Originally posted by frogstompLOL.
I mostly stick with handcoding vrml2 and a little emac and java script. and since that has limited matrix resolution I can't construct anything higher than 3D ,,,but there is software that can .lol i have seen some work done depicting SU(8) and and it looks quite tangled. The Minkowski Space of our universe ...[text shortened]... erience our universe.
edit want a laff,,, I gave myself a headache writing that.
Originally posted by HalitoseYou're kidding.
Okay. I guess you can say God is responsible for giving people free will and is therefore responsible for the actions caused by free will. So, the problem is.....?
Are you comfortable over there in the corner? You know...the one you just painted yourself into?
Originally posted by David CYou're kidding.
You're kidding.
Are you comfortable over there in the corner? You know...the one you just painted yourself into?
😛
Are you comfortable over there in the corner? You know...the one you just painted yourself into?
The lack of reply seems to point to a gaping doorway behind me.
I was conceding that it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to say God is indirectly responsible for human actions, but the humans are the ones who are accountable.
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, the lack of reply indicates the lack of interest. The doorway out is the one you cut by qualifying your statement subsequently to include 'indirectly'. Nevertheless, if your god is responsible (indirectly or not) for the evil that men do from the free will he gave them, then your god is not as omnibenevolent as you suggest.
The lack of reply seems to point to a gaping doorway behind me.
I was conceding that it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to say God is indirectly responsible for human actions, but the humans are the ones who are accountable.
Originally posted by David CIf your definition of God being omnibenevolent means purely Love and not Justice, then God is not omnibenevolent.
No, the lack of reply indicates the lack of interest. The doorway out is the one you cut by qualifying your statement subsequently to include 'indirectly'. Nevertheless, if your god is responsible (indirectly or not) for the evil that men do from the free will he gave them, then your god is not as omnibenevolent as you suggest.
Originally posted by HalitosePure Justice would be the following condition: if anyone spends eternity in agony, then so does your god as well.
If your definition of God being omnibenevolent means purely Love and not Justice, then God is not omnibenevolent.
You've already conceded that God is "indirectly" responsible for every terrible action taken by free-will-endowed humans. I say this is enough for God to deserve punishment.
Before Creation, God is supposedly sitting in void. No evil can yet exist. God is all, and he is perfect. Now he considers creating. By omnipotence, God can design all possible Creations, and he knows every outcome in each. He knows of a Creation in which I will write this post, and another one which is identical to it, but with the one exception that I will choose not to write this post. Given that he can choose ex ante which Creation to make, any Creation that God chooses must be one which God desires at least as much as all others(*). So he desired a Creation in which the Holocaust occurs and in which the Rwandan Genocide would happen. Most damning, he desired a creation in which billions of souls would suffer eternally in hell.
Now some apologists argue that 'free will' gets God off the hook. Usually their argument goes that if God had created any other world, then it would be logically impossible for free will to exist. That is, since God wanted a Creation with free will, he had no other choice than the world we have now. This seems to let God off for creating evil. Without evil there could not be free will. Without free will we'd all just be "robots" and who'd want that?
In order for this counterargument to free God from ultimate responsibility for creating a world which will certianly fall, I think we must concede two things:
1) It is logically impossible for free will to exist in any other Creation
2) Creating a world with free will and evil/eternal suffering is morally superior to one without free will and evil/eternal suffering
Now you've already dispensed with (1) by accepting that God can create a world in which all people use their free will to choose to serve God by not doing evil acts. In light of this possibilty, (2) becomes irrelevant. We can safely suspend this judgement because a world in which free will exists without evil/eternal suffering is possible and certainly must be preferred to either of the choices in (2).
So finally given that such a creation is possible (free will and no evil/eternal suffering), God is ultimately responsible for all the evil/suffering in Creation because he did not choose either it or some other Creation at least as good.
I cannot fathom how anyone with a sense of justice would acquit an omnipotent, omniscient Creator, endowed with knowledge of perfect moral action, for choosing to create any evil and suffering.
* - this follows from God being perfectly rational. To assume that he is not offers the possibility that he made a "mistake" by choosing something that he didn't intend to choose.
Originally posted by telerionI gave you a rec.....surprised?
Pure Justice would be the following condition: if anyone spends eternity in agony, then so does your god as well.
You've already conceded that God is "indirectly" responsible for every terrible action taken by free-will-endowed humans. I say this is enough for God to deserve punishment.
Before Creation, God is supposedly sitting in void. No evil ...[text shortened]... e possibility that he made a "mistake" by choosing something that he didn't intend to choose.
Not because I agree with you, but because of your logic, and it was so well written. I wish I had the writing skills you posess.
I am curious how you would respond to a world with no eternal suffering, which is what I believe the bible states.
As I have stated in previous posts, hell is a metaphor, it is not eternal suffering. This does not reflect a loving God's character, which is why this teaching always bothered me. That is, until I found it is not really supported by the bible. I can post all the verses that imply eternal suffering is not biblical, if you are interested.
As far as God's creation, concerning evil, is He responsible? I suppose ultimately you are correct. Why? I don't believe anyone knows for sure.
We can speculate, but I like Haltose answer at one point, which is how can we judge the creator? If His ways are higher than our ways, an answer may not be avaliable in this life.
But I believe the answer is in the bible, hidden somewhere, I just have never heard it expounded to satisfy your post, nor my own curiousity.
I am enjoying just reading this thread, I hope it continues...
🙂
Originally posted by telerionOkay Tel. No more ducking and diving. I'm gonna do my research to see what I can get from the Bible and come back to you with what I hope will be a rebuttal with all the angles covered. Since we are talking about the Christian God, I hope you won't be too offended when I quote scripture. Don't worry, I won't give you the "it's so because the Bible says so" line which seems to always rub anti-xtiants up the wrong way.
Pure Justice would be the following condition: if anyone spends eternity in agony, then so does your god as well.
You've already conceded that God is "indirectly" responsible for every terrible action taken by free-will-endowed humans. I say this is enough for God to deserve punishment.
Before Creation, God is supposedly sitting in void. No evil ...[text shortened]... e possibility that he made a "mistake" by choosing something that he didn't intend to choose.
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm not sure you were around for this discussion, but you may be interested in the following:
Okay. Here's what I think are important questions, the answers of which form the basis and presuppositions of my rebuttal.
1. Why did God create humans?
2. How did God's objectives fit within the kind of world we live in?
P.S. will be back with the answers shortly.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21886
Originally posted by checkbaiterProbably true. Your god and church are angry nasty folk (I am an angry god), happy to see people burn in hell. So it seems appropriate to use their names to curse.
A bible teacher told me ..."Out of most cultures, and in most languages, I have found something very interesting. When people swear or take the Lord's name in vain, it is usually JC! or GD...you never hear Budda damn, or Allah damn, etc..." He went on to tell me about satanic influence and it does not matter what language, Jesus and God are most popul ...[text shortened]... have heard the same thing from missionaries, etc...what do you think? Ever hear of this before?
1 edit
Originally posted by checkbaiterInterresting enough is that when ppl uses GD, 99% of all of them knows they are using the true and only Gods name.
A bible teacher told me ..."Out of most cultures, and in most languages, I have found something very interesting. When people swear or take the Lord's name in vain, it is usually JC! or GD...you never hear Budda damn, or Allah damn, etc..." He went on to tell me about satanic influence and it does not matter what language, Jesus and God ...[text shortened]... used "GD" as an example - now that could refer to any god, not necessarily the Christian one.
Have u ever seen these old movies made in America and England up until say 1998, where these ppl actually try and act, then they use these words JC and GD, cause using powerful words makes them good 😲? Pathetic!
Americans and English ppl like (or should i say LOVE?) to use JC and GD alot, cause they think they r allowed to cause they r a 1st world country. Being a 1st world country gives them the right to do anything. Being Enlish, the strongest language in the world, gives them the same right too. Right? Wrong!
It is very interresting that ppl dont use other dead god names like budda, mohammed and whatever dead gods their is.
By using JC in a sentence for the fun of it or just by showing off that u r a big shot, DOES NOT RHIME. Nor does any swearing words. No matter how you look at it, using JC and or GD, means you do not have any respect towards other ppl, nor to urself.
Even by swearing the whole time when with friends or purely cause thats who u r, it means u r rude!
Originally posted by NicolaasMandarin is the most widely spoken language. English is the second, but barely before Hindustani and Spanish. For that reason, I'm not sure I can accept that English is "the strongest language."
Being Enlish, the strongest language in the world, gives them the same right too. Right? Wrong!
It is very interresting that ppl dont use other dead god names like budda, mohammed and whatever dead gods their is.
Also, the Buddha wasn't a god. The Buddha was an enlightened man who shared his enlightenment with others. Buddhism does not concern itself with gods, but rather the continual cycle of rebirth. (A few branches, especially the Japanese Shintoism, have attributed the Buddha to being a god, but Buddhist teachings in general maintain that he was a man like any other who was enlightened.)
Mohammad is not a god to the Islamic people, either. The followers of Islam worship the same God the followers of the Bible worship. The Qu'ran is a version of the Biblical teachings given by the Prophet Mohammad and passed by oral tradition for many years. The most significant difference is that the Islamic tradition holds that Jesus Christ was a great prophet who came before Mohammad, not the son of God.
The Wiccan tradition teaches that there is a god and goddess (the Lord and the Lady). Many refer to them in passing as the plural word "god," rather than the longer phrases "god and goddess" or "Lord and Lady."
This comes from www.hindunet.org: "As a universal formulation Hinduism accepts all formulations of Truth. According to the universal view there is only One Reality, but it cannot be limit ed to a particular name or form. Though Truth is One it is also Universal, not an exclusive formulation. It is an inclusive, not an exclusive Oneness - a spiritual reality of Being - Consciousness - Bliss, which could be called God but which transcends all names. The different Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism represent various functions of this One Supreme Divinity, and are not separate Gods."
Some of the names of the Hindu Gods include: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Saraswati, Lakshmi, Durga/Parvati/Amba, Venkateshwara (a form of Vishnu), Satyanarayana, Rama, Krishna, Kartikeya, Ganesh, Hanuman, Gauri, Gayatri. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva form the Hindu trinity.
The interesting thing to note is that followers of all of the above may use the word "god" to refer to a supreme being without necessarily meaning the same god, and certainly without refering to a god that is outside of their own beliefs.