1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterThere's a big contradiction in this one - if god is 'omnipresent', then evil, by the student's definition, cannot exist.
There is a story about a professor at a college with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade them and to mock their statement of faith.
One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professo ...[text shortened]... thout heat or darkness without light."
The professor had nothing to say...
Author Unknown
The analogy really is absurd on both ends -- heat and light are not 'virtuous'; too much of either can cause harm.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionThen we must be very nervous indeed because if perfection requires that the perfect thing have the freedom to do evil, then Yahweh can do evil (since he is supposed to be perfect.). He may not have done it yet, but he could at any point. And more importantly at every point, he must have the choice to do evil.
Then we must be very nervous indeed because if perfection requires that the perfect thing have the freedom to do evil, then Yahweh can do evil (since he is supposed to be perfect.). He may not have done it yet, but he could at any point. And more importantly at every point, he must have the choice to do evil. I have more thoughts on this, if you choose ...[text shortened]... evil is necessary for perfection, while the ability to do these other actions are not required.
That is where we humans are human and God is God. Holiness is part of Gods character, therefore He cannot do evil.
Of course this is conceding to you that the ability to do evil is necessary for perfection. This can certainly be disputed. There are many things that I cannot do or choose to do. I cannot fly or choose to fly to the sun. I cannot shrink myself in size in such a way that I become a proportional replica of my regular self. I cannot choose to drink up the entire ocean.
I don't think my emphasis here is on perfection and its prerequisites. As you pointed out, different people might have difference requirements for perfection. I don't think breaking the physical laws of this corporeal world, would necissarily be that requirement. My appeal is on the concept of free-will. "Perfect" being a clean slate with the capacity to serve God, but the freedom to choose not to.
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThere's a big contradiction in this one - if god is 'omnipresent', then evil, by the student's definition, cannot exist.
There's a big contradiction in this one - if god is 'omnipresent', then evil, by the student's definition, cannot exist.
The analogy really is absurd on both ends -- heat and light are not 'virtuous'; too much of either can cause harm.
I don't wanna butt into this wonderful discussion, but I think as a Christian I have a different definition of omnipresent compared to the eastern religions which claim that god is everything and everything is god. Then yes, god would have to be evil.
I think the Christian defenition is omnipresence as a spectator, not necissarily a partaker. God created time and space and is therefore not bound by it and is being able to act/see at all physical places at the same time.
Originally posted by Halitose'Omnipresent' simply means that god is everywhere, not that he is everything. Most theists would claim he's 'omnipresent' enough to at least witness all the events going on in the world simultaneously, if he is to pass judgment on them. If this is really true, it is hard to claim that god is ever absent.
[b]There's a big contradiction in this one - if god is 'omnipresent', then evil, by the student's definition, cannot exist.
I don't wanna butt into this wonderful discussion, but I think as a Christian I have a different definition of omnipresent compared to the eastern religions which claim that god is everything and everything is god. Then yes, god would have to be evil.
[/b]
That is where we humans are human and God is God. Holiness is part of Gods character, therefore He cannot do evil.
Well, then you've either undone your own argument or your own beliefs. Either the ability to do evil is not necessary for something to be perfect (which contradicts your assertion earlier) or the ability to do evil is necessary which means that Yahweh is not perfect because he cannot do evil.
I don't think my emphasis here is on perfection and its prerequisites.
Unless I misread your reponse to my first criticism, the ability to do evil is part of being perfect. In fact, it is your out for why we can declare that humans were created perfect even though they went on to do evil.
As you pointed out, different people might have difference requirements for perfection.
I am saying that your fiat claim that the ability to do evil is necessary for something be perfect is disputable. Your free will defense supposes that it is necessary. Not only do you provide no reason to think that this is true, but you offer a counterexample showing that it is not (Yahweh is perfect and cannot do evil.). Certainly the ambiguity in the word "perfect" is another problem with your earlier post, but it is really not central to my point.
I don't think breaking the physical laws of this corporeal world, would necissarily be that requirement. My appeal is on the concept of free-will. "Perfect" being a clean slate with the capacity to serve God, but the freedom to choose not to.
Again why should I accept that the ability to do evil is central to the qualilty of "perfect," but not to break physical laws? As the Intelligent Designer, God could certainly have made it impossible to do evil without breaking physical laws. So far it seems that you manipulate the standard of "perfect" to condemn humans and excuse God.
Originally posted by checkbaiterOne can only assume the professor declined to answer such simplistic, specious arguments.
The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat or light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."
The professor had nothing to say...
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't agree with your view that the Biblical flood was the wiping out of mankind on the part of God because He couldn't get it right first time. God created man perfect; man commited evil. The flood was God's judgement on mankind for their evil. Which I don't have to remind you is a free will issue.
[b]i never said he was my god; i am a weak atheist. also, i seem to recall your God flooding out mankind in order to start over. it would seem that He is the one who cannot get things right the first time.
I understand your perspective. I was just having a rhetorical rant at myself. 😛
I don't agree with your view that the Biblical flood was th ...[text shortened]... estion is, how many kids get taught evolution at school, and how many are taught ethical theory?[/b]
i am not interested in getting into a rigorous debate about something as patently absurd as The Flood. but, i would like to point out a couple verses and make a quick point:
Genesis 6:6: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 6:7: "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
these verses, especially the phrases in bold, demonstrate that God is demonstrating regret over his own actions (probably in addition to sadness over the rampant evil ways of man). in my interpretation, he acknowledges that his initial creation was lacking in design and application (He made a mistake 😲), he regrets it, and he willfully acts to clean up the mess he has made. i think you are really stretching the interpretation by still asserting that his initial creation was 'perfect', but whatever makes you sleep soundly at night...
also note that God not only wiped out mankind (except Noah's family), but he also wiped out basically every other land animal (except those taken on the ark). are you also going to state that the other doomed animals received just punishment during the flood? did they also perpetrate evil through free will? not bloody likely since they are not rational beings. IMO this also shows that God disapproved of his own initial creation.
Here's a few conclusions I think I would be justified in reaching from evolution.
1. Man is nothing more that a complex array of biochemicals involved in the struggle for survival.
2. Morality will always be changing as we animals evolve. What was right yesterday, might be wrong today.
3. Ultimately it all comes down to what feels good. If it feels good do it.
i think you are confused. you are trying to attack the validity (or the soundness? heck, i don't even know what you are attacking) of evolution because in your estimation, evolutionary theory could lead one to what you perceive to be specious lines of moral argument (of all things!). however, none of your conclusions above are essential to or follow necessarily from evolutionary theory. they involve bringing ethical theory and moral leanings to the table in addition to evolutionary theory. i see your argument as nothing more than a straw man since you are attacking the evolutionist for views that he does not necessarily hold.
The question is, how many kids get taught evolution at school, and how many are taught ethical theory?
from my recollection of school, the evolution that i was taught was called science and it was based on findings gathered from application of the scientific method. you'll also be happy to know that those classes did not in any way lead me to any of the three conclusions you state above. out of curiosity, what is your idea of ethical theory for youngsters? bible class and fundie training? Divine Command Theory?
Oh, and the other thingI meant to say, right at the beginning, was that the Big Bang was exactly perfect for life to occur; the chance that it would have happened is so small that humans cannot comprehend it. Surely its more sensible to base your entire life on something with purpose than live with the knowledge that you're useless and your life is worth nothing anyway?
Originally posted by RazzleBreezerWhy does the Big Bang make us useless and our lives worthless? You might be useless and worthless, but I certainly don't see my life that way.
Oh, and the other thingI meant to say, right at the beginning, was that the Big Bang was exactly perfect for life to occur; the chance that it would have happened is so small that humans cannot comprehend it. Surely its more sensible to base your entire life on something with purpose than live with the knowledge that you're useless and your life is worth nothing anyway?
Originally posted by KneverKnight"Gods inside steam engines" - how absurd! Everyone knows that small trolls are located inside every mechanical device making them function smooth as silk.
Why do you people keep trying to put some sort of morality on TOE and the Big Bang? They are just theories on how things work.
You remind me of someone who believes there must be gods inside of a steam engine and resist efforts to explain it in mechanical terms.
