world and knew the future, he effectively caused everything, even if he did not do it directly.

Yes, God did know exactly what future he was setting in motion when he created the universe. A world with no natural disasters or accidents at all couldn't possibly happen, due to the erroneous nature of human beings. Nor could a world with any more destruction be sustained for very much longer. Again, this world is the only option for a planet inhabitable by God's people that would have lasted this long. Due to the climate of this world (which still suits us very well) tornadoes, hurricans, and tsunamis *occur* naturally. Viruses change and spread across nations and are continuously snuffed out by humans. (Smallpox, as well as a dozen other deadly viruses for which vaccinations exist.)

Why couldn't an omnipotent being create a world with no natural disasters? I don't think God is meant to be bound by the laws of science. Miracles are supposed to occur and they occur outside the realm of what's physically possible.

[Atilla]

and I refused to turn it back on despite the basket of kittens which I love unconditionally begging me to do so and making offerings of tuna on my altar

No, no, no. For the analogy to work, the entire human race has to be light-turning-off robots, with a propensity for turning lights off, and the optional Turn-A-Light-Back-On package preinstalled.

No, no, the robot is the people who are destined to go to hell for their unrepentant light-disabling, whereas the kittens are the people who will accept God. Furthermore the basket represents the bathtub's repressed homosexuality, and the water is a metaphor for the inhumanity of man to man, as we discussed in last week's class.

Anyway, the point is the analogy doesn't work, and kittens are cute.

There are also thousands of people alive right now who believe they've seen Ganesha - an entity which your religion claims does not exist - appear and do miracles and all that stuff.

I've just gone to Google that, and I can't find a single story, blog, anecdote, or otherwise of anyone who has ever indicated they saw Ganesha in person.

The only Zeus sighting I found, another deity I thought you might call me on, was a group of people who took pictures of a really big sea turtle. (Oh yeah, and some experiments codenamed after Greek gods and stuff.)

This is possibly because you do not speak Indian, or at least I assume you don't. Still, Ganesh may not have been the best example - although I did find this story about statues of Ganesh drinking milk, and Ganesh-shaped flowers magically healing people.

Regardless, what I was saying here is that many many people claim to have witnessed X, and it is not possible that all these people are right. This page, for example, makes a similar argument to yours but in favour of Islam - the Koran is historically accurate, over a thousand people claim to have seen Muhammad create water to slake their thirst, etc. There are also more recent happens which were experienced by thousands of people, such as the Penis Panic in Nigeria, or the thousands of people who believed Earth was being invaded by aliens after a radio broadcast of War of the Worlds, and Breatharianism. There was also that story in the news a couple of weeks back, about a thief who allegedly turned into a goat. I think it's fairly clear that claims of this type are not necessarily true, even when there are many people who claim to have witnessed them, and even if some of those people are historians.

But why should we believe in a guy who did equally miraculous things? Because, quite simply, Jesus was the most believable. I reiterate, he performed miracles in the middle of crowds. Nobody does that. I mean, magicians have a stage or some kind of area where nobody can see behind them: but the townspeople had a nice little 360˚ view of Christ while he performed his good works. Remember that time he healed the bleeding woman? That was in a crowd packed tight enough that about thirty people were touching him all at once. That doesn't happen.

On the page linked above, there is a story about Muhammad performing a miracle with a thousand and four onlookers. I think it's fallacious to say that there are no accounts of miracles being performed with large numbers of onlookers save for those about Jesus.

Please explain why I should believe the second-hand word of people who have been dead for two thousand years over first-hand accounts from the present day.

I have no idea why you would do that. Except for two reasons: one, chronological snobbery is a logical fallacy.

It's not chronological snobbery but rather a discrepancy between sources. We have first-hand accounts of things which occur today, but accounts of Jesus' time are second-hand at best. They have also been translated through several languages before reaching English, which has the potential to introduce further inaccuracy. In many cases it is also easier to verify or debunk claims which occur in the present time because we can investigate circumstances surrounding the matter in greater detail.

It would be the best thing on earth if everyone chose good. I would love it. God would love it. And no, it isn't a breach of free will. You just used the verb "choose," which is the one I've been trying to explain all along.

I don't understand your position here. If it would be ideal for everyone to choose good, and this doesn't impinge on free will, why didn't God create a universe like that? That's the whole problem.

If an omnipotent, omniscient knows the results of all his actions before he does them, and can do any action, due to his omnipotency, then he can create any future he wishes now, by choosing the correct actions in the past. Therefore, if something happens in the future that is not intended by this being, it is either not omniscient because he didn't know it would happen, or not omnipotent because he couldn't choose the correct actions earlier to reach his desired future.

No. God desired a perfect future, but he allowed humans to make actions that would change that future.

See above. "Allowed." That's one of the weird things about God that I'm still trying to understand, and trying to explain. Is God sustaining the world every moment? I believe so. Is God maintaining the laws of physics, chemistry, biology? Gravity? Magnetic attraction? I believe so. Is God causing everything to happen, like tipping that poor kid's tray out of his hands, and tripping up that girl on the sidewalk, and shoving that car so it will fishtail into the guardrail? NO. God has created a world: and now he allows it to move along its course, even though he can see exactly what its future will lead to.

Why would God make everything happen, constantly?

I don't think that's what lord_day was saying. He's saying that, for example, if God knocks the first domino over, He knows it will cause a chain of events that will result in all the dominoes being knocked over (without God needing to intervene further). Thus, if it were not God's intent that all the dominoes fall, why would He have hit the first one?

That's why God could never have created the universe so that we would have chosen everything correctly. With the freedom to choose, and a lack of human perfection, all paths lead to sin. It's similar to the rock conundrum: humans without sin is meaningless (e.g. water without wetness) because sin is a part of our nature: we cannot become apart from it until we accept he who is the opposite of sin.

Isn't that self contradictory? First you said that humans couldn't exist without sin, and that humanity was meaningless without sin. Then, in the last sentence, you said that we can be apart from sin, if we accept God. Wouldn't that imply that acceptance of God makes you inhuman and your existence meaningless, or something? Can you clarify what you meant here?

Would you worship a law? Scientists believe that the fundamental laws of physics are transcendent, but you don't see them worshiping them. Regardless of what laws he must obey God can still be the highest being, and still very much deserving of our worship.

I don't worship anything, so I'm not really the right person to ask. However, many religious types throughout history have placed great value on a "higher law" or some transcendent principle as well as/instead of a deity. There are also beliefs which posit that any God which exists is not a being or consciousness in the sense that we understand them; so yes, I think that some people would place their veneration in a law or similar principle. Not everyone, but some, certainly.

This comes out to the limits of omnipotence. The presence of evil may be the best way for it to happen within the capabilities of God. If you think that his power transcends logic and all other factors (as many seem to believe) then there is no reason for evil to exist. But this is not necessarily the case, many religions disagree with this. The validity of this argument depends on the extent of God's omnipotence, which is not axiomatic.

It's true that the problem can be escaped by limiting God's omnipotence in certain ways. You could also say that evil exists because God just doesn't care (or actually approves of it). These are completely valid ways of avoiding the problem and if you believe them, kudos to you for not running into this particular snarl... though I do believe they raise other issues, such as whether it's appropriate to worship a being who couldn't care less about you.

1. Evil was a part of God and has always existed.
2. Evil was brought into being as a consequence of God creating the universe and so on.
3. Evil just magically appeared out of nowhere. Perhaps it snuck in from the universe next door while God wasn't looking.

Number 1 is consistent with a number of non-christian and some less mainstream christian views. To my knowledge this is a component of some Jewish mysticism.
Number 2 seems to be the most consistent belief with the kind of mainstream christianity that you seem to refer to. This is also the core belief of many less mainstream Christian and neo/pagan groups.
Number 3 is unlikely but possible if God is less than omnipotent.

Right, I agree. This is why I'm somewhat surprised that we have a Christian saying that God did not cause evil to exist - I'd have expected 2 to be the preferred option for most Christians. Their god is supposed to omnipotent, so 3 seems unlikely... which leaves the assertion that evil is a part of God, and since God is generally held as pure good I'm not sure that many Christians would be comfortable with that. Speaking of which...

It is inevitable that God introduced evil to the world. And that is not benevolent.

Well, if you're saying that God isn't (universally) benevolent, that solves the problem of why evil exists. I was working on the assumption that God was nothing but liquid benevolence, if you will, because that is what many (most?) Christians believe.

if we assume the statement that only God existed in the beginning is true...

Why would we assume that? Good morality also existed in the beginning, for one thing. And I think that that makes it obvious that bad morality also existed in the beginning. Evil was either created or always existed. If it was created, it was created either by God or by Satan. If it was created by Satan, then was that a subversion of God's plan? But if God planned for it, then that means that God intended it, and thus introduced it to humanity. If evil always existed, then it must have come into the physical universe by either God or Satan. Same thing for that side; either God introduced evil to civilization, or (God is not omnipotent because His plans were subverted by Satan's interference or) God introduced evil to the world. More than those three options there.

As far as I'm aware, that is the most common Christian doctrine: that in the beginning, there was God, who went about creating everything else. Good is typically held to be either a part of God, or a characteristic which God has, rather than a separate entity. Also, see my previous statement about it being odd for morality to have an independent existence. I don't see how evil or good could exist by themselves. It seems like saying that there was essence of pure chair-ness floating around before the universe was created, and God decided to introduce it so we'd have something to sit on.

Furthermore, Satan was originally an angel. If Satan created evil that's still a consequence of God's actions, just a step removed, unless you're a believer in the "anti-God" theory of Satan.

And here's a Bible passage which seems to say that Christ/God existed before everything and created everything, physical or otherwise:

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Yes, God did know exactly what future he was setting in motion when he created the universe. A world with no natural disasters or accidents at all couldn't possibly happen, due to the erroneous nature of human beings. Nor could a world with any more destruction be sustained for very much longer. Again, this world is the only option for a planet inhabitable by God's people that would have lasted this long. Due to the climate of this world (which still suits us very well) tornadoes, hurricans, and tsunamis *occur* naturally. Viruses change and spread across nations and are continuously snuffed out by humans. (Smallpox, as well as a dozen other deadly viruses for which vaccinations exist.)

...how does the "erroneous nature of human beings" cause earthquakes? Oh, and tsunamis occur due to tectonic movements, rather than climate.

Anyway, God could have created the universe in such a way that the laws of physics did not result in hurricanes. Or He could have made humans able to survive in space, thus eliminating the problem of climate altogether. Or written the laws of the universe so that people can use magic to heal or even resurrect people who died from accident, as is the case in some fictional universes. He is supposed to be omnipotent, after all. What prevented God from doing something like that?

This is exactly what I said. I argued only that we may not be able to interpret some things. You'll note that I said that this is never an excuse to not inquire.

...I know. I was agreeing with you. I know it's rare in the debate forum, but...

still believe the argument that free agency is not possible because it would restrict the omnipotence/omniscience to be invalid. Could anyone respond to the possibility that God intends for us to make our own choices? that he is intentionally not forcing our hands?

I don't disagree with that, but I must say that I don't find free will all that useful or meaningful as a concept. Even if you argue in favour of free will, you have to admit that people generally make the choices they do for a reason - acting in a completely random manner would be insanity. Presumably if you were well-acquainted enough with someone and knew what type of reasoned, or their behviour in the past, you could determine what their decision would be in a given situation - and in fact humans try to make such predictions all the time, with moderate success. This ability to predict decisions looks quite like a macro view of determinism (as opposed to the "this molecule in the brain does this, which makes this one do that..." view), which raises the question of exactly how free will can be if people still act according to reason, and if there is a meaningful distinction to be made.

[SlappyMcGee]

God created the world. The universe as we know it was created by God.

Wait, I understand it now. The gist of this post is that, since God created the world and knew the future, he effectively caused everything, even if he did not do it directly.

Yes, God did know exactly what future he was setting in motion when he created the universe. A world with no natural disasters or accidents at all couldn't possibly happen, due to the erroneous nature of human beings. Nor could a world with any more destruction be sustained for very much longer. Again, this world is the only option for a planet inhabitable by God's people that would have lasted this long. Due to the climate of this world (which still suits us very well) tornadoes, hurricans, and tsunamis *occur* naturally. Viruses change and spread across nations and are continuously snuffed out by humans. (Smallpox, as well as a dozen other deadly viruses for which vaccinations exist.)

The problem I have here is that the God you're describing seems to adhere to the laws of science as we know them, and I think that there's some contradiction there. Is that what you're getting at?

The problem with the latter is that God cannot truly be both omnipotent (that is to say, entirely aware of the future), the creator (That is to say, that who decides the future), AND man have free-will (That is to say, other deciders of the future.)

The problem here is that you assume that by creating a different past, God could have changed the futures of mankind, whether they liked it or not. I agree that by changing factors he could have decided how plants grew, how animals behaved, how mountain ranges formed, and so on and so forth.
Humans are dynamic, powerful, more intelligent than all other life on earth, and often make the same decision regardless of physical factors around them. Whether God had created a different past would only affect the planet, not the people on it. We humans would still be free to make our own choices, and we would still act the same way.

How did God create Mankind? Did he not decide what made up humanity? I am not saying that God could have altered our futures by changing the past, but rather, by changing us.

[yungerkid]

Well, if you're saying that God isn't (universally) benevolent, that solves the problem of why evil exists. I was working on the assumption that God was nothing but liquid benevolence, if you will, because that is what many (most?) Christians believe.

That is what I am saying. God is responsible for the introduction of evil to all the world. Thus He must not be completely benevolent. Thus the God of the Bible cannot exist. That was my argument.

The problem here is that you assume that by creating a different past, God could have changed the futures of mankind, whether they liked it or not.

He would have. If you had grown up on the streets, you would not be here debating with us right now. You can't ignore it, surroundings at least strongly affect us. And it's not much of a jump...

Humans are dynamic, powerful, more intelligent than all other life on earth, and often make the same decision regardless of physical factors around them.

Dynamic? Yes, we change. We change based on what we see, and how we react to it. But our decisions are made on a number of factors. You don't seem to understand here that free will requires randomness or unpredictability. When a person makes a decision solely on a list of knowable factors, they are not making a free decision. They are making a decision based on that list. Humans often make the same decision regardless of their surroundings because that is what their personality dictates them to do. But they still are dictated by their personality, which is in turn dictated entirely by other factors. God is at the head of it all, since we are human.

[otters]

I did find this story about statues of Ganesh drinking milk

Seeking to explain the phenomenon, scientists from India's Ministry of Science and Technology travelled to a temple in New Delhi and made an offering of milk containing a food colouring. As the level of liquid in the spoon dropped, it became obvious that after the milk disappeared from the spoon, it coated the statue beneath where the spoon was placed. With this result, the scientists offered capillary action as an explanation; the surface tension of the milk was pulling the liquid up and out of the spoon, before gravity caused it to run down the front of the statue.

and Ganesh-shaped flowers magically healing people.

That's a story about a man who bought a flower, and around the time it started becoming elephant-shaped his back stopped hurting, which is slightly contrary to the accounts of Jesus healing lepers in the city.

It's not chronological snobbery but rather a discrepancy between sources. We have first-hand accounts of things which occur today, but accounts of Jesus' time are second-hand at best. They have also been translated through several languages before reaching English, which has the potential to introduce further inaccuracy. In many cases it is also easier to verify or debunk claims which occur in the present time because we can investigate circumstances surrounding the matter in greater detail.

I agree that the books of the New Testament have been 1. copied and 2. translated, but I don't understand how that throws the content into doubt. They were copied, not, you know, just based on each other vaguely as time went on, and translation doesn't at all change the meaning of the text (although it could change adjectives, etc.) If by "further inaccuracy" you mean grammatical preferences that are completely meaningless in the overall picture, then certainly, it has that potential.

Finally, it is indeed easier to debunk claims that happened in the present day.

...linked above, there is a story about Muhammad performing a miracle with a thousand and four onlookers. I think it's fallacious to say that there are no accounts of miracles being performed with large numbers of onlookers save for those about Jesus.

Regardless, what I was saying here is that many many people claim to have witnessed X, and it is not possible that all these people are right. This page, for example, makes a similar argument to yours but in favour of Islam - the Koran is historically accurate, over a thousand people claim to have seen Muhammad create water to slake their thirst, etc. There are also more recent happens which were experienced by thousands of people, such as the Penis Panic in Nigeria, or the thousands of people who believed Earth was being invaded by aliens after a radio broadcast of War of the Worlds, and Breatharianism. There was also that story in the news a couple of weeks back, about a thief who allegedly turned into a goat. I think it's fairly clear that claims of this type are not necessarily true, even when there are many people who claim to have witnessed them, and even if some of those people are historians.

I agree. An important factor in this respect, however, is the fact that cultures that didn't have cameras, camcorders, or Photoshop relied rather more seriously on written accounts to record history.

NT
- Historically accurate: Check
- Believable: Depends
- Seen by many people: Check

Koran
- Historically accurate: Not really
- Believable: Depends
- Seen by many people: Check

Penis Panic
- Believable: Not really
- Seen by many people: Check
- Relates to this: Not really

War of the Worlds broadcast
- ...really?

Breatharianism
- Historically accurate: Facts shown are against it
- Believable: Sorta
- Seen by many people: No

You have to understand the difference between the Bible and all those documents etc. you mentioned above: the Bible is historically accurate, plus everyone saw it, plus the Bible has not been quickly disproven like some of those up there.

Isn't that self contradictory? First you said that humans couldn't exist without sin, and that humanity was meaningless without sin.

Sin is a part of human nature, which is destroyed when the new nature (Jesus) enters.

Anyway, God could have created the universe in such a way that the laws of physics did not result in hurricanes. Or He could have made humans able to survive in space, thus eliminating the problem of climate altogether. Or written the laws of the universe so that people can use magic to heal or even resurrect people who died from accident, as is the case in some fictional universes. He is supposed to be omnipotent, after all. What prevented God from doing something like that?

In other words, are you asking why God did not make a perfect environment that allowed humans to choose good at all times with no qualms? That would be foolish. For free will to work, there not only has to be an option to choose evil, there has to be a very tempting reason to choose evil (which is easy on our planet.)

With a perfect, or at least all-accommodating universe, there would be either no doubt of God's existence (which would not be a good thing, objectively, since God wants us all to choose him instead of being forced indirectly into it, as I've said numerous times).

Just for a couple of your examples, if we were able to survive in space, there would be no reason for any humans to stay together: we would each have infinite space for property, and thus almost no pandemics would happen, no arguments would occur, and no natural disasters would destroy us (with the possible exception of a star eating someone who had bad steering).

Magical healing and resurrecting ability would effectively allow people to live forever, something else God would not allow [link].

which raises the question of exactly how free will can be if people still act according to reason, and if there is a meaningful distinction to be made.

There's a huge realm of possibility even for people who act according to reason. Unpredictability is not a thing unheard of.

How did God create Mankind? Did he not decide what made up humanity? I am not saying that God could have altered our futures by changing the past, but rather, by changing us.

Altered our futures to what end? I reiterate, for free will to work, there has to be a reason for choosing both good and evil, and the evil urge has to be just as strong as the good urge (which it often is, or stronger), or else nobody would ever have a reason to choose it without contradicting reason in the first place.

The problem I have here is that the God you're describing seems to adhere to the laws of science as we know them, and I think that there's some contradiction there. Is that what you're getting at?

No, I'm sure God could contradict the laws of science: only that he's reluctant to, since that would required intervening directly in the self-contained, self-operating universe that we know, and intervening directly would disrupt the natural course of life and humanity that exists on earth.

You don't seem to understand here that free will requires randomness or unpredictability

Why?
You know, I went to Penn Station a couple days ago. One of the best sandwiches I've ever had. There were a list of determining factors that I could have chosen from to decide whether I wanted to go there in the first place:
- I was hungry.
- I love Penn Station.

Then there were the factors against my going.
- It would have cost me most of my money.
- I have to bike there and back, which is tiring.

I could have chosen either one, based upon my preference of sandwich-consuming versus my preference of not riding my bike back up a 30˚ hill.

Was I really forced to eat that philly cheesesteak? Damn.

[jean-luc]

Well, if you're saying that God isn't (universally) benevolent, that solves the problem of why evil exists. I was working on the assumption that God was nothing but liquid benevolence, if you will, because that is what many (most?) Christians believe.

That is what I am saying. God is responsible for the introduction of evil to all the world. Thus He must not be completely benevolent. Thus the God of the Bible cannot exist. That was my argument.

I'm so confused... didn't you just support Calvinism on the fact that the bible says so, and everyone that says otherwise is reading the bible improperly? and then you say that the god of the bible cannot exist? Well, this obviously casts the accuracy of the Bible in to doubt.

It's true that the problem can be escaped by limiting God's omnipotence in certain ways. You could also say that evil exists because God just doesn't care (or actually approves of it). These are completely valid ways of avoiding the problem and if you believe them, kudos to you for not running into this particular snarl... though I do believe they raise other issues, such as whether it's appropriate to worship a being who couldn't care less about you.

I prefer to go with "limited power" over "doesn't care." It's a little more cheery.

...I know. I was agreeing with you. I know it's rare in the debate forum, but...

Oh. I totally missed that. Well, that's good then.

I don't disagree with that, but I must say that I don't find free will all that useful or meaningful as a concept. Even if you argue in favour of free will, you have to admit that people generally make the choices they do for a reason - acting in a completely random manner would be insanity. Presumably if you were well-acquainted enough with someone and knew what type of reasoned, or their behviour in the past, you could determine what their decision would be in a given situation - and in fact humans try to make such predictions all the time, with moderate success. This ability to predict decisions looks quite like a macro view of determinism (as opposed to the "this molecule in the brain does this, which makes this one do that..." view), which raises the question of exactly how free will can be if people still act according to reason, and if there is a meaningful distinction to be made.

You raise a very good point. I believe that we are sufficiently unpredictable, though - we don't act in perfect accordance to reason. While it is theoretically possible to completely predict everything that will happen by running some sort of simulation on the molecular level, I'm skeptical that carrying out this kind of computation with any accuracy is within anyone/thing's power. I myself find it unlikely that God's omniscience expands well in to the future - while he may have a great ability to project future events, some things must surely catch Him by surprise.
Nonetheless, I still don't see that this must be the case for free will to occur. Is knowing what will happen and making it happen not different? If God is observing us from the future or simply from a different scheme of time then we can very much be making our own decisions. If you look at the branching theory of time and existence then there are several ways this can be the case.

I agree that the books of the New Testament have been 1. copied and 2. translated, but I don't understand how that throws the content into doubt. They were copied, not, you know, just based on each other vaguely as time went on, and translation doesn't at all change the meaning of the text (although it could change adjectives, etc.) If by "further inaccuracy" you mean grammatical preferences that are completely meaningless in the overall picture, then certainly, it has that potential.

It is now widely known that earlier in the history of Christianity the monks that translated and transcribed the bible would 'interpret' text to make it's meaning more clear. They often did this with the best of intentions, but by doing so they could easily have "interpreted" incorrectly and changed the meaning towards their own beliefs. In some cases it is known that passages were quite intentionally changed to have a new meaning. It is believed that some of Paul's writing as recorded in the New Testament was not written by Paul at all, but was added by transcribing monks (possibly on orders of the Pope) to support the beliefs of the time.

It is true that we now have access to very early Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, but in almost all cases these are not originals and have been transcribed through several steps. Compounding these modifications are the differences in language through time and location, which leave many meanings ambiguous, and ambiguity in the original writing.

In other words, are you asking why God did not make a perfect environment that allowed humans to choose good at all times with no qualms? That would be foolish. For free will to work, there not only has to be an option to choose evil, there has to be a very tempting reason to choose evil (which is easy on our planet.)

Most (?) Anabaptists believe that this was Satan's plan, but that God rejected because it would not bring about spiritual growth as an environment with temptation towards evil would.

There's a huge realm of possibility even for people who act according to reason. Unpredictability is not a thing unheard of.

Agreed! The things that lead to our actions are extremely complex, perhaps even irreducibly complex.

No, I'm sure God could contradict the laws of science: only that he's reluctant to, since that would required intervening directly in the self-contained, self-operating universe that we know, and intervening directly would disrupt the natural course of life and humanity that exists on earth.

Exactly! even if God is omnipotent, he may choose not to interfere in order to let things run through.

[natrues peril]

quite simply
"if god wants to rid the world of evil and can then he (yes god is a he) is just lazy
if god wants to but cant he is omnipotent
if god dosent want to and cant then he's not god"


athiesm winning since year 33

*not quoted exactly

[otters]

quite simply
"if god wants to rid the world of evil and can then he (yes god is a he) is just lazy
if god wants to but cant he is omnipotent
if god dosent want to and cant then he's not god"


athiesm winning since year 33

*not quoted exactly

Thank you for contributing a completely irrelevant and disproven argument from which we have already moved away. I hope the rest of your Debate Forum posts are as stimulating as this one.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Looks like he was trying to quote the Riddle of Epicurus as seen in a motivational poster.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[SlappyMcGee]

Except, that the malevolence as perceived by humanity might not be malevolence at all. Right?

[yungerkid]

Was I really forced to eat that philly cheesesteak? Damn.

The factors that lead to our actions might be complex, but what I'm saying is that they *exist* and thus can be known. The factors leading to every decision are a lot more numerous and a lot lower-level than the ones you posted, but they exist and they all contributed to overall force you to do what you did. If they didn't force you, then from what did your "will" come from? Did it just appear? You could not have randomly created it. Does your supposed free will come from your nature? Well, then, your nature is what determines your actions.

I'm so confused... didn't you just support Calvinism on the fact that the bible says so, and everyone that says otherwise is reading the bible improperly?

Yes. If Calvinism is correct (and indeed it absolutely must be so, from numerous places in the Bible; if Arminianism is correct there are far more and far more serious issues with the faith), then the God of the Bible cannot exist.

I prefer to go with "limited power" over "doesn't care." It's a little more cheery.

Why worship a God at all? And especially a God who doesn't care about evil, or is not able to defeat it? This is bordering on Epicurus' riddle, though. Evil exists because God wants it to. It is thus God's will that evil exist, which means that it is a part of His plan. It could not exist for the greater good, though. Evil is evil, whether it is being used for "greater good" or not; conflict (with an enemy) does not always end in growth. And thus God cannot but be evil by nature, in my reckoning.

we don't act in perfect accordance to reason.

But we do. We have emotions, but those emotions act in accordance with set algorithms that dictate all our nature, and our will. What I'm saying is that emotion does not break with reason. It is simply an act that is not done with a logical goal in mind, but rather with the satisfaction of the algorithm in mind.

While it is theoretically possible to completely predict everything that will happen by running some sort of simulation on the molecular level

Then you admit it. What I am arguing is not that anyone or anything does or even *can* know everything that will happen through pure logic and logic alone (although surely God does), but rather that it is *possible* to perfectly predict everything that will happen, without it having already happened. How could God be surprised if He is omniscient? The only things that God does not know are logically impossible things. Saying that God does not know something (anything) that exists within time (when clearly God transcends time) is absurd.

in almost all cases these are not originals and have been transcribed through several steps.

Really? All it takes is one absolute original. And I'm sure there has to be an original text of at least almost all of the Bible (excluding some of the way earlier OT texts) somewhere out there. I'm not too knowledgeable on these things, and I know that there has been some loss of original meaning, but it can't be total. What a document that would be to lose.

Exactly! even if God is omnipotent, he may choose not to interfere in order to let things run through.

If that were the case, He would be leaving all these potential Christians to their own devices, to fend for their own salvations. It is more reasonable that God does not interfere with earthly matters except when He is on divine business, such as forcing humans to His side. There's no reason that I can see yet that tells me that that system isn't possible. It seems more likely to me than the idea that God would just abandon the earth to evil for the sake of His will, or to let His believers "grow on their own". And what in the world do you mean by, "even if God is omnipotent"? Arminianism has little possible support in the Bible, but surely the notion that God has limited power has absolutely no support at all.

Unpredictability is not a thing unheard of.

Oh? Unpredictability means that the thing is unknowable. Which means that God cannot know something that is unpredictable. No, unpredictability cannot exist.

[lord_day]

While it is theoretically possible to completely predict everything that will happen by running some sort of simulation on the molecular level, I'm skeptical that carrying out this kind of computation with any accuracy is within anyone/thing's power.

There are a few scientific theories that explain why would could never build a machine such as the one you have described, even if all the required computational power was available. We can only assign probabilities to what paths a particle will take, rather than a definite location that it will be.

I myself find it unlikely that God's omniscience expands well in to the future - while he may have a great ability to project future events, some things must surely catch Him by surprise.

Surely a being is not omniscient if an event can catch it by surprise? To be omniscient doesn't mean to know a lot. It means to know everything.

[Ampersand]

I'm pretty sure that everybody already knows that we've discussed these topics several times. You telling us that we've debated before doesn't really help anything. With that in mind, shut the hell up.

*Yawn* No need. I put in my two cents, you think you're too good to respond, despite being patently false. Like I said, I'll talk to you guys in 20 pages once you've given up with a "FUCK YOU ALL I'M GOING HOME YOU THREE ARE BEING MEEEEEEEEEN TO ME ;_;" post.

[SlappyMcGee]

I'm pretty sure that everybody already knows that we've discussed these topics several times. You telling us that we've debated before doesn't really help anything. With that in mind, shut the hell up.

*Yawn* No need. I put in my two cents, you think you're too good to respond, despite being patently false. Like I said, I'll talk to you guys in 20 pages once you've given up with a "FUCK YOU ALL I'M GOING HOME YOU THREE ARE BEING MEEEEEEEEEN TO ME ;_;" post.

Blizz, you know I love you, right? You know you're the sweetsauce on my apple pancakes, right?

Stop being a ridiculous troll. We are having a debate about creation and free will and a number of other ins and outs. This debate does not necessarily divide theists and atheists, even though posts you're making seem to paint Christians like that dumb cousin we'd all like to forget. As such, in order to actually have this philosophical discussion to the best of our abilities, we have to embrace that there is no conclusion here and that we are only speculating to the best of our knowledge. As ridiculous as I think much of Christianity, this is an aspect of it that I do not believe disproves it but rather enhances it for it gives us an oppurtunity to discuss determinism and the like, which does not limit it to a religious thing but rather an observance of time as a whole.

What you did? You tried to be satirical extremely poorly, which is usually fine and expected in debate. But instead of dropping it, you're acting proud, as if you already have the answers to this difficult life question, or as if you are more knowledgeable on the subject than one of the fellow debators.

Debates in order to function demand that you do not believe that the other party knows more than you nor that you are the victor before they start. Especially in a philosophical debate like this one, where there is no definite answer. Surely you can agree that even if we're often on the tangent of "THIS IS WHY GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE" that, for the most part, free-will is a confusing thing that it might help to dissect.

And I'm glad Ampersand is here, I really am. I'm glad that it is Ampersand here and not Kablizzy, because the ridiculous trollery that you've been passing off as posts would tarnish a man most people around here respect.

Please stop.

Love,
SlappyMcGee.

Incluye: My question for you is, why did God not create (initially, pre-mankind), a world completely free of the Natural Disasters we've discussed? He doesn't obey science, so he could have given us a perfect world and then let the free-will battle be duked out there.

[Tanner]

I agree with SlappyMcGee.

[AF]

I agree with SlappyMcGee.

[yungerkid]

Surely a being is not omniscient if an event can catch it by surprise? To be omniscient doesn't mean to know a lot. It means to know everything.

Read the context. I already stated that in my refutation of the same quote, dangit.

We can only assign probabilities to what paths a particle will take, rather than a definite location that it will be.

As of right now. Surely, though, that motion must be due to the buffeting of some smaller particles. It must have some explanation. It'll be like Brownian motion.

[Ampersand]

For the 30 minutes or so I still spend here a day, that's all I've got in me anymore. So fair enough, I suppose apologies are in order.

I've stopped writing those long, scathingly amazing tower posts because they get ignored. I now keep it short, sweet, and in everyone's face so they get the fucking point. I used to spend hours writing up extremely well-researched and well thought-out diatribe only to have it all entirely skipped over or "tl;dr"ed at. What kind of glutton for punishment would I be if I kept on doing it? You see it in this very thread, on this very page. It happens in every debate, like clockwork.

So yeah, I can be a pompous fuckwit. But you guys know this about me. In either case, I'm not one to post an *even more* satirical youtube video to rant about someone calling me out, so consider it dropped. Many apologies to everyone involved.

[Atilla]

I agree that the books of the New Testament have been 1. copied and 2. translated, but I don't understand how that throws the content into doubt. They were copied, not, you know, just based on each other vaguely as time went on, and translation doesn't at all change the meaning of the text (although it could change adjectives, etc.) If by "further inaccuracy" you mean grammatical preferences that are completely meaningless in the overall picture, then certainly, it has that potential.

You seriously don't see how that could alter the meaning? Firstly, copying something, then copying the copy, then copying that copy, means that if any of the copies contains an error - for example, an accidental spelling error - that error will then propagate through every following copy, and over time, it's possible that final edition has accumulated a significant number of errors this way.

Secondly, as jean-luc has mentioned, the passages have often been interpreted rather than copied word for word, which obviously raises the possibility of inaccuracies since that interpretation may change the meaning slightly. Indeed, in many cases it's not even possible to translate word-for-word and maintain the exact same meaning in many cases. A good example of this in modern times is that English has a huge vocabulary in which there may be many words with subtly different shades of meaning to describe the same action, and these often translate poorly to other languages - for example, pace, strut, swagger, saunter, shuffle, and sidle might all be translated as "walk" in a language with a more limited vocabulary, which obviously loses a lot of meaning. Plus, even if an exact translation is possible, it may be extremely difficult to read in English. This again forces the translator to paraphrase and write what they think is the intended meaning, rather than the direct words of the original. There is also the issue of cultural context - the exact meaning and connotations of words may differ over time, depending on the culture in which they are used, and even by class, gender or region within the same culture. Furthermore, symbolism, idioms and metaphors in one language or culture may not be present or may have a different meaning in others, again forcing the translator to take a stab at interpreting it.

I agree. An important factor in this respect, however, is the fact that cultures that didn't have cameras, camcorders, or Photoshop relied rather more seriously on written accounts to record history.

NT
- Historically accurate: Check
- Believable: Depends
- Seen by many people: Check

Koran
- Historically accurate: Not really
- Believable: Depends
- Seen by many people: Check

...

You have to understand the difference between the Bible and all those documents etc. you mentioned above: the Bible is historically accurate, plus everyone saw it, plus the Bible has not been quickly disproven like some of those up there.

The difference between the Bible and these other documents is that you arbitrarily state that the Bible is accurate, while dismissing the Koran and such as inaccurate with no reason given.

In any event, your earlier statement was that accounts of Jesus' miracles must be reliable because a whole bunch of people saw them; my point is that a whole bunch of people have claimed to see things which are either clearly false or contradict the Bible, so that doesn't really give much support for its accuracy. Also worth noting that accounts of how many people say Jesus do stuff tend to come from the Bible, which is obviously problematic if you don't believe it is (entirely) accurate.

Furthermore, even if you accept that the Bible is historically accurate, that doesn't necessarily mean that its claims about miracles and divinity are true. For example, Neil Gaiman's American Gods is accurate with regard to modern history and geography, and it's a fantasy novel. It's quite possible to get the general history right, and get a lot of other things wrong.

Sin is a part of human nature, which is destroyed when the new nature (Jesus) enters.

So if you're going to destroy human nature anyway, why not just have people start out that way and save the trouble?

In other words, are you asking why God did not make a perfect environment that allowed humans to choose good at all times with no qualms? That would be foolish. For free will to work, there not only has to be an option to choose evil, there has to be a very tempting reason to choose evil (which is easy on our planet.)

How do you define how tempting something has to be before it's tempting enough to classify a choice as free will?

In any event, I don't think what you're describing here is free will. Free will is the ability to choose, not a condition where all choices are equally desirable or likely or any such. If one option is manifestly better than the others, and you choose that option, it's still a choice - it just means that you have sound judgment.

With a perfect, or at least all-accommodating universe, there would be either no doubt of God's existence (which would not be a good thing, objectively, since God wants us all to choose him instead of being forced indirectly into it, as I've said numerous times).

Not necessarily. It would just mean people weren't dying of tornadoes all the time. I never get tornadoes where I live, but I don't automatically assume that means my house is favoured of God.

Just for a couple of your examples, if we were able to survive in space, there would be no reason for any humans to stay together: we would each have infinite space for property, and thus almost no pandemics would happen, no arguments would occur, and no natural disasters would destroy us (with the possible exception of a star eating someone who had bad steering).

And lack of destruction and the hands of natural disasters would be a problem why? Remember, the question here is why God didn't created a world where humans did not need to suffer from disasters. Your response appears to be "But that would mean humans would not suffer to disasters!" Also, humans would stay together because we're social and like to hang out.

Magical healing and resurrecting ability would effectively allow people to live forever, something else God would not allow [link].

Magical healing and resurrection don't necessarily equate to immortality - for example, you might only be able to resurrect people who die from accidents and such rather than old age, which is how it works in D&D. And Jesus certainly doesn't seem to have had any problem with magically curing lepers and making blind people see.

which raises the question of exactly how free will can be if people still act according to reason, and if there is a meaningful distinction to be made.

There's a huge realm of possibility even for people who act according to reason. Unpredictability is not a thing unheard of.

That's because our understanding of people's motivations is incomplete. If we were more knowledgeable, we would expect the predictions to become more and more accurate, which is why it starts to look increasingly like determinism again once you posit an all-knowing God. Perhaps not with regard to every decision, or perhaps there is an upper limit, but certainly the actions which matter most are often predictable.

How did God create Mankind? Did he not decide what made up humanity? I am not saying that God could have altered our futures by changing the past, but rather, by changing us.

Altered our futures to what end? I reiterate, for free will to work, there has to be a reason for choosing both good and evil, and the evil urge has to be just as strong as the good urge (which it often is, or stronger), or else nobody would ever have a reason to choose it without contradicting reason in the first place.

If the urge to take each side were equally strong, there would be no reason to choose either over the other and people would just pick one at random. If someone is consistently more evil than good, or more good than evil, wouldn't that imply that their desire to perform one is stronger than the other, and thus they don't have free will? This requirement also starts to look increasingly silly if you apply it to other "choices" - if you picked up the salt and vinegar chips rather than the original because you like salt and vinegar more, does that mean the urge to choose each flavour wasn't equal and thus it wasn't a real choice?

[Fraxtil]

For the 30 minutes or so I still spend here a day, that's all I've got in me anymore. So fair enough, I suppose apologies are in order.

I've stopped writing those long, scathingly amazing tower posts because they get ignored. I now keep it short, sweet, and in everyone's face so they get the fucking point. I used to spend hours writing up extremely well-researched and well thought-out diatribe only to have it all entirely skipped over or "tl;dr"ed at. What kind of glutton for punishment would I be if I kept on doing it? You see it in this very thread, on this very page. It happens in every debate, like clockwork.

So yeah, I can be a pompous fuckwit. But you guys know this about me. In either case, I'm not one to post an *even more* satirical youtube video to rant about someone calling me out, so consider it dropped. Many apologies to everyone involved.

I always used to read your tl;dr posts, Kablizzy! They were so informative and insightful. You need to be less worried about those with short attention spans and more concerned with the people who genuinely care about what you have to say. If you have a long post to write, write it for the sake of those who will take the time to read through it. :)

[jean-luc]

For the 30 minutes or so I still spend here a day, that's all I've got in me anymore. So fair enough, I suppose apologies are in order.

I've stopped writing those long, scathingly amazing tower posts because they get ignored. I now keep it short, sweet, and in everyone's face so they get the fucking point. I used to spend hours writing up extremely well-researched and well thought-out diatribe only to have it all entirely skipped over or "tl;dr"ed at. What kind of glutton for punishment would I be if I kept on doing it? You see it in this very thread, on this very page. It happens in every debate, like clockwork.

So yeah, I can be a pompous fuckwit. But you guys know this about me. In either case, I'm not one to post an *even more* satirical youtube video to rant about someone calling me out, so consider it dropped. Many apologies to everyone involved.

I always used to read your tl;dr posts, Kablizzy! They were so informative and insightful. You need to be less worried about those with short attention spans and more concerned with the people who genuinely care about what you have to say. If you have a long post to write, write it for the sake of those who will take the time to read through it. :)

Yes, please do contribute everything you have. People that TL;DR shouldn't be in Debate, and if they do wander in we can all disregard their uninformed arguments.

[the_happy_taco]

For the 30 minutes or so I still spend here a day, that's all I've got in me anymore. So fair enough, I suppose apologies are in order.

I've stopped writing those long, scathingly amazing tower posts because they get ignored. I now keep it short, sweet, and in everyone's face so they get the fucking point. I used to spend hours writing up extremely well-researched and well thought-out diatribe only to have it all entirely skipped over or "tl;dr"ed at. What kind of glutton for punishment would I be if I kept on doing it? You see it in this very thread, on this very page. It happens in every debate, like clockwork.

So yeah, I can be a pompous fuckwit. But you guys know this about me. In either case, I'm not one to post an *even more* satirical youtube video to rant about someone calling me out, so consider it dropped. Many apologies to everyone involved.

Many may read it, but may not choose to respond to it.

[Viil]

God created us because of this question:

Who else would live on earth?

[sawyerscott52]

gee (he says sarcastically), it doesn't make sense, does it?

he knew some wouldn't believe and that he would burn them for all eternity. so why didn't he make them believe?

what is the point, if god has set out our entire lives?

is this all part of "god's" plan?

god... a fickle creation of human imagination, isn't he?

i like satan better. you can do whatever you want. all lucifer wanted was to stop being in god's shadow. poor luce...

anyway, neither of them exist, or else i would have posted HAIL SATAN!!!! in all caps.

[Tunco]

anyway, neither of them exist, or else i would have posted HAIL SATAN!!!! in all caps.

I'm sure you're going to make some sense.