“God is testing us”?

Originally posted by jaywill
I don't know much about theological [b]"libertarianism".

I never heard of it. At first glance, politically at least, a libertarian is a conservative who wants to get away from the label "conservative".

Like a progressive is a liberal who wants to get away from the stigma of being labelled "liberal".[/b]

Sorry for the confusion. I am basically using libertarianism in contrast with compatibilism. You can check out these links for example:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/

Originally posted by jaywill
probably [b]Job would be the best place in Scripture to see if the concept of God testing someone is there.[/b]

Does it say that God tested them or that he let Satan test them?

Originally posted by jaywill
Adam and Eve were:

1.) [b]Neutral between God's way and any other way. That is until their choice was made in which they moved out of the neutral stage and took sides.

2.) Not capable of knowing good and evil by themselves. Such knowledge had to be derived directly from God. That is until they aquired that ability to know good and evil.

3.) Innocent - God did not create them sinful.[/b]

I repeat myself again:
Adam and Eve were not perfect. They failed the test. And god knew that they would fail.
...according the legend.

Because a legend it all what it was. A story. Something that was invented to be telled at the beduin camps. To explain the otherwise unexplainable. like Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs or whatever. Taking this legend seriously is like children believing that Superman really existed. It's a legend. Treat it like this!

Originally posted by whodey
They were perfect in the sense that they knew no sin. They were imperfect in that they did not know everything. This is why faith is so vital. It is the necessary relationship between an infinite God and finite man.

Good answer. They werre also perfect physically and would never had died if they had remained faithful to Gods request.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
“God is testing us”

I have often heard people say the above but I think this an illogical claim for the following reasons:
=============================

I find that some skeptics exaggerate how "often" they supposedly heard something said.

1.) How many times did you hear people say "God is testing thumping ?

How's classes going, by the way?[/b]

“…I think a "test" could be not for the sake of One who is all-knowing. It is possible that the "test" could be for the one being tested to know….”

I concede I had not considered that that could be what somebody could, at least in theory, mean by “God is testing us”. But IS that what people usually mean by that phrase? -I am not sure.
And, and I admit this is a miner point, but why would an all-powerful “God” tell us whatever lesson from one of his “tests” when he could simply dispense with the test and tell us directly? –I mean, using your analogy, a professor making his student do a test to find out that he ( the student ) is wrongly assuming he can pass the test, if that professor was all powerful then the professor could dispense with giving the test and mind-melt with the student so that the student can see the error of his assumption and thus avoid wasting time doing a test.

“…To argue against God would be to argue against the One who gave you the ability to argue at all….”

how do you know that it was a “God” that gives us the ability to argue rather than our big-brains that evolved from evolution?

“…Then maybe you take the approach that there is NO God…”

That is my obvious default assumption based purely on the absence of credible evidence on the existential claim that there is no “God”.

“…Then if you know that you could not scientifically demonstrate it and violate your own complaint….”

There are two things wrong with that statement

firstly, it is not a “complaint” but a “conclusion” based on the absence of evidence.

Secondly, there is no need to “…scientifically demonstrate…” this because to show that an assumption that ANY particular existential claim is true is unreasonable ( not JUST the existential claim that there is a “God” ) when there is no credible evidence to support it, one does not have to use scientific method! -one only has to merely point out that is no credible evidence to support it –that is all!
If this was not the case then we would have to conclude that it is reasonable to assume that there are trillions of invisible sexually frustrated floating elephants exactly five feet above your head right now DESPITE the fact that there is no credible evidence for this existential assumption because there is no credible evidence for this existential assumption being false! 😛

Originally posted by galveston75
I'm curious as to why you think God tests us? I can't seem to remember any scriptures that ever says that he does that to humans other then Adam & Eve who were perfect...

“…I'm curious as to why you think God tests us?...”

I don’t.

“…I can't seem to remember any scriptures that ever says that he does that to humans other then Adam & Eve who were perfect...”

I was not referring to what the scriptures say but, rather, what I hear what people sometimes say on TV esp in the context of them being in a disaster.

Originally posted by whodey
If God is all knowing and all powerful, can he choose at some point not to know an outcome? For example, could God begin creation without wanting to know the end details only to then see them once it had been sprung into existence?

I find that an interesting question.

Perhaps another interesting question is WHY a “God” that was an all knowing all powerful “God” would then want to choose to diminish his own power by making himself no longer be all knowing?
It does strike me as an odd thing to want to do, like you choosing to deliberately give yourself brain damage in order that you are no longer so clever.

Originally posted by jaywill

erased

Rec'd, JW.... that every last mother's son and daughter posting to this public forum

might occasionaly follow suit. By the way, did this rec in lieu of an indulgent post.



.................................................................

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I repeat myself again:
Adam and Eve were not perfect. They failed the test. And god knew that they would fail.
...according the legend.

Because a legend it all what it was. A story. Something that was invented to be telled at the beduin camps. To explain the otherwise unexplainable. like Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs or whatever. Taking this legend ...[text shortened]... sly is like children believing that Superman really existed. It's a legend. Treat it like this!

The mistake is treating it like a fairytale.....
Gal 6:7, 8. You can look that one up....

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry for the confusion. I am basically using libertarianism in contrast with compatibilism. You can check out these links for example:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/

This is a little off topic, but where do you stand on Frankfurt examples?

I agree with your analysis of the limits libertarian free will places on omniscience, but how can we deal with the problems we have touched on in other threads regarding god's relationship to time? You'll notice that your account assumes or implies god as an agent which in turn implies existence in time.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I find that an interesting question.

Perhaps another interesting question is WHY a “God” that was an all knowing all powerful “God” would then want to choose to diminish his own power by making himself no longer be all knowing?
It does strike me as an odd thing to want to do, like you choosing to deliberately give yourself brain damage in order that you are no longer so clever.

Empathy.

After all, if it is reversible brain damage that's not so bad. More like a prosthetic pregnancy belly that men can wear to experience the weight gain and back ache their spouse experiences.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Rec'd, JW.... that every last mother's son and daughter posting to this public forum

might occasionaly follow suit. By the way, did this rec in lieu of an indulgent post.



.................................................................

Sometimes I respond quickly. After a moment's consideration I decide I do not want to write that.

For whatever personal reason, I decide to erase my words on occasion.

Originally posted by jaywill
Sometimes I respond quickly. After a moment's consideration I decide I do not want to write that.

For whatever personal reason, I decide to erase my words on occasion.

I liked your #2.

Originally posted by galveston75
The mistake is treating it like a fairytale.....
Gal 6:7, 8. You can look that one up....

This verse you proposed me to read seems to be wrong verse. It had nothing to do with the legend of Adam and Eve. Please correct.

You don't believe the tale, do you? We agree that it is a legend, nothing more?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This verse you proposed me to read seems to be wrong verse. It had nothing to do with the legend of Adam and Eve. Please correct.

You don't believe the tale, do you? We agree that it is a legend, nothing more?

Legends are often loosely based on facts. (Facts should ALWAYS be cross-checked)

I reckon the Adam and Eve story is an allegory, but the exact facts I'm not sure about.