Why did God create me?

[capt_weasle]

yes, i am a Christian still. i am a critical Christian, however. i am questioning various points in my faith, and attempting to disprove the religion.

You're a Christian... but you're trying to disprove Christianity? Okay.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

yes, i am a Christian still. i am a critical Christian, however. i am questioning various points in my faith, and attempting to disprove the religion.

You're a Christian... but you're trying to disprove Christianity? Okay.

We've been down this road with him before.
My advice is to press for no further answers.

[SlappyMcGee]

I understand what yungerkid is going through. He's seeing a lot of the flaws and problems that our more prominent atheists have posted, and while he isn't willing to abandon years of Christianity yet, he might start disbelieving. I've known Jehovah's Witness' that stick to their cult even after they realize how fraudulent it is, because of social ramifications.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I understand what yungerkid is going through. He's seeing a lot of the flaws and problems that our more prominent atheists have posted, and while he isn't willing to abandon years of Christianity yet, he might start disbelieving. I've known Jehovah's Witness' that stick to their cult even after they realize how fraudulent it is, because of social ramifications.

No, Slaps! You're coming in too hot! Abort! Abort!

[yungerkid]

well, a fair bit of it has come from this forum, but most of my doubt comes from my own investigations. but i am not willing to break with Christianity yet, because i do not have any solid, approvable proofs yet. so what if God forced evil on all of humanity, thus willingly damning them for no reason? that doesn't disprove Him. and who cares if He's hypocritical; it doesn't mean He's not there. but i'm reasonable, and very used to this type of logic. if i see something true, i won't try to deny it. as of right now, though, i could care less if God is a horrible being, or any of that sort of thing, because i need more than that. why worship the Cross? because it's God's will. what gives God the ability to force His will on all of humanity? His power. God created evil and forced it on humanity, thus intentionally damning a large portion of the race. but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

but enough of that. this thread is for debating either the topic or the recently-proposed issue with Christianity. i think.

[the_happy_taco]

So you're a Unitarian Universalist.

[Seneschal]

well, a fair bit of it has come from this forum, but most of my doubt comes from my own investigations. but i am not willing to break with Christianity yet, because i do not have any solid, approvable proofs yet. so what if God forced evil on all of humanity, thus willingly damning them for no reason? that doesn't disprove Him. and who cares if He's hypocritical; it doesn't mean He's not there. but i'm reasonable, and very used to this type of logic. if i see something true, i won't try to deny it. as of right now, though, i could care less if God is a horrible being, or any of that sort of thing, because i need more than that. why worship the Cross? because it's God's will. what gives God the ability to force His will on all of humanity? His power. God created evil and forced it on humanity, thus intentionally damning a large portion of the race. but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

but enough of that. this thread is for debating either the topic or the recently-proposed issue with Christianity. i think.

Yes, but you have a choice. Even if he does exist, would you really want to worship a mean, evil God? Also, since you've established that God is evil, how do you explain nice things, like music, food, humour, etc? And here's one for you: If God is omnipotent, why doesn't he remoralise himself and make himself good? And if you doubt his omnibenevolence, why do you still credit his omnipotence? He could be lying about that as well.

Another interesting thing occurred to me - what is God's purpose? What does he want? What does he gain by being evil/nice? If he's all powerful and creates evil, does he enjoy it? If so, why doesn't he inflict it upon everyone? If not, why does he do it in the first place?
My brain is tiring, so I'll shut up now.

[SlappyMcGee]

well, a fair bit of it has come from this forum, but most of my doubt comes from my own investigations. but i am not willing to break with Christianity yet, because i do not have any solid, approvable proofs yet. so what if God forced evil on all of humanity, thus willingly damning them for no reason? that doesn't disprove Him. and who cares if He's hypocritical; it doesn't mean He's not there. but i'm reasonable, and very used to this type of logic. if i see something true, i won't try to deny it. as of right now, though, i could care less if God is a horrible being, or any of that sort of thing, because i need more than that. why worship the Cross? because it's God's will. what gives God the ability to force His will on all of humanity? His power. God created evil and forced it on humanity, thus intentionally damning a large portion of the race. but that doesn't mean He doesn't exist.

but enough of that. this thread is for debating either the topic or the recently-proposed issue with Christianity. i think.

Certainly the large hypocricies of the Bible are not there to disprove any God, but rather to disprove the Christian ideals of God. If the Book doesn't hold up, then why should we believe it to be God's word? The book doesn't describe the God you just described there.

[yungerkid]

@cheesemonger: i do have a choice. between either heaven or eternal torture. not much of a choice, don't you think? i don't want to worship God no matter whether He's evil or good; i am of course going to be forced to, if He exists. i have not established that God is evil; rather that He forced humans into hell and sin and death and all that. He still is the cause of sugar and spice and everything nice. He could be lying, but He could be telling the truth. His omnipotence is not a subject relevant to His existence. and His existence is the question that i ultimately want most to answer. God does not have an ultimate purpose, if that's what you're asking. God's will is good morality; it is synonymous with good, if you know what i mean. He wants His will to be done. every being has a will that defines their identity. God doesn't remoralize Himself because He has no reason to; all morality stems from Him in the first place, and outside of Him, good morality is not good at all, but is rather just another concept that beings can choose to follow or not to follow.

@slappymcgee:it doesn't. but just because it lies in one portion does not mean that it does not lie everywhere else. and as long as that possibility remains open, and i have not found a proof that God does not exist, God could exist, and hell could exist, and i could be in for major trouble for making the assumption that God's hypocrisy means that the Bible is not the word of God. the book does contradict itself in points, but that doesn't mean it can't be correct about several specific crucial points. and proving that God does not exist would wipe out the necessity of counteracting those individual points altogether. so while it may be true that the Bible has lies and errors, i still consider it important to consider all the possibilities, especially in regards for my own future.

[Seneschal]

i don't want to worship God no matter whether He's evil or good; i am of course going to be forced to, if He exists.

Then he obviously doesn't exist, since nobody is forced to worship him.

i have not established that God is evil; rather that He forced humans into hell and sin and death and all that

Erm...that constitutes evil in my book.

God's will is good morality; it is synonymous with good, if you know what i mean

Again, when I hear God, I don't think good, I think war, genocides, murder, illness...all the bad things which he is ultimately the cause of.

He wants His will to be done

No he doesn't, otherwise he would force everyone to be Christians, worship him and obey his laws, which clearly not everyone does.

all morality stems from Him in the first place

...as does all evil...

and i have not found a proof that God does not exist

Have you checked the Debate forum recently? I left you a twenty page present.

Except it's 21 pages now.

[otters]

If you ask me, the most difficult thing about arguing with atheists is that at a point, they'll see our answer as ridiculous (even though it makes sense in the context of a God existing, which, of course, isn't an option) and refuse to go any farther. I can tell Suki is quite amused by us non-critical-thinkers here.

"God totally has the power to eliminate evil from the world, and Free Will has only been a decent answer to the Problem of Evil to those who are satisfied by hearing that there even is a proposed answer before turning their back and halting any further critical thinking on the subject thereafter."

...alright. Cool. Now, O Tsukatu, lead us down the road of "further critical thinking" so that you can explain why Free Will is so ridiculous. I'm a very critical thinker myself, and I don't see it.

In fact, this is sort of the clarion call of atheism, isn't it? "Critical thinking!" "With critical thinking, you can prove that God doesn't exist." "Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can tell Jesus never was God." "CRITICAL THINKING IS LIFE, OH YEAH"

Dear Jesus, at that point we can both just walk away, right? To either side it looks like they've won. We'll see that the atheists have stopped arguing and started making MORE generalizations, and the atheists will see how confident they can be with their generalizations (those silly theists) and let it rest.


Also, if you're going to debate against (or for Christianity, for Chrissake) please keep this in mind.

- God did not cause murder, genocide, illness.
- God did not cause evil.
- God never forced anyone to follow him.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

explain why Free Will is so ridiculous.

There are multi-page threads on this already, but they're dead enough that I wouldn't be against starting all of this afresh.
Back when I still had a YouTube account where I rambled at the camera, I made a video about this (and still have a copy). Here's the transcript:

I can hear a Christian tell me that God gave mankind a free choice and that mankind chose evil... and then hear that same Christian tell me that God knows everything... and then hear him tell me that Free Will exists so that we can choose not to commit evil... and then hear him tell me that God has a plan for all of us... and then hear that same Christian tell me that God gives us challenges to see the choices we will make... and then hear him tell me that God only gives us challenges He knows we will overcome.

Free Will is entirely contingent upon the existence of unpredictable events.
An event is not unpredictable if it can, even theoretically, be predicted.
There is nothing that an omniscient being cannot know.
Knowledge of future events is a sort of knowledge.
There is nothing that an omniscient being cannot know in advance; there is nothing that an omniscient being cannot predict.

If you believe in an omniscient being, it is completely inconsistent to believe that there is such thing as an unpredictable event, because an omniscient being can predict all events.
If you believe in an omniscient being, it is completely inconsistent to believe that you have Free Will.
How is this not obvious?

If the Christian is correct when he says that God knows everything, then God knows our futures, and the Christian would be incorrect to say that He gave mankind a free choice, that mankind chose evil, and that God gave us Free Will to choose not to commit evil.
In fact, when the Christian says "God gave us Free Will," he is already contradicting himself.

Make up your mind: either Free Will exists, or God does. Not both.
Any Christian who believes that God is all-knowing and that evil exists has not begun to think critically about his faith.

In fact, this is sort of the clarion call of atheism, isn't it? "Critical thinking!" "With critical thinking, you can prove that God doesn't exist." "Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can tell Jesus never was God." "CRITICAL THINKING IS LIFE, OH YEAH"

One of the best quotes I've heard recently sort of explains it: "Religious faith is making a virtue out of not thinking... of, in fact, refusing to think."
The central tenet of religion is faith, which is belief without evidence, without any applied thinking toward rationalizing the issue at all. That's what faith is, even in its most neutral sense. Naturally, the cure for not thinking is actual thinking, so I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised at this.

Dear Jesus, at that point we can both just walk away, right? To either side it looks like they've won.

God, I hope not! When you see statistics that link atheism and agnosticism with higher intelligence and better education, statistics correlating a higher propensity for committing violent crimes, having a lower IQ, and voting Republican with religiosity, the motivations behind the bloodiest world events, polls of the National Academy of Science regarding religious belief, and the changes in the percentage of the world population that calls itself secular, it looks pretty damned clear to me that non-theism is tearing ass all up in this planet and schooling all religious opposition in the process.
A brilliant observation by Sam Harris (in his debate with some rabbi) was that world history has seen a consistent trend of having science explain something better than religion and having religion cede, and that there has never been a point where science has an explanation that religion explains better. The cure for religion has, unflinchingly, been science, and the influence of religion has overall been trending downward with time thanks to scientific progress.
Does it really look to you like religion is winning?

And beyond that, do you seriously think it's a criticism of atheists to say that they have such a hard-on for critical thinking?

We'll see that the atheists have stopped arguing and started making MORE generalizations, and the atheists will see how confident they can be with their generalizations (those silly theists) and let it rest.

Because you guys always give up, and that just leaves a bunch of atheists standing around agreeing with each other. We've got nothing to prove to ourselves, so there's no point in laying out careful proofs until the theists come back into the thread.
I don't remember a single thread in my entire history on these forums that didn't end with the theists giving up. I've been in a few that ended with me realizing I was wrong, apologizing, and shutting up, so it's not like I'm just so obnoxious that I'll never stop arguing regardless. And I haven't even been involved for the most part in half of the religion-related threads that have cropped up over the years, anyway, and I'm calling you crazy if you think Atilla and iangb ever win through singe-minded filibustering.

Also, if you're going to debate against (or for Christianity, for Chrissake) please keep this in mind.

- God did not cause murder, genocide, illness.
- God did not cause evil.
- God never forced anyone to follow him.

And all I have to say to you is something I've been saying for years that no one has ever really addressed:
An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results; everything that happens must have been intended by God.
Omniscience gives such perfect knowledge, and omnipotence such absolute control, that a being with both qualities would necessarily act with full intent behind every consequence of that action. He would know perfectly and clearly every single minute detail of everything through the end of time that would result from any of his actions, and He knows that for every action He could possibly perform with any large or small or any cosmic or microscopic variation He might wish. Because He knows all, He knew exactly what this world would end up like, and because He is all-powerful, He could effortlessly have chosen it to be different.
But here we are. Evil is here and God willingly and knowingly created all, therefore God causes evil. Here is murder and genocide and illness, and God willingly and knowingly created all, therefore God causes murder, genocide, and illness. God created humans, human brains, and their biochemical function, just as He created the notions of thought and belief, and just as He chose before He created anything at all every minute aspect of every life that will ever be lived in His universe, He created some to accept Him and some to reject Him. And who are we to fight God's plan?

I will happily lump "an omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results" into my list of qualities of a theist who has not begun to think critically about his faith. This idea and its consequences are, to me and to anyone else who has given even a moment of serious thought to it, so stupendously obvious that I think it's silly that I even have to explain it at such length.
But I don't blame you for anything, and I don't think you're stupid; I merely believe that you haven't thought critically about your faith. You couldn't have. I have a high enough opinion of your intelligence that my seeing that this is all news to you means that you couldn't have looked critically at your God, just as most religious people I know haven't.
Please do, though. Pretty please with sugar on top.

[Ampersand]

I'll interject a tad with this - I have never seen, heard of, or been involved in a religious debate that an Atheist has not unilaterally won. Theists just don't ever win these debates. Mostly because using this tool we call "debate," Atheism cannot ever be wrong. That's right, I'm calling Atheism infallible within the confines of logic. And why? Because all Atheism does is say, "Oh, man. That's a false argument. And so is that one. Well, Hell. I don't know what do believe. I just know that whatever you're putting forth isn't it." Atheism doesn't have to be "right," because Atheism doesn't claim anything to be its own, except for, "You made this argument. This argument is false. Please make an argument that isn't false."

Religion and Theism are both faith-based, and we, as humans, operate on logic. You just can't logic away logic with faith, you end up making no sense. This is mainly why I stopped debating (Gandalf) - Proponents of religion simply don't make any sense, and while the most zealous of you have been extremely formidable (MacAddict comes to mind), the absolute *best* arguments that I've heard have come from maximo and a couple other like-minded Christians - And those have always been, "I believe because I know that I can't put God into a pitri dish and observe him. He's present in my heart and hopefully in my soul, and that's the only thing I can rely on; for myself. I can't prove him, I can't argue him, I just have to believe, and hope that I'm right - Not for my own sake, but for everyone's sake. I hope that there is indeed a loving and all-forgiving God; For I would hate to see the ones I love most dearly be eternally punished for something that they can't be blamed for."

Edit: I'ma underline something. 'Cause I like it. And by the by, I have only ever myself lost one debate, and that was against Dave - Back on the old forums. I was trying to win a bet that I could successfully defend a false point (That 0.9999 could never be equal to 1), and I held my own for a good long while even though both of us knew that my point was entirely bullshit. And the fact that I could talk circles around *Dave*, even when he knew full-well what I was doing, it still took a good number of days before he simply had to oust my bullshittery. Point being, most of my debates have been on religion - and not to my own credit or to Atheism's credit - but God isn't logical, and can't be proven logically. Thus, debating in favour of the side of Theism is taking a knife to a gunfight. It's just asking to be shot. Over and over and over.

I dunno. I can't see how someone can be actually *opposed* to science. I know Suki has said it before in a number of forms, but I really enjoy all the things that science has done for me. In fact, the reason we are able to debate this is entirely because of science. Computers are made from science and a few parts metal and electricity, I think. But mostly science.

[EdoI]

Jesus and Mo!

[Atilla]

If you ask me, the most difficult thing about arguing with atheists is that at a point, they'll see our answer as ridiculous (even though it makes sense in the context of a God existing, which, of course, isn't an option) and refuse to go any farther.

Summarily executing people with epilepsy makes sense in the context of evil fox-spirits going around possessing people. Wearing tinfoil hats makes sense in the context of crackpot conspiracy theories. Refusing to touch iron makes sense in the context of you being of the Fae. I'm pretty sure most people would regard these things as ridiculous, though. You can't just say "Well, if you assume the moon is made of cheese, it makes sense!" and expect everyone to overlook the fact that you have just attempted to eat a rock.

Also, if you're going to debate against (or for Christianity, for Chrissake) please keep this in mind.

- God did not cause murder, genocide, illness.
- God did not cause evil.
- God never forced anyone to follow him.

And all I have to say to you is something I've been saying for years that no one has ever really addressed:
An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results; everything that happens must have been intended by God.
Etc., etc.

More concisely:

1. God caused the universe to exist.
2. Evil is part of the universe.
-> God caused evil to exist.

Or even more simply:

God created everything. How can this not include evil? Unless, of course, you're suggesting that God is evil and thus it already existed...

I'll interject a tad with this - I have never seen, heard of, or been involved in a religious debate that an Atheist has not unilaterally won. Theists just don't ever win these debates.

I'm not sure this kind of claim is helpful or informative at all. I'm sure there are theists out there who would make the exact opposite claim. I, personally, have seen several people continually re-state the same argument, completely ignoring four pages of counter-arguments against it, and then swan around and claim they're winning and everyone is powerless to counter their brilliant reasoning. It's a sad fact that people who are terrible at reasoning generally don't realize it because - get this - they are terrible at reasoning.

[jean-luc]

Also, if you're going to debate against (or for Christianity, for Chrissake) please keep this in mind.

- God did not cause murder, genocide, illness.
- God did not cause evil.
- God never forced anyone to follow him.

And all I have to say to you is something I've been saying for years that no one has ever really addressed:
An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results; everything that happens must have been intended by God.
Etc., etc.

More concisely:

1. God caused the universe to exist.
2. Evil is part of the universe.
-> God caused evil to exist.

Or even more simply:

God created everything. How can this not include evil? Unless, of course, you're suggesting that God is evil and thus it already existed...

Some religions contend that evil is a result of human agency (free will) that god is not directly responsible, but does allow for. God is held to a higher law - he is unable to abridge the concept of agency. As a result, if you choose to do a bad thing, God will not stop you. Looking back at the bible, he has certainly interjected in human affairs, but this is certainly a minority of cases.

The concept that god must have introduced evil is a nebulous one. Do you argue, then, that evil is not inherent? by the same turn, I would think that good is not inherent either - there is only what is. This is consistent with several schemes of belief which state that God authored the concept of good and evil. In order for there to be good, one would think there must also be evil. Perhaps God's hands are tied by the rules of logic.
If the concept of good or evil is inherent (that is, it transcends the creation of god), then there is something that transcends the creation of God. Some protestant sects allow for this, but to many it is blasphemous.

It is further believed that the presence of evil is for our good - without the despair and detachment from God known on Earth we would not truly enjoy heaven. But that's only a small part of it - much more significance is the place that evil has in bringing positive change to lives. Yes, this may seem counter to the common image of God and perfection, but many believe that there must be evil in order for the good to become heavenly. Some religions go so far as to say that Satan himself has a peculiar kind of exaltation, being called of God to tempt mortals. Without evil, we cannot learn to resist and overcome evil, and without evil, our resolve cannot be tested. Therefore the presence of evil in the world serves both to improve us and to test us.

Some extend this to mean that evil is simply another kind of good. No religious group has gone so far as to say this, but many philosophers wonder about it. We see what may be a biblical example of this in the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. Some believe that Judas was not in fact evil and a traitor, but a man called of God to perform the emotionally difficult task of bringing about the crucifixion, which was necessary for the progression of man. Of course, still other religions believe that Judas was terrible person and a traitor all along, stealing money from the apostleship &c. I haven't so far seen any strong biblical evidence for this, however, and I'm skeptical of what little biblical evidence there is because of the 'interpretive' ways most modern editions of the bible were translated.

Further, Most mainstream Christians agree that there are parts of religion and our reason for being here that are not for us to understand - God has a reason for everything, but he will not tell us all of his reasons until a later time (or perhaps never, depending on the sect). While I think this is no excuse not to attempt to understand (I believe that "the God excuse" -- that God did it and that's all we need to know -- is never acceptable in any field of reasoning), surely we must accept that an omniscient, omnipotent being would act with reasons beyond our understanding.

Hopefully this has addressed your question, at least in part. I have tried to discuss the beliefs of fairly mainstream religions rather than my own peculiar beliefs for the sake of this post being applicable, as much as possible, to religion as a whole.

[yungerkid]

Evil was not inherent. God created Adam and Eve to be good in nature, and to commune with Him. He also created them in a certain way, that He knew would be susceptible to evil. God may not have created evil, but He was certainly responsible for its introduction to the world. That's not a nebulous conclusion. God (and thus good) have always existed; they were not created. Thus I would suggest that evil has also always existed. The concept of good and evil does not transcend God because morality is defined by God's will.

I would not say that death in Hell is "good", by the definition proposed in the Bible, for humanity. I assume we are still talking about morality within Christianity here? Evil is another type of good; they are both ends of a moral spectrum, and as such their effects share some characteristics. But what you're talking about is just the idea that evil can ultimately be used for good, and that good can ultimately be used for evil. All who are truly Christians agree that there are certain specific things that God has hidden from us, such as the mystery of the Trinity etc. But that would defy the idea that logic can be used to obtain those facts without God needing to reveal them to us. That means that God transcends logic. If we can't trust logic (we don't know what it does cover and what it doesn't), then we can't know anything (because logic is really the only other way to know things) besides what we see ourselves (or what God tells us).

Atilla, your syllogism is incorrect because evil is not just part of the universe. It extends out of the universe, to an area God did not create. God did not create everything.

Incluye, the Bible itself states, fairly explicitly, that we as humans do not have free will. When we are of the sinful nature, we are completely spiritually dead. Dead people don't make decisions. When we are dead to God in our sins, we cannot choose God; God needs to come to us and force us to His side. When we are on His side, we are not free to move back from it. It's called Calvinism.

[otters]

An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results; everything that happens must have been intended by God.

No, not at all. An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unforseen results; everything that happens must have been forseen by God. God did not create evil, but he knew evil would come into existence (after all, evil is the absence of good), and without the choice to choose between good and not-good, there could be no real "good" in the first place.

The existence of evil does not prove any twisted, sadist tendencies in God's nature. There are hypothetically three options: either we all are forced to love God, which defeats the purpose of "love"; we all burn in hell, which is what we as sinners deserve: or we choose God, which both allows us to think for ourselves *and* allows us to love God. It's by far the most merciful alternative that God could have chosen for humanity. Do you see what I mean?

Also, I've addressed it. Does that count?


Eh.

God created everything. How can this not include evil?

Say you've installed a light fixture in your living room, which you had recently built. You turn it on and it provides warming light to every corner of the room. Say, then, that you have purposefully left the light switch unattended, and someone comes and turns off the light.

Have you created the darkness?

If you believe in an omniscient being, it is completely inconsistent to believe that there is such thing as an unpredictable event, because an omniscient being can predict all events.
If you believe in an omniscient being, it is completely inconsistent to believe that you have Free Will.

I understand how such an argument can become dead quickly, if it's based on such a gross misunderstanding.

"If you believe in an omniscient being, it is completely inconsistent to believe that you have Free Will."
Why?

There is no logical connection between God knowing what will happen to us, and there existing no free will. Tsukatu, it's our will that's free, not God's. He's letting us choose what we want to choose, and the fact that he knows what we are going to choose is inconsequential: God doesn't normally intervene here. And, of course, he wouldn't intervene: if he, say, revealed himself to you, he would either be forcing you to believe in him or you would be able to delude yourself into believing you had not seen him (which I have no doubt you'd do), which would then screw up all your free will plans.

Please explain to me why God's knowledge of our future life choices means that we can't really make any.

The central tenet of religion is faith, which is belief without evidence, without any applied thinking toward rationalizing the issue at all. That's what faith is, even in its most neutral sense. Naturally, the cure for not thinking is actual thinking, so I'm not entirely sure why you're surprised at this.

How much proof by authority do you need before you begin to believe something without any real evidence? Of course I believe Poland exists, even though I've never been there, met anyone who's been there, or seen very many pictures. In the same way, I believe that Jesus was the son of God, because I've read the Bible, which has a hefty load of historical accuracy behind it.

This is another generalization I've seen. "Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can tell the dude [Jesus] never was [the Son of God]." Sherlock, we have about 5600 copies of the original New Testament, written less than 100 years after the actual events, by eyewitnesses (in other words, if you think Homer ever wrote the Iliad, you can't logically believe that the New Testament is bullshit), and they all tell correlating stories about this guy walking around, performing miracles in the middle of a crowd, and telling people he was God's Son, and then he died and rose again and ascended to heaven.[/i] You can generalize against that as much as you wish. Be my guest.

[yungerkid]

without the choice to choose...there could be no real "good" in the first place.

So are you saying that every concept in existence must exist relative to some other concept? You know, i don't find that a very realistic idea. Otherwise, good is capable of existing on its own, without evil to balance it. Evil could be a mere hypothetical, even.

God did not create evil. But He could still have intended it on the world. And He did. Why else would He have given Adam and Eve the nature (and weaknesses) that He did? Clearly He worked for a purpose in them. The three options you present are flawed. It is either that everyone goes to heaven or hell, or that some go to heaven and some go to hell. If some go to heaven and some hell, we either are offered the choice, or we are forced. Why are we able to choose? As I said earlier, it says somewhere in Romans that we are all dead in our sinful natures. We cannot choose God, and don't want to, because of our depravity. We do not have free will. No-one and nothing does.

Please explain to me why God's knowledge of our future life choices means that we can't really make any.

If God (or anyone, for that matter) is able to possess knowledge of what absolutely will happen to us in our future, then our future must be set in stone. It must be already decided. And thus we can't do anything other than what we will do. But why do you think humans have free will? We cannot act outside of our nature. We cannot act outside of God's will. And we cannot act outside of logic.

[capt_weasle]

If God (or anyone, for that matter) is able to possess knowledge of what absolutely will happen to us in our future, then our future must be set in stone. It must be already decided. And thus we can't do anything other than what we will do. But why do you think humans have free will? We cannot act outside of our nature. We cannot act outside of God's will. And we cannot act outside of logic.

You're right in stating that everything that will happen is set in stone, but you ignore the fact that this is still the case even if some omniscient being knows what is going to happen or not. However, our future is decided by us. We may not be able to do other than what we will do, but the only reason we are doing so is because we chose to. Also, our surroundings do not determine our actions, rather influence them, albeit often heavily. Your use of "nature" is very vague, because although it is not my nature to speak in front of large groups of people because I am afraid of that very action, I may still choose to do so due to some other reason (like getting a good grade on a speech).

[SlappyMcGee]

If God is as powerful as y'all are saying, he certainly does not exist on the same plane of existence as we do. My interpretation of the Bible would be that God's omnipotence extends only over our realm, and therefore would not be able to predict the interjections of Satan. At least in my eyes, omnipotence as we interpret it has no reason to encompass a world outside of ours except for a slanted atheist argument.

[yungerkid]

If God is as powerful as y'all are saying...

That God is omnipotent over everything in existence except logic? If God is not able to predict where Satan will intervene, but knows the world perfectly besides, then He knows the precise effects of Satan's interventions. So He does know Satan's plan and every move.

[Twistkill]

I don't participate in these debates anymore because I'd be wasting my time... time that should be spent reading my bible, praying, and having faith in what happens always happens for a reason that God intended, good or bad. You can use all the logic you want when debating God, but we're not supposed to use man's logic and reason when following God's word, because his reasons are above ours. Logic and reason are not the supreme authority on whether something is right or wrong/good or bad/true or false. Having faith in what God's doing will turn out better. Every time I've done something that seems illogical or unlikely to work, God made it work. Same thing with my parents, the youth group and the general congregation in my church - things have literally fallen in place right when it seemed hopeless.

We've already agreed to disagreed on religion numerous times through the years we've been together, so why are all of you still talking? I'm starting to think that religious debates shouldn't be allowed anymore on account of how utterly useless they have been.

I love all of you who don't believe in God. He loves you regardless of that fact, too. You don't understand all of the potential happiness, satisfaction, peace, and love you could experience if you only believe. I don't understand why you can't accept Him considering the plans He has for you and the love He has for you, but you have your reasons, and I have mine for accepting Him too. Let's focus on common ground instead of our differences.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Twistkill,

First off, I just want to say that you're doing the equivalent of wandering into a laser tag arena and asking everyone to put down their weapons and have a picnic. We're here because we want to be here, doing what we want to be doing. Don't worry -- when we leave the arena, we won't play laser tag at your picnic. At least I won't.

Every time I've done something that seems illogical or unlikely to work, God made it work.

DISCLAIMER: Do not jump off a tall building.
You should jump off a tall building.

We've already agreed to disagreed on religion numerous times through the years we've been together, so why are all of you still talking?

Whoah, who's done that? Isn't the purpose of the debate forum to debate things? When you come in here, you better be expecting people to disagree about disagreeing.

I'm starting to think that religious debates shouldn't be allowed anymore on account of how utterly useless they have been.

Say what?

Let's focus on common ground instead of our differences.

Only if you agree to not let your religion guide your vote on issues that affect me.

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

Ampersand,

This is mainly why I stopped debating (Gandalf)

So he was the straw that broke the camel's back, huh?

the absolute *best* arguments that I've heard have come from maximo and a couple other like-minded Christians - And those have always been, "I believe because I know that I can't put God into a pitri dish and observe him. He's present in my heart and hopefully in my soul, and that's the only thing I can rely on; for myself. I can't prove him, I can't argue him, I just have to believe, and hope that I'm right - Not for my own sake, but for everyone's sake. I hope that there is indeed a loving and all-forgiving God; For I would hate to see the ones I love most dearly be eternally punished for something that they can't be blamed for."

See, that's something I can totally get behind as well, because I, too, frequently hope that things are going to turn out happy.
But I cut it off at "man, I sure hope shit's gonna turn out okay," because to me, the whole omnipotent skydaddy thing, especially when you tack on the doctrine of any world religion today, is a complete non-sequitur. I think it's completely fine to hope for the best, but to extend that to arbitrary belief that a very large and very specific set of ideas is true is just silly.

I decided in the shower this morning that I'm agnostic again. I was thinking (daydreaming would be more accurate, actually) about the whole God lifting heavy rocks issue, and kept getting caught by the fact that we have a limited foundation to think from whereas God wouldn't necessarily be limited by the scope of what we can understand. So I got to thinking about the relationship between more strict systems and potential outerlying systems that were less restricted, and following that train of thought brought me back to agnosticism.
I want to revise my answer to that rock question, by the way. The answer isn't yes, but it also isn't a no. It's not "yes" because the way it's posed is logically inconsistent, but it's not a "no" because God is free to ignore logic. The metaphor my brain's right hemisphere decided to pipe in with at that point was this situation: Suppose I, Tsukatu, am responsible for objectively defining what it means to "lift" something, and I decide that lifting happens, definitionally, with the right hand. Two people come along and one poses to the other, "can Tsukatu lift something with his left hand?" The other naturally replies, "that's a logically inconsistent notion. Lifting is by definition with the right hand, so it's not doable. Tsukatu can only do doable things." But because I'm the one who created, imposed, and is responsible for maintaining the influence of that definition, I am completely free to disobey it. So I wander over to these two dudes and pick something up with my left hand, spicing it up with a "what's up, bitches?" This is why I disagree with the reply that God can only do doable things, and why I don't think the answer to the rock question is a "no." But then again, should the question have been "can Tsukatu lift something with no hands," the reply that the second person gives would still work, but now it's something I can't accomplish, so it's not a unconditional "yes," either. I could redefine what lifting something means such that I could do it, but I'd know that I'm cheating; I now know one more thing that I am incapable of doing.
(Warning: I'm starting to ramble.)
So here's a thought: "omnipotent" is such a massive generalization that I no longer think it's very meaningful. The way I'm thinking of our universe and the potential beyond is a series of concentric spheres, where the volume of each sphere represents strict adherence to some set of natural laws, something like a 3D Venn Diagram (actually, I don't know why it'd have to be 3 dimensional, but bear with me). As you get deeper and deeper inside (as more and more spheres share their volume), you get more and more rules to adhere to. For someone outside of our sphere, he is limited by the same set of natural laws we are, minus a few. A being there could do anything we could do, and a little bit more that we'd find incomprehensible. This doesn't necessarily make him completely omnipotent, since he is still bound by some laws, but to us he could indeed seem to ignore our natural laws. Just you or I could impose additional rules on things in our universe and end up making little microcosms (which follow our natural laws plus whatever we impose), so might something outside of our set of laws have made everything we are. So now when I think of an omnipotent being, I think of a being that can do all that we can plus a little extra that will seem to us to violate natural laws.
There are still a few things to realize about all of this, though. First off, this is all purely hypothetical, and there is zero reason to believe that any of it could actually be the case. I could be wrong, I could be crazy, or something else entirely might be the case, including something beyond human capability to comprehend, so I'm still quite definitely not a deist. We have adequate explanations for our epistemological mysteries such that we have no need for a transcendent being to believe the universe could be as it is, and for those we don't have answers to, we have no reason to think they're impossible to answer without involving the supernatural. Secondly, this in no way lends credibility to certain major world religions, not only because they have failed to account for the first point I just mentioned but also because their doctrines, their meant-to-be-comprehended-by-humans doctrines, are not internally consistent. There is no doubt in my mind that they are just flat-out false. A non-specific deism is the closest thing I'd be willing to accept might be correct (or whatever the concept is that parallels correct in a less restrictive superset of our universe), but I'd still be confused about why someone would legitimately believe that that's the case. Thirdly, I'm still not so sure that I'd call a being outside of my sphere a god simply because of the fact that, while he may not be restricted by all of the laws in my sphere, he and I still overlap... which means that he is restricted by some laws that also bind me; there is some area in which he is no better or more capable than I, and that extends out to every sphere that has any laws whatsoever. And the final thing that troubles me is, of course, what happens when you exit that final sphere.
Anyway, sorry, I'm done rambling now.

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

jean-luc,

I understand and have read your post, but have no response other than "yes, many of these could probably be the case."
Thank you, though; it was insightful.


yungerkid,

Evil was not inherent. God created Adam and Eve to be good in nature, and to commune with Him. He also created them in a certain way, that He knew would be susceptible to evil. God may not have created evil, but He was certainly responsible for its introduction to the world. That's not a nebulous conclusion. God (and thus good) have always existed; they were not created. Thus I would suggest that evil has also always existed. The concept of good and evil does not transcend God because morality is defined by God's will.

You've basically just said, "it's not that God created evil, but that God created evil."
If evil didn't come from God, then it existed independently of God. And if it didn't exist independently of God but came about as a consequence of the things God did, then God created it (according to you, inadvertently).
This is not at all consistent with the fact that omnipotent beings do not produce unintended results. Humor me and address that, will ya?

God may not have created evil, but He was certainly responsible for its introduction to the world.

evil is not just part of the universe. It extends out of the universe, to an area God did not create.

If evil is beyond God, then how does He have any say whatsoever about whether or not He lets it into His universe.
I mean, besides the obvious question of wow, how the holy crap do you know all of that / how is your mere mortal brain able to comprehend things beyond our universe?

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

incluye,

An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results; everything that happens must have been intended by God.

No, not at all. An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unforseen results; everything that happens must have been forseen by God. God did not create evil, but he knew evil would come into existence (after all, evil is the absence of good), and without the choice to choose between good and not-good, there could be no real "good" in the first place.

This was part of my argument: God foresaw all consequences of any choice He might make, so when He created a universe that ended up having evil in it, He had to have known about it before He did it. He also knew some way He could have created a universe that didn't have evil develop at some point (which He knows is possible because nothing is impossible to Him), but He chose to not do it that way.
God knew what was going to happen and He knew the equally possible alternatives, but He chose to make this universe with evil in it. God intentionally made evil.

The existence of evil does not prove any twisted, sadist tendencies in God's nature. There are hypothetically three options:
1) we all are forced to love God, which defeats the purpose of "love"
2) we all burn in hell, which is what we as sinners deserve
3) we choose God, which both allows us to think for ourselves *and* allows us to love God. It's by far the most merciful alternative that God could have chosen for humanity. Do you see what I mean?

I hope you don't mind that I've edited the quote to number these for convenience. Let me know if your meaning has changed because of my interference.
1) This couldn't be the case, because I don't love God and can name a handful of other people who don't, either. I also don't know why you think "love" has a purpose instead of just being a byproduct of the way we evolved socially, but whatever, that's tangential.
2) There was a skit that Rowan Atkinson did where he played the part of Satan and introduced the audience, presumably freshly dead, to Hell. The last thing he says after he directs other groups to their appropriate areas in Hell is, "and the Christians can come with me... ah, I can see you are confused to be here. Yes, it turns out the Jews were right. I'm terrible sorry. Quite unfortunate. But if you could follow me..."
Otherwise, obviously God isn't loving in the #2 case. God isn't loving if you have a Hell to begin with, or evil in the world, but yeah, I guess He'd be super-evil in the #2 case.
3) We're incapable of choosing God because His existence precludes the possibility of Free Will existing. God created us knowing everything we'd choose, so obviously He created us to make the choices we make (because He could've elected to have us choose different but didn't).

Since we've ruled out #1 and #3, looks like #2 might be the case.
...that is, if you confine yourself to those three without any alternatives, and assuming that the Christian God exists.
(SPOILER: The Christian God doesn't exist, so you're actually in the clear. You can stop despairing.)

Also, I've addressed it. Does that count?

Blast, now I'll have to start saying "has never adequately addressed it."

God created everything. How can this not include evil?

Say you've installed a light fixture in your living room, which you had recently built. You turn it on and it provides warming light to every corner of the room. Say, then, that you have purposefully left the light switch unattended, and someone comes and turns off the light.

Have you created the darkness?

God created everything, dude. For this to be an accurate analogy, you'd have to start with "Say you've created dark and light," in which case clearly the answer is yes.
The other problem here is that to believe that the darkness exists without Atilla having created it is to believe that darkness exists beyond Atilla. To re-translate your own metaphor back into "reality": believing that evil exists without God having created it means that evil exists independently of God. That brings up some very worrying issues about God's omnipotence if He can't keep a leash on that evil, and also makes you wonder where the evil came from. Did both evil and God pop into being the same way? Should Genesis be revised to say, "in the beginning there was evil, and also, there was God"?

"If you believe in an omniscient being, it is completely inconsistent to believe that you have Free Will."
Why?

There is no logical connection between God knowing what will happen to us, and there existing no free will.
...
Please explain to me why God's knowledge of our future life choices means that we can't really make any.

Free Will is entirely contingent upon the existence of unpredictable events.
An event is not unpredictable if it can, even theoretically, be predicted.

Omniscience gives such perfect knowledge, and omnipotence such absolute control, that a being with both qualities would necessarily act with full intent behind every consequence of that action. He would know perfectly and clearly every single minute detail of everything through the end of time that would result from any of his actions, and He knows that for every action He could possibly perform with any large or small or any cosmic or microscopic variation He might wish. Because He knows all, He knew exactly what this world would end up like, and because He is all-powerful, He could effortlessly have chosen it to be different.

I've already accused you of having a 20-second limitation on your short term memory, right? Good.
I'll give you a third way of putting it: God made all of our choices for us the moment He put the universe into being; we only make choices the same way that the thin hand on the clock chooses to tick forward another second, which is to say we don't make choices at all.

Tsukatu, it's our will that's free, not God's.

You owe me a new keyboard, a new monitor, and approximately one mouthful of coffee.

How much proof by authority do you need before you begin to believe something without any real evidence? Of course I believe Poland exists, even though I've never been there, met anyone who's been there, or seen very many pictures.

A few parts to this. Unlike God...
It is easily provable that Poland exists, and it is falsifiable (presumably by attempting to go to Poland and seeing that it is not there).
The notion of Poland's existence is not logically inconsistent.
Poland's existence has next to no relevance in my life, nor to any matters of ultimate concern; no one has proposed that I will go to Poland when I die.

Furthermore, proof by authority is no proof at all (although by saying this I really hope I'm not affirming that the Bible is a legitimate authority). Support by authority figures can give you a reason to believe something for issues that you don't feel are worth your time to personally investigate, but disagreements with such figures crops up regularly enough anyway. Religion, to me, is not one such issue that I defer to other people to make up my own mind for me. Authority figures will only try to convince me one way or another, but I will not determine my religious beliefs solely by copying those of someone I like.

In the same way, I believe that Jesus was the son of God, because I've read the Bible, which has a hefty load of historical accuracy behind it.

You should give the Egyptian Book of the Dead a read, too. Jesus was more badass when he was 1280 years older.
Other books to hit up: the Koran, the Talmud, the Vedas, and the Book of Mormon. They have about as much weight as the Bible, and some of them are even older, more thorough, more historically accurate, and less inconsistent (well, not the Book of Mormon).
Heck, if anything, the Koran is even more historically accurate than the Bible, because it talks about wars that actually even happened (whoops, sorry, forgot that you think the Bible is historically accurate).

This is another generalization I've seen. "Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can tell the dude [Jesus] never was [the Son of God]." Sherlock, we have about 5600 copies of the original New Testament, written less than 100 years after the actual events, by eyewitnesses (in other words, if you think Homer ever wrote the Iliad, you can't logically believe that the New Testament is bullshit), and they all tell correlating stories about this guy walking around, performing miracles in the middle of a crowd, and telling people he was God's Son, and then he died and rose again and ascended to heaven.[/i] You can generalize against that as much as you wish. Be my guest.

The first hit on Google regarding forgeries in the Bible.
Fun quotes:
"The chapters 24-27 and 40-55 of Isaiah, are forgeries in Isaiah's name."
"Only the first chapter of Zechariah are really by him, the rest is a forgery."
"Only 200-300 of the total 1273 verses by Ezekiel are probably by Ezekiel."
"six of the thirteen letters of St. Paul are not by him. Even his 'real' letters were later heavily edited by the Church."
"A lot of the stories in the Old Testament are in fact borrowed material. Particularly from the rich mythical heritage of the Sumerians, the inventors of writing. The story of Noah and the great flood, Cain and Abel, the gardens of Eden, creation of Eve from Adams rib, and numerous other myths are stories found recorded on Sumerian clay tablets dating 2-3000 years back, long before the earliest parts of the Old Testament were written down."
"The gospels are all written in Greek and there is no indication of any Hebrew originals, which rules out that the authors could be anyone among the followers of Jesus (who spoke Arameic). According too the gospels both Jesus and his disciples had no education and were illiterates, as most of their contemporaries."
"Around 400 AD the scholar Hieronimus made a major editing of the Latin Bible, the result is the Latin Vulgata version of the Bible. This became the mother of all later translations. Hieronimus changed no less than 3500 instances in the text. Among the later added parts, not in the original Gospel texts: The sermon on the Mount, The story of Jesus' birth (Luke 2:1-21) and the stories of Jesus' resurrection!"

And you sarcastically call me Sherlock? Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" puts the basis of everything you believe about reality to shame, and here you are telling me I'm ignoring the obvious. Unbelievable.
(Couldn't resist the pun, sorry.)

[jean-luc]

Evil was not inherent.... That's not a nebulous conclusion. God (and thus good) have always existed; they were not created.... The concept of good and evil does not transcend God because morality is defined by God's will.

Could you please clarify your opinion? it seems to have changed during that paragraph.

Incluye, the Bible itself states, fairly explicitly, that we as humans do not have free will. When we are of the sinful nature, we are completely spiritually dead. Dead people don't make decisions. When we are dead to God in our sins, we cannot choose God; God needs to come to us and force us to His side. When we are on His side, we are not free to move back from it. It's called Calvinism.

That's only one way to interpret it. If you read the bible a little differently, it pretty explicitly states that we as humans have free will. From the most simple level -

26. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

If we are created in the likeness of god, can we truly have no control over our actions?

15. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

Particularly when in context, this verse seems to suggest that the choice has been left to us.

I could write about this more extensively, but I believe it sufficeth to say that you can read the bible either way, and many believe that we are left with free will.

An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unintended results; everything that happens must have been intended by God.

No, not at all. An omnipotent, omniscient being does not produce unforseen results;

QFE

The existence of evil does not prove any twisted, sadist tendencies in God's nature. There are hypothetically three options: either we all are forced to love God, which defeats the purpose of "love"; we all burn in hell, which is what we as sinners deserve: or we choose God, which both allows us to think for ourselves *and* allows us to love God. It's by far the most merciful alternative that God could have chosen for humanity. Do you see what I mean?

QFE. Incluye is saying exactly what I'm saying on this issue, but better.

God did not create evil. But He could still have intended it on the world. And He did. Why else would He have given Adam and Eve the nature (and weaknesses) that He did? ...

This argument simply doesn't make sense to me. I will refute the part that I understand - The fact that God has brought about a specific action in some cases (it is believed by many that he intentionally led Adam and Eve to violate the law) does not mean that he does so in all cases. And evens then, we know from the bible that when God tries to take action he virtually always relies on a righteous individual that is willing to take that action in the physical world. In such a way most of God's actions are still susceptible to human agency.

If God (or anyone, for that matter) is able to possess knowledge of what absolutely will happen to us in our future, then our future must be set in stone. It must be already decided. And thus we can't do anything other than what we will do. But why do you think humans have free will? We cannot act outside of our nature. We cannot act outside of God's will. And we cannot act outside of logic.

This is not at all the case if God exists in a separate plane of time from us. An illustration: Were individuals in the past (say, Theodore Roosevelt) incapable of making decisions, their actions set in stone, because we now know exactly what they did? God is not looking at us from the present or forward from the present, the bible suggests that there is no "present" to god, that he is a being beyond time. Thus his ability to observe what will happen does not mean that we cannot make decisions at all, it simply means that god knows what decisions we will make. They are not the same.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that an omniscient, omnipotent being would not exist in the same linear time that we do.

We've already agreed to disagreed on religion, so why are all of you still talking? I'm starting to think that religious "debates" (I use that word lightly) shouldn't be allowed anymore on account of how utterly useless they have been, especially in our community.

I, and I think others would agree, contend that the value is not in coming to a conclusion (indeed, it is extremely unlikely that this will ever happen), but in having the discussion. It is often said that the journey is more important than the destination, and I think when the destination is unattainable the journey is simply that much more important. By discussing these matters we all learn more about other beliefs and improve our minds through debate. Most importantly, it's entertaining.

EDIT: I just noticed this by way of Tsuki's post.

This is another generalization I've seen. "Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills can tell the dude [Jesus] never was [the Son of God]." Sherlock, we have about 5600 copies of the original New Testament, written less than 100 years after the actual events, by eyewitnesses (in other words, if you think Homer ever wrote the Iliad, you can't logically believe that the New Testament is bullshit), and they all tell correlating stories about this guy walking around, performing miracles in the middle of a crowd, and telling people he was God's Son, and then he died and rose again and ascended to heaven.[/i] You can generalize against that as much as you wish. Be my guest.

It is worth noting that according to the best of modern Biblical scholarship, none of the authors of the 4 main gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and very few of the apocryphal authors, actually saw Jesus in person. The gospels are all based on second-hand accounts.