A challenge from Stan the half truth teller,
"Rather than saying "I disagree," the onus is on you to explicitly show where and how this argument fails, if indeed you continue to deny it"
Stan challenged someone to point out his logical flaws about his conclusion about the christian God.
These are the premises that he concluded that God forces and desires people to go to hell or at least claims that God is contradictory.
"P1. The Christian god prefers not a populated hell.
P2. The Christian god knew that creating would result in a populated hell.
P3. The Christian god is the "first cause."
P4. The Christian god had in its power the ability to not-create.
P5. The Christian god chose to create in such a fashion as to ensure a populated hell."
I will point out his logical flaws.
P1. Half true...God would rather have a being (us) with the opportunity to choose Him or not to choose Him (loyalty), rather than having a predestined empty hell and a full heaven (robots living in paradise). God still wants an empty hell, but He leaves it up to us.
P2. As far as I know. True
P3.True
P4. We know that He did create.
P5. Half true... It is more like, God chose to create in such a fashion as to "allow" a populated hell, just as the police allow criminals to go to jail, even though the police keep telling them they don't have to go to jail.
"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. "
— C.S. Lewis
Stan, your half true premises show your ability to twist truth about the God of the Bible. Clever, but wrong.
P.S.
I am currently organising a wedding and maybe buying a house! Busy busy. I'll try to be on every second day or so.
cheers guys.
Dan
Hope the essay's going well!
ReplyDeleteSo you only have a problem with P1 and P5 and your only problem with either is that they're, kind-of, sort-of, half-right?
P1. God prefers that Hell is not populated. No mention is made on how He wants this to be achieved, it's just that He would prefer that people didn't end up there.
There's nothing wrong with Stan's premise here. God would prefer it if nobody ended up in Hell. That's exactly right.
P5. Stan said; "The Christian god chose to create in such a fashion as to ensure a populated hell".
And you corrected with;
"God chose to create in such a fashion as to "allow" a populated hell".
The point is that God created, knowing that a populated Hell would result - allowing/ensuring are the same thing for an omniscient being, no?
So you really have no refutation of Stan's premises at all, other than you not liking the conclusions he draws from them, and so you wriggle around with semantics.
Regards,
Hey EPM,
ReplyDelete"P1. God prefers that Hell is not populated. No mention is made on how He wants this to be achieved, it's just that He would prefer that people didn't end up there.
There's nothing wrong with Stan's premise here."
Youir premise here about Stan's argument is the fault on which your reply lies also.
I was expanding on what is meant by God prefering there be an empty hell.
Yes God wants an empty hell. But God would rather have people with freewill to choose Him or not to choose Him.
It is that simple.
Stan tells half truths and lives up to his name.
I have already refuted Stan. I am an atheist in regard to the god you portray.
Maybe we can look at three alternatives.
ReplyDelete1) God allows a moral free-for all in which no one is held accountable for anything. Therefore no need for hell. (But this earth would be as bad as hell anyway with no moral restraints).
2) God denies mankind any freedom of choice at all. He programmes everyone to be (and to remain) morally perfect. In other words he ends up with a puppet race controlled entirely by Himself. (There can't be much joy in a family made up of dolls that say "I love you daddy" everytime you press the right button)
3) God creates mankind with the ability to choose, so that He can obtain a people who will willingly follow Him. This option cuts both ways. The freedom to choose obedience also creates the freedom to rebel.
But not only does God give that choice, He also adds incentives. To the obedient He promises an eventual new creation which will NOT have the potential for evil; from which all rebellion will be barred. It will be populated by only those who have already chosen His (the creator's)way in this current creation.
However, what becomes of those who reject God and His promise?
Jesus describes their destiny in the terms of a garbage dump; using gehenna, Jerusalem's dump as his example. Like anything that does not fulfill its intended purpose, those who choose rebellion against God' purpose for them will be thrown out as garbage.
This is NOT done arbitrarily. We ALL have the choice to recognise and respond to our creator in the way that He desires. But most prefer to go their own way and kick against any idea of there being a greater authority to whom they are accountable. Such is the arrogance of mankind.
Onesimus,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree.
We have been discussing this for a long time...I am surprised Stan and his fellow thinkers still struggle to see the Christian view of this topic?
It really is not a hard concept to grasp.
God is big enough to create people with a separate freewill to Himself.
cheers brother,
Dan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have altered this statement in my original post.
ReplyDelete"These are the premises that he concluded that God forces and desires people to go to hell"
and have added:
"or at least claims that God is contradictory"
I also added
"Rather than saying "I disagree," the onus is on you to explicitly show where and how this argument fails, if indeed you continue to deny it"
I don't want to misrepresent people.
Dan
Onesimus,
ReplyDelete"But most prefer to go their own way and kick against any idea of there being a greater authority to whom they are accountable."
That appears to be the sticking point for Stan and most Atheists. Most believe that G-d causes their disobedience. Therefore, they can claim no responsibility. Unfortunately for them, it is G-d who makes the rules.
No Doubt
Dan,
ReplyDelete"God is big enough to create people with a separate freewill to Himself."
Baruch atta Adonai Elohenu Melek ha Olam.
Keith, (Still about 2000 miles away from home)
Don't tell Stan. I'm about 150 miles southwest of him. ;-)
No Doubt said...
ReplyDeleteThat appears to be the sticking point for Stan and most Atheists. Most believe that G-d causes their disobedience.
---------
G'Day No Doubt.
Unfortunately I have come across many Christians recently whose theology expresses that very same thing.
They have such a warped understanding of God's sovereignty that they believe that everything happens because God Himself has ordained that it should happen. They deny that mankind has any free will because that would undermine God's sovereignty.
Salvation is therefore soley according to God's choosing. If someone is lucky enough they have been elected for salvation. If not they have already been damned to hell.
I wasn't aware that Calvinists and Atheists had so much in common in the way they think about God. Or maybe those atheists are denying the existence of the Calvinist God. In that sense I would be an atheist too because I don't believe in the God that Calvinism promotes.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"Yes God wants an empty hell. But God would rather have people with freewill to choose Him or not to choose Him.
It is that simple"
Why? Why would God prefer to create people with free-will (with the chance that they'll chose poorly and end up in Hell), rather than create in a different way that did not result in this end?
Surely there were other ways - still retaining free-will - that wouldn't have left (potentially) billions of souls being tortured for all time?
Is He really so desperate to be loved?
No Doubt,
"Most believe that G-d causes their disobedience".
Stan has repeatedly clarified that he does not discount personal responsibility for our own actions when stating his case - I'm surprised you hadn't noticed that. Or were you referencing other atheists here?
If you were then you're using a pretty non-standard definition of the word atheist - I haven't met one atheist yet who believes that God causes their disobedience to Him (can you guess why?)
Cheers,
Onesimus said...
ReplyDeleteMaybe we can look at three alternatives.
1) God allows a moral free-for all in which no one is held accountable for anything. Therefore no need for hell. (But this earth would be as bad as hell anyway with no moral restraints).
2) God denies mankind any freedom of choice at all. He programmes everyone to be (and to remain) morally perfect. In other words he ends up with a puppet race controlled entirely by Himself. (There can't be much joy in a family made up of dolls that say "I love you daddy" everytime you press the right button)
3) God creates mankind with the ability to choose, so that He can obtain a people who will willingly follow Him. This option cuts both ways. The freedom to choose obedience also creates the freedom to rebel.
Well if you must include God then:
4) God creates mankind with the illusion of freewill. Where God knows what every man will choose, but man still thinks he chooses it himself. This means Gods knows exactly how the person's life will turn out from the beginning but the person does not
5) God is the first cause of life and the universe. Man then evolves and through that evolutionary process develops morality. After man reaches a certain point God talks to man and gives them his code to live by, expanding on their evolved morality. Later God sends Jesus, aka himself, to atone for the breaking of both sets of morality. Man would still have the illusion of freewill like in my previous example.
I cannot think of a way an all-knowing God can be reconciled with actual freewill. The best case scenario is the illusion of freewill. It would seem like freewill to man, but God already knows what man will choose and that cannot be changed.
6) There is no God and 5) happened without any supernatural intervention. There is no Hell.
ReplyDelete7) There is a God, or god-like being, but no human has any understanding of who it is or what they want - they just keep out of the way. There could be a Hell, but nobody knows how to avoid it even if there is one.
8) God does not create anything. Nobody goes to Hell.
9) God creates in a totally brilliant way in which everyone has free will, but all choices lead to positive things happening and nobody goes to Hell.
10) God creates everything. The Devil kills God and then spends thousands of years marginalizing true Christian belief so that the majority of people end up in Hell (this would include planting evidence that points to evolution, of course!)
I can't think of any more, but we're starting to cover all the bases I think!
Cheers,
Sorry I should have clarified. I was including the idea of a Christian God, not the deist idea or no gods. I think Matt covered all that very well.
ReplyDeleteSorry one more along the lines of 10.
ReplyDelete11) The Devil wrote the Bible and put himself as God. Then convinced the world that God was actually the Devil to fool people into committing atrocities worldwide.
Pascal was so myopic.
ReplyDelete;)
another option:
ReplyDeleteAtheists created a god out of their own egos and blinded themselves to the possibility that there is someone greater than that ego.
That is perhaps one reason why they are so vocal about God's "non-existence" and spend so much time devoted to a "non-existent" deity.
EPM,
ReplyDeleteGod wants a family with the existence and possibility of love and loyalty. How can you have love or loyalty without the opportunity to hate/despise or be loyal?
God made us as our own beings, with our own responsibilities.
Beams,
Foreknowing is not predestining.
If I knew you would reply to my comment, it would not mean that I forced you to reply to my comment...it is your choice and I allow you to make that choice.
cheers,
Dan
These are the premises that he concluded that God forces and desires people to go to hell or at least claims that God is contradictory.
ReplyDeleteIt's good that you added the "...or at least claims that God is contradictory" bit, else you'd be quite guilty of blatant misrepresentation. While I have argued, and continue to argue, that omniscience is incompatible with free will -- at least, that omniscience renders free will moot -- that is not what the argument you cite addresses. Rather, the argument in question stipulates that with the premises accepted, the conclusion follows deductively. That conclusion is this:
Any gods which purport to exude the attributes described by the premises embodies a contradiction, and is therefore impossible.
That being clarified, you answered thusly:
I will point out his logical flaws.
Sorry, but denying the premises does not constitute "point[ing] out [my] logical flaws." It is merely denying the premises. True, if the premises are denied, then the truth of the conclusion is not given, but if you truly deny the premises, you contradict yourself:
At a great waste of time (appreciated -- after all the time spent yesterday on homework I am happy for the mindless diversion), I've scoured the split threads and found the exact questions and their exact answers:
Q1: Did god know that his creative act would result in a populated hell?
DB's answer: From my current understanding I would say yes.
Q2: Was god in possession of this knowledge when he chose to create?
DB's answer: I assume so.
Q3: Was it in god's power to abstain from creating, or to create in ways such that a populated hell would not result?
DB's answer: Yes, as far as I know.
In the interest of humorous posterity, I also felt I should add the representative opinion of DB's cheerleaders, from the keyboard of Hiker Boy:
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We agree that God knew that humankind would mess it up.
The premises I list, therefore, to support the conclusion (that gods with certain attributes/features are incompatible with those attributes/features), are largely unnecessary, but listed instead for the sake of completeness. Since DB explicitly answered the three questions above in the affirmative, he would necessarily accept them as premises. Since the actual premises I list include these three, DB must do more than deny the conclusion, as it necessarily follows. If he chooses to deny premises, he needs to square those denials with his professed belief in a god whose listed attributes include the very premises he would deny.
Irrespective of "free will," it necessarily follows that [a] god [with the already accepted premises listed above] chose a populated hell (of eternal torment) over any of the alternatives -- including the option to not-create. This decision directly contradicts the notion that god prefers not a populated hell.
Q.E.D.M.F.
--
Stan
Hey Ex Pat,
ReplyDeleteRemember we are talking in the realm as if there was a G-d so you guys can feel comfortable about discussing it.
With that said, I know that you don't believe that there is a G-d. You are taking what I said out of context.
"Stan has repeatedly clarified that he does not discount personal responsibility for our own actions when stating his case - I'm surprised you hadn't noticed that."
Again, I never said "outside of the relationship with G-d" that Stan, you or any other atheist discounts their personal responsibility.
However, within the framework of this discussion, you are blaming G-d for you own actions when you state that since G-d knew when he created therefore he caused you to sin. Again, you can't go in and out of the stated framework of the discussion.
If you were then you're using a pretty non-standard definition of the word atheist - I haven't met one atheist yet who believes that God causes their disobedience to Him (can you guess why?)
Outside the framework of this discussion, you would be correct. However, not within the framework of the discussion.
Shalom,
No Doubt
Onesimus,
ReplyDelete"I wasn't aware that Calvinists and Atheists had so much in common in the way they think about God. Or maybe those atheists are denying the existence of the Calvinist God. In that sense I would be an atheist too because I don't believe in the God that Calvinism promotes."
Very well put. I don't in that god either because that is not the G-d of the Bible.
Shalom,
No Doubt
Yes God wants an empty hell.
ReplyDeleteYet according to Christianity, hell is far more populous than heaven.
Now, a point of clarification (which really should be unnecessary): When I say, "god prefers not a populated hell," I don't mean he "wants an empty hell," but that he doesn't want a hell at all, much less a populated one. It's more than merely wanting an "empty hell."
That being said, then, if you agree with that premise, then you must admit that it's pretty low on his wish list. Evidently, as you say, he'd rather have a majority of humanity enduring a hell (of eternal torment), and a precious few enduring a heaven (of eternal bliss or similar pleasantry), versus nothing existing but himself.
God would rather have people with freewill to choose Him or not to choose Him.
As I just mentioned, and as you here agree, "free will" must be considered more important to god than avoiding a populated hell (of eternal torment). Put another way, god would rather a populated hell (of eternal torment) over robot-like automatons.
Again, then, this sort of god chooses to create in such a way as to ensure the vast majority of his (human) creation endures a hell (of eternal torment).
But wait! This makes no sense whatsoever!
DB unwittingly slits his own throat by claiming that god prefers "free will" to mindless automatons.
Yes God wants an empty hell. But God would rather have people with freewill to choose Him or not to choose Him.
It is that simple.
If it is that simple, then why would you "totally agree" with this statement of Onesimus':
To the obedient He promises an eventual new creation which will NOT have the potential for evil; from which all rebellion will be barred. It will be populated by only those who have already chosen His (the creator's)way in this current creation.
Do you remember your response to this? I'll remind you:
I totally agree.
If god prefers people with "free will" over automatons, then why would the "incentive" of which Onesimus speaks be... a heaven full of automatons?
If the ultimate goal consists of a select few automatons mindlessly enjoying heaven for eternity, and a vast majority of mindless automatons mindlessly enduring a hell (of eternal torment), then why bother with the interim "free will"? If "free will" is so damned precious and preferential, why eliminate it?
Will you now argue that while god prefers "free will" to automatons, but only temporarily, and then he stifles his own preference in favor of the lesser desired option? Is that why he chose to create in such a way that a populated hell (of eternal torment) was inevitable? Was he providing for his preference, which dog came with fleas, only to kill the dog, keep the fleas, and start a circus?
My original conclusion stands: Creating such that a populated hell (of eternal torment) is inevitable is incompatible with preferring not a populated hell (of eternal torment).
Likewise, a new conclusion emerges from your own statements: Having a final goal consisting of no "free will" is inconsistent with a preference for the existence of "free will," especially when that preference has already been cited as the reason for creating such that a populated hell (of eternal torment) is inevitable, in spite of alternatives which avoid this undesired outcome.
Get it? Your god is a moron. If he doesn't want hell, he's an idiot for creating such that there is one. If he wants "free will" so badly that he'll accept hell, he's an imbecile for eliminating "free will" when all is said and done, yet not eliminating hell. If the final goal involves no "free will," then he's a retard for not starting there, since clearly it's possible to have done so.
Oops.
--
Stan
However, within the framework of this discussion, you are blaming G-d for you own actions when you state that since G-d knew when he created therefore he caused you to sin. Again, you can't go in and out of the stated framework of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteWith due respect, the "framework of the discussion" has changed, especially since DB is so fond of starting a new thread just when an existing one gets interesting. In point of fact, then, your statement is a straw man in any of the 'frameworks' thus far explored. I am not saying god caused me to sin, but I am saying that god caused sin. I understand why this is troublesome for you, and why you would seek to distance yourself from such a necessary implication of your system, but your posturing is insufficient to escape it.
Additionally, the argument regarding god's responsibility for sin has shifted to god's preference for sin and the resultant punishment, and points out the fact that such a preference is incompatible with the stated attributes of god, and inconsistent with the stated goals of god with respect to heaven and hell.
If the god you describe exists, it would not have created in the manner we behold.
--
Stan
Beam Stalk,
ReplyDelete"I cannot think of a way an all-knowing God can be reconciled with actual freewill. The best case scenario is the illusion of freewill. It would seem like freewill to man, but God already knows what man will choose and that cannot be changed."
That's because you think of G-d with the limitations of man. You've got to expand your logic beyond the limitations of time-space. G-d exists outside of time-space and therefore is not limited by it.
G-D CAN DO ANYTHING HE WANTS. That's what omnipotent means.
You have no problem accepting the fantasy of man from ape. Why can't you wrap your mind around an all powerful G-d with the foreknowledge of the future of free willed humanity without causing their actions?
Shalom,
No Doubt
Hey Stan,
ReplyDeleteI'm actually in Derango, Colorado right now. You guys have a beautiful state.
With that said, you stated:
"With due respect, the "framework of the discussion" has changed,..."
I have to disagree. That fact that you are talking about G-d when you don't believe he exists shows that you do indeed accept the framework of the discussion....unless you now want to make a public proclaimation to the contrary. :-)
Shalom my friend,
No Doubt
Reading a lot of the above I see that I am right.
ReplyDeleteAtheism IS closely related to Calvinism. They both address the same god from different sides of the fence.
I've had a lot of interaction with Calvinists over the last year and a half and they have the same warped ideas of the god they worship that the atheist here are projecting onto the god they reject.
I have to give credit to where it is due - at least the atheists recognise the absurdity of that kind of god. It's just sad that they are also as blind to the truth as the Calvinists are.
Stan said:
ReplyDelete"If god prefers people with "free will" over automatons, then why would the "incentive" of which Onesimus speaks be... a heaven full of automatons"
Stan instead of basing your understanding of God on a foundation of ignorance, I suggest you actually find out more about what you're opposing.
Heaven will not be "full of automatons" - for a start heaven is not the ultimate destination of the believer. A new earth will be created to replace this one and it is the on new EARTH that will be the eternal home of God's people.
Secondly there will be no automatons - it will be populated by people who have made a free will choice to turn to God and to accept His ways instead of the evil ways that are evident in the world today due to mankind's rebellious choice.
God created this current earth to be the place where our choice is made. he gives us the opportunity to choose to be part of a perfect world totally free of all evil.
Only a fool would refuse such an opportunity - but then again, scripture records that: "the fool says in his heart that there is no God."
I see you are back Mr. Stan :)
ReplyDeleteYour first comment seems to ignore my response to your challenge and point out the technicalities of "how I should have approached it.
A dodge.
Basically the confusion lies in definitions of premises.
Example,
You say "P1. There are bees." (preferred empty hell)
I say: "true"
P2.
P3.
and so on ...
You point out how the existence of bees (preferred empty hell) is not compatible with the rest of the premises about them.
Yet here your problem lies.
Even though I agree what you claim about bees (preferred empty hell). I have in mind Bumble bees in not honey bees.
Get it? Basically you aren't thinking deep enough into an issue. You cherry pick what you want to say or make it mean what you want it to mean and then make it sound like what we believe (throwing a twist on it), when it actually isn't exactly what we believe.
I could say "you are an atheist" and you would say "yes!"
But an atheist has many meaning according to you? Would you like it if I made out what type of atheist you were?
That is what you are doing. Grabbing a statement (preferred empty hell) that has more detail than you wish to acknowledge.
Stan,
ReplyDelete"If the final goal involves no "free will," then he's a retard for not starting there, since clearly it's possible to have done so."
You are setting up another straw man to flog.
We are actually currently talking about life BEFORE people are in heaven. We have a choice to go to heaven...and what happens there will be good...From our current understanding, it is very different to starting from the beginning, and yet you claim it is the same.
Freewill in heaven or no freewill...??? All I know is that people CHOOSE to be there and THAT is freewill.
You have had it clearly described by a number of us where your straw men arguments are set up about the God of the Bible and yet you still attempt to disfigure God's attributes and His actions.
Dan
Your first comment seems to ignore my response to your challenge and point out the technicalities of "how I should have approached it.
ReplyDeleteNot how you should have approached it, but that you didn't address it. You misrepresented the claim, then corrected it to be misleading, but at least actually represent the claim, you dispute one of the premises by accepting it, you dispute another by likewise accepting it, and then with a grand flourish of hand-waving you claim you have refuted the argument.
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
The argument cannot be refuted -- its conclusion follows deductively from its premises -- so instead you may dispute the premises, which you seem to have tried, but your explanations as to why you dispute the two offending premises indicate that you actually support them.
A dodge.
Not even close. Your attempt at answering is noted, but this accusation is quite unwarranted.
I have in mind Bumble bees in [sic] not honey bees.
That's asinine. I don't even follow your childish attempt at reasoning here. If I'm detailing how 'bees' -- any species of bee -- are incompatible with certain premises which you accept, then it doesn't matter what species of bee you "have in mind.". I'm talking about even numbers, and you object because you were thinking about 8 instead of 4.
Let's reanalyze this thing, shall we?
P1. The Christian god prefers not a populated hell.
P1. Half true...God would rather have a being (us) with the opportunity to choose Him or not to choose Him (loyalty), rather than having a predestined empty hell and a full heaven (robots living in paradise). God still wants an empty hell, but He leaves it up to us.
So... Blah, blah, blah, yeah, but, god "still wants an empty hell."
So you accept the premise. The Christian god prefers not an empty hell.
P5. The Christian god chose to create in such a fashion as to ensure a populated hell.
P5. Half true... It is more like, God chose to create in such a fashion as to "allow" a populated hell, just as the police allow criminals to go to jail, even though the police keep telling them they don't have to go to jail.
Sorry, that doesn't work. You cannot deny P5 while accepting P2 and P4:
P2. The Christian god knew that creating would result in a populated hell.
P4. The Christian god had in its power the ability to not-create.
P5 is merely the sum of these two -- if he knew a populated hell (of eternal torment) would result, and chose to create rather than to not-create, then he chose to create in such a fashion as to ensure a populated hell.
Basically you aren't thinking deep enough into an issue.
ReplyDeleteNo. That would be you, refusing to consider the implications of the premises which you gleefully accept, in spite of the internal contradiction I have shown. Striking, though, is your choice of phrase; you seem to think that because the conclusion upsets your sensibilities, there must be some deeper complexity.
Would you like it if I made out what type of atheist you were?
You mean, would I like it if you accurately portrayed my position, and developed a deductively sound argument based on premises I am known to accept? Not only would I like it, but it would be a welcome change to your singular tactic of misrepresentation. Of course, I don't think you can use premises I accept to formulate a deductively sound argument with a conclusion I deny, but because I am unafraid of such a possibility, I welcome your effort. Beware, though, that way lies madness -- it's because of many attempts of that very sort that I've landed at my current position.
[Misrepresenting the Christian's position] is what you are doing.
That is patently false. I have taken great care in first getting you to accept the premises explicitly, which you have done. I have used those premises to formulate a deductively sound argument which shows that the act of informed creation is incompatible with the anti-preference of a populated hell (of eternal torment).
So in sum, you have attempted to engage my argument, which I appreciate, but you have failed miserably to actually defeat it, which is expected, since to do so you will have to deny premises which you have already explicitly endorsed.
--
Stan
No Doubt,
ReplyDeleteI agree that, within the 'framework of the discussion' there is a group assumption that there is a God to scrutinize.
Ok?
Okay, all of you state I am wrong. I was only given one reason why I was wrong, that foreknowledge is not predestination. With that, is it possible for me to choose anything that is not foreknown by God? In other words, it may not be known to me, but God should already know exactly what I am going to do, so can I do something else instead?
ReplyDeleteNext question, in the new heaven and new earth, will there be sin? If not, will there be freewill? If so, what is the point of the first heaven and earth? Why not start out with the perfection of freewill and no sin?
If you point out that is how it started, then why expect a different conclusion in the new heaven and earth? What is going to keep someone from sinning in the new heaven and earth, if everything started out perfect here also? Why couldn't whatever that is have been there in the beginning of the first heaven and earth?
ReplyDeleteSorry that last question is, Why couldn't what that is (what keeps people with freewill from sinning in the new heaven and earth) been there in the beginning of the first heaven and earth?
ReplyDeleteThis is more like how it should read:
ReplyDeleteP1. The Christian God prefers a freewill family over robotic people.
P2. The Christian God prefers not a populated hell.
P3. The Christian God knew that creating would result in a populated hell.
P4. The Christian God is the "first cause."
P5. The Christian God had in His power the ability to not-create.
P6. The Christian God chose to create in such a fashion as to allow a populated hell."
If there are any things my fellow christian brothers think should be added then feel free.
The firt premise now makes the rest work, Biblically.
P1. The Christian God prefers a freewill family over robotic people.
ReplyDeleteNo, that still doesn't work. If you want to try that tact, you must restate it more like the following:
P1. The Christian god prefers a "free will" 'family' over a lonely existence.
The problem with this, though, is that it hangs out the question of just how long god existed before he decided he wanted a "free will" 'family,' and how long that 'family' lasts before he removes "free will" for the rest of eternity...
No matter how you try to spin it, you are left with the fact that, according to your theology, the existence of a populated hell (of eternal torment) is a direct result of god's informed decision to create such that there would be one, even though this decision is incompatible with his alleged preference against just such a thing. The only "way out" is to assign priority to the existence of creatures with "free will," but due to the apparent theological fact that the end result will be devoid of this treasured "free will," this claim is specious at best -- god only wants "free will" for a fleeting moment of his eternal existence, and apparently prefers no "free will" for what amounts to eternity, minus the momentary existence of humanity.
I guess, then, that your modified version is the equivalent to the following:
The Christian god would rather have a handful of humans with temporary free will, and a veritable plethora of humans enduring an eternity in a hell (of eternal torment), than he would being content as the only being in existence.
Is that really the position you want to take?
--
Stan
Once again you have jumped ahead into heaven.
ReplyDeleteGod tells us in His Word that we are His workmanship and one day we will be like Him. (good) and we got there by choice.
I don't know if there is freewill in heaven like we have now.
All we know is that it will be good, where rightousness is. You can be there too Stan.
"The problem with this, though, is that it hangs out the question of just how long god existed before he decided he wanted a "free will" 'family,' and how long that 'family' lasts before he removes "free will" for the rest of eternity..."
LOL. If God is timeless (infinite) then He has no beginning to wait from till the time He made us:) How do you know He "waited"?
"No matter how you try to spin it, you are left with the fact that, according to your theology, the existence of a populated hell (of eternal torment) is a direct result of god's informed decision "
I agree. Man chose to go there and so God sent them there. This world is a world of justice and thank God for justice! He is the Judge, we are the criminals by choice, and so we go to jail by choice, where God does not want us to go. but God would rather us go there than to live forever unpunished. Just as the state would not like criminals to go unpunished. Sin means more to God than to any one of us. We are content with living with evil...God is not.
But He is so awesome that He let us choose our own ways: Sin or God's way...we are given the opportunity to show real love...love with a choice to love.
"we are given the opportunity to show real love...love with a choice to love"
ReplyDelete...or else He'll punish you. Bad. Real Bad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI guess I will ask again:
ReplyDeleteOkay, all of you state I am wrong. I was only given one reason why I was wrong, that foreknowledge is not predestination. With that, is it possible for me to choose anything that is not foreknown by God? In other words, it may not be known to me, but God should already know exactly what I am going to do, so can I do something else instead?
Next question, in the new heaven and new earth, will there be sin? If not, will there be freewill? If so, what is the point of the first heaven and earth? Why not start out with the perfection of freewill and no sin?
If you point out that is how it started, then why expect a different conclusion in the new heaven and earth? What is going to keep someone from sinning in the new heaven and earth, if everything started out perfect here also? Why couldn't what that is (what keeps people with freewill from sinning in the new heaven and earth) been there in the beginning of the first heaven and earth?
I will add a quote this time too, from Albert Einstein:
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Hey ya Beams,
ReplyDeleteWith that, is it possible for me to choose anything that is not foreknown by God? In other words, it may not be known to me, but God should already know exactly what I am going to do, so can I do something else instead?
I assume so.
Next question, in the new heaven and new earth, will there be sin?
Not from my understanding.
If not, will there be freewill?
I'm not sure how it will work. We will be like God, in that He is good, so we won't want to sin by choice.
If so, what is the point of the first heaven and earth?
To have a people that will choose God...a family.
Why not start out with the perfection of freewill and no sin?
Then we would not have people that chose God.
The rest of your questions look like they are restating your first.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I like quotes too!
God did not do the same thing over again. Through this world a family by choice is gained.
"It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for a bird to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad."
— C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity)
In heaven things will be different.
freewill - 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
ReplyDelete2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
If you can't not choose God, then there is no freewill.
Hey Beams,
ReplyDeleteSo maybe according to your description there might be freewill in heaven but since the people going there want to be there, they won't want to sin :) or
We have freewill now to choose God or not. But in heaven we will have forever what we have chosen in this world, but won't have freewill as we have it now. Either way the future will be God by choice.
Why couldn't God create freewill without sin in the first place?
ReplyDeleteCan you choose not to worship God in new Heaven and Earth? If not why would anyone expect new Heaven and Earth be any different from first Heaven and Earth?
This all goes back to my coconut cream pie analogy, why create the pie in the first place?
ReplyDeleteThe pie was to allow distinction between choice of God and no choice.
ReplyDeleteThis what we have now...choice of heaven or not. This is what I know, this is what the Bible portrays.
No, go back and read it. The pie was analogy to the story of Adam and Eve and the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. God had given Adam and Eve freewill, then he creates and places a tree that he knows for a fact will destroy his perfection. He could have easily just not made the tree.
ReplyDeleteBut then Adam and Eve did not choose God.
ReplyDeleteif that was the case
ReplyDeleteThen they don't have freewill in the beginning. Creating the tree has nothing to do with freewill. Freewill is the ability to choose for ourselves what to do. Even without the tree, Adam and Eve would have had the choice what to do, or they originally didn't have freewill to begin with.
ReplyDeleteYou don't need the tree for freewill.
You don't need the tree for freewill.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, Beams, but even more generously, you don't need that tree for "free will." Rather than making it the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil," it could have been the "Tree of the Knowledge of Electricity and Magnetism," or the "Tree of the Ability to Play the Lute," or any other arbitrary sort of tree. In fact, if the tree were of one of these other varieties, and if they already possessed knowledge of good and evil, a case could actually be made that they were guilty of informed sin. As it stands, however, that argument fails, just because of the name and magickal properties of the tree.
You don't need a tree, much less that tree, and the fact that that tree is the one in the story is especially harmful to any argument for its veracity.
--
Stan
You don't need the tree for freewill.
ReplyDeleteOh ok, just as, you don't need a law of the land (tree) to allow individuals to choose loyalty to the law of the land (freewill).
Oh ok, just as, you don't need a law of the land (tree) to allow individuals to choose loyalty to the law of the land (freewill).
ReplyDeleteUmmm. No. "Free will" does not require law, but if you want to test "free will," then yes, you will need some arbitrary and breakable rule, but if you think that any tree, much less the one depicted, is necessary to fulfill that requirement, you're deluding yourself. Neither was a tree required, nor was that tree required. By placing that tree in the story, the author unwittingly belies its accuracy.
As I said, it could have been the Root of the Ability to Jump Really High, or the Nectar of the Flower of the Knowledge of Feminine Orgasm, or the Leaf of the Bush of the Understanding of Optics... That it wasn't is a problem for you.
It could have simply been a word which they were forbidden to speak, a muscle they were forbidden to flex, a thought they were forbidden to think -- any arbitrary rule is sufficient to test loyalty in the face of "free will" as you describe.
As I said, then, you don't need a tree, much less that tree, and the fact that that tree is the one in the story is especially harmful to any argument for its veracity.
--
Stan
Your really keen to get back into that discussion again don't you? LOL
ReplyDeleteAs I said, then, you don't need a tree, much less that tree
But the fact is, it was.
Even though Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil that eating the tree gave, they still had conscience of obedience and disobedience, or else God would not have told them not to, like a parent with a child as you would say.
Define Good and Evil.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDa Bomb said...
ReplyDeleteBeams,
Depends on the context.
E.G.
Isa 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.’
"Calamity" has many meanings and could be translated "evil".
But here it must mean the opposite of peace...that is calamity not moral evil.
We know that God is good.
Mt 19:17
Sin is evil.
Romans 5:12 says that through sin death entered the world. The majority of meanings seem to be a disobedience or wandering from the law of God, which Adam and Eve did.
Definitions of evil in Genesis are:
n f
3) evil, misery, distress, injury
3a) evil, misery, distress
3b) evil, injury, wrong
3c) evil (ethical),
and definitions of good are:
n m
2) a good thing, benefit, welfare
2a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
2b) good things (collective)
2c) good, benefit
2d) moral good
n f
3) welfare, benefit, good things
3a) welfare, prosperity, happiness
3b) good things (collective)
3c) bounty
definitions of knowledge are:
1) knowledge
1a) knowledge, perception, skill
1b) discernment, understanding, wisdom
So from this jigsaw puzzle of meanings, we can somehow determine what it means.
It could mean, knowledge of benefit and pain :) or
knowledge of moral good and evil etc.
Could it mean a fuller knowledge of good and evil or a complete new knowledge of good and evil?
Could it mean a fuller experiential understanding of benefit and pain?
Maybe, it means simply that they had now experienced evil and good and since have entered that realm fully, they now are not innocent and can discern all evil and good through action.
The way I see it is that God told them not to eat the tree because if they did, they would die. They disobeyed knowingly and suffered the consequences.
I have thought about what Stan was saying about how Adam and Eve cannot have had understanding of good and evil before they ate from the tree...he may be right. All we know is Adam and Eve did, and through it man has the ability to do evil and good by choice of which we are all responsible.
I say look at the context and discern what God is telling us...the whole Bible.
The Bible is a book of life, not a book of "chapter 1: God", "Chapter 2: Jesus" etc.
I do believe that it is the word of God.
Shalom Gentlemen,
ReplyDelete"Define Good and Evil."
Good means morally excellent, virtuous, righteous pious with roots pointing to godly. Evil is simply the opposite. Since G-ds Law is representative of G-d, then evil is disobedience of G-ds law.
All other definitions of the word are of man and therefore meaningless.
Yom Tov,
No Doubt
Dan,
ReplyDeleteGot your message.
We are at the end of the Yamim Noraim which culminates in Yom Kippur this evening. I will be back.
Gemar Chatimah Tovah.(May your final sealing in the Book of Life be good)
Shabbat Shalom,
Keith
Maybe, it means simply that they had now experienced evil and good and since have entered that realm fully, they now are not innocent and can discern all evil and good through action.
ReplyDeleteWait -- so after they ate the fruit they ceased to be innocent? Are you making my point now?
If they were innocent up to the point of touching fruit to lip, they were not guilty of sin until after they had lost the innocence -- that is, the next time they disobeyed god, they would have sinned, but not when they ate the fruit.
I have thought about what Stan was saying about how Adam and Eve cannot have had understanding of good and evil before they ate from the tree...he may be right.
Thank you for this admission, but recall that if they were unaware that the action was explicitly 'sinful,' they cannot have actually sinned by taking the action. The first sin could necessarily have come only after they had the knowledge attained by eating the forbidden fruit. Like I said above -- the next time they disobeyed god, they would have sinned, but not the first time.
The fruit may have admitted the possibility for sin into the world, but it cannot have actually been that entrance. The 'Original Sin' must've come later.
--
Stan
To All,
ReplyDeleteSin is disobedience. Evil is the same as sin.
The tree can be view in the same vein as the Law. The Law doesn’t make you sin. In the same way, the tree doesn’t cause you to sin. You make a conscious and deliberate decision to sin (Disobey the Law).
Saying that the tree caused sin or the one who put the tree there caused sin is ludicrous. This is the same as saying guns kill or the ones who manufacture or sell the guns kill. No. Emphatically…..No. It is the people who make a conscious decision to pull the trigger who are the ones that kill. No one else.
Eve, followed by Adam, decided, after Satan put the thought into their heads, to disobey. Before that, all Adam and Eve knew was that G-d told them to stay away from the tree or die, which was the Law. Death in their existence isn’t what man has redefined it. It was separation from G-d. Before the tree incident, Adam and Eve could not fathom disobedience, they were innocent, and they didn’t want to be separated from G-d.
Yes, G-d knew that Adam and Eve would disobey. However, that does not mean that G-d caused them to sin by putting them into that situation. Foreknowledge does not mean predetermination. I am surprise that you, gentlemen of high intelligence, cannot fathom or understand the difference. We are arguing foreknowledge while you are arguing predestination. Predestination is not taught in G-ds Word. Never has…….Never will.
If Adam and Eve fathomed disobedience, then you would be correct. However, they were of an innocent nature. It was after Satan suggested the possibility of disobedience that their innocence was shattered. G-d gave Adam the free will to do anything they wanted to do according to their nature. It was their conscious decision to listen and follow Satan that corrupted their nature and got them into trouble.
Why put it the tree there? Because it’s an avenue of free will choice. What good is free will if the avenue to go awry isn’t there? Once again, it is not the one who put the avenue there that causes you to travel down it. It is your choice. If the avenue wasn’t there, you would not have the choice….. ergo no free will.
Let me end this by saying that I understand your way of thinking. It is a product of evolutionism. Even though you most definitely and vehemently disagree, the main purpose of evolution is not to explain where you came from. It falls far short in that category. No. It is an avenue down which you can travel and not be ultimately responsible for your actions.
In evolutionism, you are only as responsible as your perception. Evolutionists on the whole believe that you are not ultimately responsible for your actions. It is their mantra to blame everything from your parents to your environment instead of looking at themselves as the author of their behavior. Evolution has resulted in our “If it feels good, do it.” society. Right or wrong is no longer black and white or written in stone. Morals and behavior are perceptual. It is right if it seems right to me. Evolutionary thought, if you can honestly call it that, is the reason for our impasse here. It is your choice, not the “lack of evidence” that you travel down the road that leads to the false god of evolution and away from G-d.
Shalom,
Keith
Well put Keith,
ReplyDeleteYour stance is basicly the stance I take. Simply that Adam and Eve disobeyed God or were disloyal by knowledge by eating the fruit (actually they doubted God's character and Word which is sin). Evil is sin, sin is evil.
The tree definately gave them a fuller understanding of evil and definately now evil is experience.
DB
You two should really consult so that you get your stories straight.
ReplyDeleteFirst, DB has been arguing for weeks that Adam and Eve had knowledge of disobedience prior to eating the fruit, and yet now that ND has eloquently offered a position which says otherwise, DB embraces it. Flip-flop much, DB?
If "[b]efore the tree incident, Adam and Eve could not fathom disobedience," and if "they were innocent," then how could they be guilty of sin until after they ate -- that is, the actual snack cannot have been a sinful act, but only after the realization stemming (pun unintended) from the incident can they have sinned. The 'original sin' was not the fruit incident, but from something which followed the fruit incident.
Foreknowledge does not mean predetermination. I am surprise [sic] that you, gentlemen of high intelligence, cannot fathom or understand the difference.
Assuming I am considered one of those of high intelligence, it isn't that I cannot grasp the difference, but that we're not just talking about foreknowledge versus predetermination. We're instead talking about foreknowledge coupled with action, which does imply predetermination. Even if it didn't, however, my argument has focused more on the fact that some responsibility falls on the one with foreknowledge -- especially when action is undertaken which [virtually] guarantees the outcome foreknown.
Saying that the tree caused sin or the one who put the tree there caused sin is ludicrous.
I don't think anyone has argued that the tree caused sin, so why is this included? The one who put the tree there, however, is another thing entirely. I'll let you make my point for me, though...
This is the same as saying guns kill or the ones who manufacture or sell the guns kill.
Not quite.
No. Emphatically…..No.
Also not quite.
It is the people who make a conscious decision to pull the trigger who are the ones that kill.
I would say that killing needn't imply a conscious decision, but there's nothing really wrong with this statement.
No one else.
No one else what? No one else has killed? Agreed. No one else is responsible for the crime? Wrong.
As I've said repeatedly before, if a parent places a set of toy firearms about a table, and places a real and loaded firearm in the center of the table, and then tells his two children they may play with any firearm but the one in the middle, that parent will rightly be found guilty of criminal negligence, and if either child survives the incident he'll never see that child unsupervised for the rest of his life -- and deservedly so, as such a parent is unfit to supervise children.
ReplyDeleteWith your god, however, this analogy breaks down in the following ways -- all of which are detrimental to any counter-argument you might propose:
1. Your god knows what will come of the placement of the real firearm. The human parent technically doesn't know what will happen.
2. Your god cannot have actually left the room, so your god was perfectly capable of preventing the incident. The human parent was capable of leaving the room, and was not necessarily capable of preventing the incident (aside, of course, from enabling the scenario in the first place).
3. Even as a test of loyalty, the object in question needn't have been deadly, but even so, your god could have acted as soon as the decision to be disobedient had been made. The human parent could not have known disobedience was eminent until it had already occurred.
Shall I go on?
Your god differs mostly in that he knew, with perfect knowledge, what would transpire, and yet he chose to cause that scenario to play out anyway. In the case of the human parent, we would all agree that he is guilty of a crime. He may not have actually murdered those children, and they may well have been guilty of disobedience, but he is nonetheless guilty of negligence, and given god's alleged omnipotence and omniscience, he's worse off still -- he may as well have pulled the trigger himself.
The manufacturer of the gun is not at fault for the murder, unless that manufacturer willfully places that gun in the hands of a person who will commit the murder. Since this is still much less culpable than your god would be, yet we would still agree that such a manufacturer would be guilty, how the hell can you argue with any integrity whatsoever that your god isn't guilty in the case of the Eden Incident?
What good is free will if the avenue to go awry isn’t there?
That's not the point, and you are dishonest or lacking in comprehension to miss it so completely. Insofar as an 'avenue' of "free will" is needed for chosen loyalty to be demonstrated, it needn't be a tree, much less that tree. As I've facetiously stated, it could've been the Tree of the Taste of Bubble Gum, and the chosen loyalty could've been just as equally expressed. In fact, had Adam and Eve had the knowledge imparted to them by the tree in the story, then a case could be made that they would have sinned by tasting Bubble Gum. If they'd never known 'Good and Evil,' then surely the Crucifixion needn't have taken place, for their decision to sin would not have been informed -- indeed, even in the story it could not have been an informed decision -- but the decision to be or not to be loyal might've been made anyway. Your god chose otherwise, according to the story, so necessarily he chose to ensure that the vast majority of his precious creation would suffer in a hell [of eternal torment].
You guys would apparently say that a saboteur who blew up a dam would be innocent of any deaths which resulted when the downstream village was destroyed... but that has nothing to do with foreknowledge being equivalent -- even in the hypothetical -- to predestination. If a saboteur of this sort would be guilty, so, too, and infinitely more responsible, would be your god.
--
Stan
(I only have a couple of minutes to answer)
ReplyDeleteFirst, DB has been arguing for weeks that Adam and Eve had knowledge of disobedience prior to eating the fruit, and yet now that ND has eloquently offered a position which says otherwise, DB embraces it. Flip-flop much, DB?
Firstly Stan,
I search for truth, so I am willing to admit I could be wrong....can you?
Secondly, I agree with ND "basically".
From my understanding, I agree with him that knowledge of disobedience came before eating from the tree.
ND said:
However, they were of an innocent nature. It was after Satan suggested the possibility of disobedience that their innocence was shattered. G-d gave Adam the free will to do anything they wanted to do according to their nature. It was their conscious decision to listen and follow Satan that corrupted their nature and got them into trouble.
As I've said repeatedly before, if a parent places a set of toy firearms about a table, and places a real and loaded firearm in the center of the table, and then tells his two children they may play with any firearm but the one in the middle, that parent will rightly be found guilty of criminal negligence, and if either child survives the incident he'll never see that child unsupervised for the rest of his life -- and deservedly so, as such a parent is unfit to supervise children.
They weren't children.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteoops the third lot of italics is stan's quote
ReplyDeleteThey weren't children.
ReplyDeleteStrange how I almost anticipated that lame response...
Before the tree incident, Adam and Eve could not fathom disobedience, they were innocent...
Like... CHILDREN?
From my understanding, I agree with [ND] that knowledge of disobedience came before eating from the tree.
Trouble with comprehension much? First quote: you. Second quote: ND. Thirst quote: you.
Let me get this straight. They weren't children, but they were like children in that they were innocent and could not fathom disobedience, yet you 'agree' that they had knowledge of disobedience prior to the incident...
...and ND contradicts himself by saying I would be correct if they "fathomed disobedience," and then claiming that they did indeed fathom disobedience prior to eating the fruit.
They weren't children.
So the saboteur is not responsible for the drowning of downstream villagers if the villagers are all adults?
You really have no answer to that scenario, do you?
--
Stan
So the saboteur is not responsible for the drowning of downstream villagers if the villagers are all adults?
ReplyDeleteYou really have no answer to that scenario, do you?
One flaw from what I can see.
The downstream villagers aren't innocent. They died and will die for there sins and their wrong doing, just as Adam and Eve did.
Even you have admitted that people are responsible for their own actions.
That's not an answer. Is the saboteur responsible for the drowning of downstream villagers or is he not?
ReplyDeleteEven you have admitted that people are responsible for their own actions.
...which is not under discussion. We are at this moment discussing whether or not the saboteur is in any way responsible. Answer the question.
Anyway, is that all you have to say? What do you say to the contradiction in your own and ND's assessment, in that Adam and Eve were innocents who couldn't fathom disobedience, yet they were guilty of willful disobedience?
--
Stan
Stan.
ReplyDelete"Your god chose otherwise, according to the story, so necessarily he chose to ensure that the vast majority of his precious creation would suffer in a hell [of eternal torment].
You guys would apparently say that a saboteur who blew up a dam would be innocent of any deaths which resulted when the downstream village was destroyed."
God chose to allow people the ability to choose life or death. The people that died in the village died by choice, they are guilty for their own sin.
"What do you say to the contradiction in your own and ND's assessment, in that Adam and Eve were innocents who couldn't fathom disobedience, yet they were guilty of willful disobedience?"
I still have the stance that Adam and Eve knew what disobedience was, yet they did not know all evil. They were disloyal to God and doubted His word which in my Bible is sin. So they sinned but did not have comprehension of all sin which the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gave...as it is named.
Just as I can have some knowledge of some food, it does not mean that I have "Knowledge Of Food" in a complete sense.