God is not all powerful and loving debate.

[michel]

**** sake!!! Actually read what I'm saying! God is omniscient is he not? He knows everything. If this is the case, he would have known that Adam and Eve would sin. If not then what is meant by omniscience? Ok so God would have known that Adam and Eve would sin, and yet he still created them. He had the choice of creating them the way he did, creating them in a way which means they would not sin(giving them the knowledge of good and evil)which in turn would give them free will, or not creating them. The first means that he knew they would commit sin and therefore in creating them he would create evil, the second there is only a very slight chance that they would sin and only a slight chance that he would great evil, and thirdly there is no chance of sin and creating evil. God would void himself out of existence for definite in the first, possibly in the second, and not at all in the third.

Sorry, Pandamonk, it is you who is not getting the message.

God is omniscient is he not? He knows everything

He knows all the possible outcomes to every situation (a bit like a chess master knows all the responses to one move, and to the next ad-infinitum.

If this is the case, he would have known that Adam and Eve would sin

He knew the chances were that they would, because they were weak and 'temptable' humans; but he did not necessarilly know.

He had the choice of creating them the way he did, creating them in a way which means they would not sin

Had he done so, he would have taken away their free will; if they were unable to sin, they could not have chosen to sin.

 

[pandamonk]

Sorry, Pandamonk, it is you who is not getting the message.....Had he done so, he would have taken away their free will; if they were unable to sin, they could not have chosen to sin.

I never suggested that he take away their ability to sin. I suggested that he gave them the knowledge of good and evil, so they would know that doing what God says not to do is wrong, therefore making it a lot less likely that they would sin. They really did not have a choice if they didn't know what they had to choose between(good and evil). Either this, or not create at all. This is what I've been trying to say, and yes i got the message but saw a flaw in it.

 

[pandamonk]

He knows all the possible outcomes to every situation (a bit like a chess master knows all the responses to one move, and to the next ad-infinitum.
He knew the chances were that they would, because they were weak and 'temptable' humans; but he did not necessarilly know.

Why did he not make them less temptable? The chances of them eating of the tree were infinite, as they would not experience death before they ate of it, so would live eternally in the presence of the tree. The likelihood that they would eat of it are huge. Especially since they could not know that it is wrong to deceive God and eat from the tree.

 

[chuck010342]

So, people are always telling me that god is all powerful, meaning no laws exist that god cannot change and break,

I would disagree with that part. God cannot break the law of non-countradiction. And self-refutation. and Moral laws

 

[Ðanisty]

Ryan, what do you see as a "perfect world"? Describe such a place for me, please. Specifically, why would disease, etc. not be a part of it? Are you saying that a perfect world would have only those qualities you personally see as "pleasant"? If so, how would you recognize them as pleasant without having something "unpleasant" to compare them to?

It's strange that you're using this argument. These are the reasons that I don't want to go to heaven anyway. A place where everything is good all the time? How would we know it was good? Would it even be good or would we just not know the difference? If humans were made to have these experiences and understand good from bad, then I don't think heaven was made for us because it will be a place where our experiences would be useless anyway.

It really doesn't seem logical, based in all the different things I've seen, read, or in any other way experienced, that he would just put us through these hardships just for giggles.

Are you sure? Based on the things I've seen, read, and experienced, it's the only logical conclusion.

 

[Radar]

For a couple of reasons. One: if he didn't, Adam and Eve would have been stuck in an eternal state of non-progression, eternally stagnant and unchanging. Since God's plan is for us to become like him (and one of those qualities had to be knowledge of good and evil), they had to eat of the tree of knowledge. How could they do that if it was out of their reach? Two: Adam and Eve had to excercise free will to eat of the tree. Free will is the greatest gift we have been given in this life, and God can't ever take that away from us. Three: Only with the knowledge of evil can we know the true nature and goodness of good. Four: Without suffering, we can't truely know joy. Five: Without death, we can't be redeemed from a fallen state, and "cash in on our progression" so to speak, by progressing from the mortal to the immortal. Six: We can't truely excercise free will if we are constantly in God's presence, and a lot of suffering is caused by people not using their free will to do God's will.

That's all I can think of right now.

Is that what you take from genesis 3? It seems to me that god was a little afraid of man and wanted to control him. It would seem that god did not want us to become like him at all.
Genesis 3:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.
What do you get from those passages? And where in the bible does it say that what you wrote above that, that is what god wants from us? Or is what you just wrote what you have been taught by someone interperting the bible for you?

 

[Quiddity]

The knowledge that doing what i say not to is wrong.

So someone telling you "don't do that" is not sufficient to stop you from doing it? Assuming there was nothing necessarily wrong with it, they (fill in the blank) just didn't want you to do it.

 

[Ðanisty]

So someone telling you "don't do that" is not sufficient to stop you from doing it? Assuming there was nothing necessarily wrong with it, they (fill in the blank) just didn't want you to do it.

I know this isn't directed at me, but I have an answer anyway. No, that is not enough. I want to know why. I want someone to make me understand. I want someone to give me a good enough reason. I want to make the decision for myself whether I should do something or not and I want that decision to be an informed one. I wouldn't jump off a bridge if someone told me to either...

 

[Quiddity]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I have an answer anyway. No, that is not enough. I want to know why. I want someone to make me understand. I want someone to give me a good enough reason. I want to make the decision for myself whether I should do something or not and I want that decision to be an informed one. I wouldn't jump off a bridge if someone told me to either...

Informed opinions are always a good thing. But what could you possibly tell someone to further their knowledge in things like this? As an example: I don't like people flicking my ears, whether it hurts or not. What could you possibly add to that? Not much. He/she just doesn't like it. But of course the tree had more meaning then that. It's wrong because she/he doesn't like it. It's as simple as that. Not conforming to that will get you in trouble.

~Victor

 

[Aqualung]

But how could they make the choice when they didn't know what was right or wrong. God gave them a 50/50 chance, they can't be held responsible for their actions if they did not know/understand the concequencies of either action.

They did know and understand the consequences. "If you eat of it, you will surely die." You can't get much plainer than that.

1. Why did he want them to kill themselves?

So they could experience moratlity and all the joys and suffering that comes with it.

2. Why did he want them to be cut off from him?

Because nobody can make an unbiased desicion with anybody hovering over them, let alone God.

3. In both situations Satan would have done the right thing, the one that happened in the bible allowed Adam and Eve to fullfil God's wants, and if God had told the to eat, Satan would have saved them from death, lol.

Yes, very funny. He would have saved them from "death," but would have kept them from an eternity with their father in heaven.

So you don't call pain(and sometimes death) in child birth suffering?

You read waaay too much into what people say for your own good.

 

[Aqualung]

It limited either his omnipotence or his goodness. I asked if he did not want to rid the world of evil. If not(or not right now)that limits his goodness, and he can't(or can't do it immediately)that limits his omnipotence. A being that is all-good and all-powerful, cannot allow evil. They are infinitely good, so just want goodness, and are infinitely powerful so can do whatever they want. If there is something that isn't good, ie evil, then they would surely get rid of it immediately, and if not, then they must either not but all-powerful and maybe just very powerful, or not all-good and maybe just very good.

It doesn't limit his goodness. It limits his goodness to stop it now. It's "a few years out of eternity of suffering to allow for an eternity of true joy" vs. "no suffering, and no growth, no joy, no nothing, just stagnacy." You're the one limiting his goodness.

When he finally stoped? But there is consatntly babies being born so doesn't this mean he is still creating them.

No, it doesn't. Everybody who will ever live has already been created in spirit. Nobody else is being created.

Stop making this a personal attack and keep to attacking beliefs !

Then stop twisting, inferring, and illogically using my words.

No, it doesn't make God logical. There is no proof of the spirit world.

There's no proof of anything!! You can't just pick and choose which non-proven things to argue.

Also what happens in the spirit world which helps the ones who are there learn?

Pretty much the same stuff that happens here, except of course for the stuff that you neeed a body for.

Maybe you should start a debate on the spirit world?

You can if you want, but since the sprit world is part of my argumetn about god's goodness, I'm goping to continue using it in this thread.

This does not show that our eternal good is not just god. What makes learning from suffering eternally good?

Because then we can become like him.

The only eternally good thing i get from this is the "returning to live with him".

... and being like him.

Well God is the main topic of discussion in RF, so i would of thought that we both would have seen the definition of a god a thousand times.

I've seen lots of differnt definitions of God on this forum, probably because there are lots of differnt theists in this forum.

I'm talking about the widely accepted definition of God,

It's really only widely accepted by non-theists. Very few theists veiw god the way you do.

if you have another then it is up to YOU to define it.

I'm not the one who needs to define God. You say stuff like, "God is not God because he is not perfect (perfection being this)." All I have to say is you're wrong, and why. I don't have to provide an alternative to your sentence or to your definitions, but just tell you why you're wrong.

The one I have been discussing, with not just you, is the perfect, all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, creator of the universe. There are other definitions which i have chosen to leave out of this discussion, and they include: immutable, omnipresent, all-just, all-merciful, etc, etc.

I know that. I just don't think perfect means "doing whatever pandamonk thinks in humanity's best interest" or that omnibenevolent means "doing whatever pandamonk thinks causes the least amount of suffering."

How can an omniscient being learn? They know EVERYTHING. Unless you don't believe God is omniscient, in that case, please explain your god.

When did I say that God is learning? I said he had to learn in the past... but I don't think he's learning now.

If he is omniscient, he hasn't had to learn.

If he was omnicient, he hasn't had to learn. Don't change verb tense like that.

Why not, he is omnipotent, he could have made us in whatever way he liked. Unless of course you don't think he is omnipotent?

I think he's omnipotent, but I don't believe that omnipotent things can create sqare circles or rocks too big to lift.

Well omnipotent means all-powerful,

Just bcause I have differnt veiws don't go assuming I'm retarded.

this means having infinite power.

Sicne when did all and infinite have the same meaning? If I have all the tables in teh world, does that mean I have an infinite number of tables? Of course not. I have a finite number of tables, because I have all of them.

But like i said,

...rife with logical inconsistencies...

But how did God learn? Where does it say that God learnt?

He learned in much the same way you and I and the rest of mankind are learning. I don't know where it says that. I'd have to dig up the quote.

So he was limited?

Yes, but only because all does not equal infinite, and omnipotent doesn't mean being able to create square circles and rocks so big he can't lift them.

Ok, nothing better can exist, i agree. But how can you conceive of anything better than perfection?

Pretty easily. I can conceive of a dog so big it could mush houses under its paws, but no such dog can exist.

Well I have explained my/the standard definition of both God and perfection,

Don't be so egotistical. "Your" definition is not "the standard definition."

 

[pandamonk]

So someone telling you "don't do that" is not sufficient to stop you from doing it? Assuming there was nothing necessarily wrong with it, they (fill in the blank) just didn't want you to do it.

I would ask why . Yes it usually would stop me, but it would stop a baby(unable to know good and evil)so how could God expect it to stop Adam and Eve(also unable to know good and evil)who were in a state similar to a baby?

 

[Quiddity]

I would ask why . Yes it usually would stop me, but it would stop a baby(unable to know good and evil)so how could God expect it to stop Adam and Eve(also unable to know good and evil)who were in a state similar to a baby?

I doubt He would expect something from us that He knew we couldn't do under our own faculties. I think Adam and Eve had it in them to understand that they shouldn't have done that. Assuming satisfactory information was given, it wouldn't change and they would of screwed up anyways. Me on the other hand, I probably would of made apple pie from all those apples..

 

[pandamonk]

They did know and understand the consequences. "If you eat of it, you will surely die." You can't get much plainer than that.

I agree with you that they knew the concequencies, but disagree that they understood. It's like telling a baby that they will get hurt or possibly die if they play with matches. You have told them, so they know that it will happen, but they do not understand and proceed to play and burn themselves. God explained it in such a way that death was evil. They did not have knowledge of good and evil so could not have understood that death was not good for them.

So they could experience moratlity and all the joys and suffering that comes with it.

Why didn't he just give them this ability from that start? Instead of giving it as a punishment after them experiencing perfection?

Because nobody can make an unbiased desicion with anybody hovering over them, let alone God.

Why did he not cut off them off from him from the start? Why do it as a punishment? You can make an unbiased decision with someone hovering over you. I don't understand why you think you cannot.

Yes, very funny. He would have saved them from "death," but would have kept them from an eternity with their father in heaven.

In the first he allows them the eternity with God in heaven. In the second he allows them the eternity with God in Eden. What's the difference?

You read waaay too much into what people say for your own good.

Thanks very much. Is this just a cop out because you can't think of an opposing argument? If not, why didn't you answer the question?

 

[mr.guy]

I probably would of made apple pie from all those apples..

How industrious of you! More the progeny of prometheus now, aren't we Vic?

 

[Quiddity]

[/color]How industrious of you! More the progeny of prometheus now, aren't we Vic?

Come again?

 

[mr.guy]

I thought you were making a twist on the whole "making lemons from lemonade" quip.
I was just applauding your imaginative approach to instegating an original sin.

 

[Quiddity]

I thought you were making a twist on the "making lemons from lemonade" quip. I was just applauding your imaginative approach to instigating an original sin.

Oh I see.

~Victor

 

[curiouslyminty]

I will just add my viewpoint if anyone is interested, not try and dispute others.

I think we are in the best possible scenario. And no matter how much my infantile mind might think I know better than God, I can't see the true implications of even the slightest change of God's will.

 

[pandamonk]

It doesn't limit his goodness. It limits his goodness to stop it now. It's "a few years out of eternity of suffering to allow for an eternity of true joy" vs. "no suffering, and no growth, no joy, no nothing, just stagnacy." You're the one limiting his goodness.

Thanks very much. I never knew i was that powerful to be able to limit a all-powerful beingKnockout . Woohoo :jam:. Lol, kidding aside, you have offered 2 opinions on possible outcomes, when there are others such as "no suffering, ability to grow, ability to experience joy, everything, eternity of true joy". Why is that not a possible outcome? Why do we have to experience suffering to grow and experience joy when it was God who made the rules? He could have made them any way(unless you don't believe god had this choice but does this not limit him somewhat?)

No, it doesn't. Everybody who will ever live has already been created in spirit. Nobody else is being created.

Ok, i was unaware that this was your belief. And i don't remember how this fits into the argument.

Then stop twisting, inferring, and illogically using my words.

Please explain where i did this? Where i told you to stop making a personal attack i showed the quote which, most certainly, was intended to be personal.

There's no proof of anything!! You can't just pick and choose which non-proven things to argue.

I know that I exist. Is this not proof of me at least to myself? Other thing are sensory and i believe them to be true as I have seen the proof and trust my senses. Other things such as the supernatural, there is absolutely no proof which can be shown from one person to another.

Pretty much the same stuff that happens here, except of course for the stuff that you neeed a body for.

In what way do you suffer and learn?

You can if you want, but since the sprit world is part of my argumetn about god's goodness, I'm goping to continue using it in this thread.

But you cannot use something as proof which you and you only(out of me and you)believe. If you are to use it as proof, you must prove it exists.

Because then we can become like him.

When and how did God suffer? The only way we would be like him is if we experienced what he has experienced. If we become like him, does that not make us also gods? Did not God say he is the only God?

I've seen lots of differnt definitions of God on this forum, probably because there are lots of differnt theists in this forum.

But most follow the same basic structure of a being greater than ourselves, most of which are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenelovent, creators of the universe.

It's really only widely accepted by non-theists. Very few theists veiw god the way you do.

Is that why theologians when discussing gods describe them as such? Why we atheists make up definitions of a being they don't even believe in? The definitions have came from phylosophers, theologians, and religious books. God is omnipotent acording to the Bible(the only holy book I really know much about), "God Almighty"

I'm not the one who needs to define God. You say stuff like, "God is not God because he is not perfect (perfection being this)." All I have to say is you're wrong, and why. I don't have to provide an alternative to your sentence or to your definitions, but just tell you why you're wrong.

Well i will never be able to discuss your god, which you keep telling me I'm wrong about, because you wont describe it, will I? So it is up to you to describe your god. I have describe the god I am discussing and you keep telling me this is not your god. I will keep arguing about the god i have repeatedly described until your describe yours. Or are you not telling me because if/when the worst comes to the worst and you cannot offer opposing arguments, you will just tell me that I'm not discussing your god? Therefore eliminating your need for a reply.

I know that. I just don't think perfect means "doing whatever pandamonk thinks in humanity's best interest" or that omnibenevolent means "doing whatever pandamonk thinks causes the least amount of suffering."

Well please explain what you do think they mean? Also I have never said that I am right and that doing what i say is in the best interest of humanity. I've just offered my opinion. Maybe you cannot except my opinion because it does not contain your God and this leads to personal attacks on me like the one quoted above.

When did I say that God is learning? I said he had to learn in the past... but I don't think he's learning now.

So are you saying that God was once not omniscient and had to learn to become omniscient? I believe this to be impossibly as omniscient means all-knowing, ie infinite knowledge. If you start without infinite knowledge, no matter how much you learn there will always be more knowledge to be learnt.

If he was omnicient, he hasn't had to learn. Don't change verb tense like that.

So you're saying he is now but once wasn't? Read above for my argument against.

I think he's omnipotent, but I don't believe that omnipotent things can create sqare circles or rocks too big to lift.

I never said he need to be able to do these things to be omnipotent(maybe in past debates but never in this one). I just said that he could of made us differently unless he was limited in the way he created us. But surely he would have the choice of allowing us the knowledge of good and evil while creating rather than planting a tree in the garden. He put the knowledge into the tree, why not put it in their minds?

Just bcause I have differnt veiws don't go assuming I'm retarded.

When did I ever assume you were retarded? I explained what was meant by omnipotent because you keep telling me I'm miss using the words and don't have the correct meanings and that i should explain what i mean by certain words before i use them.

Sicne when did all and infinite have the same meaning? If I have all the tables in teh world, does that mean I have an infinite number of tables? Of course not. I have a finite number of tables, because I have all of them.

Well, is there limit to power?

...rife with logical inconsistencies...

Please show these and explain how and why they are inconsistent.

He learned in much the same way you and I and the rest of mankind are learning. I don't know where it says that. I'd have to dig up the quote.

Please do so. And knowledge is infinite in my opinion, so you cannot go from haveing average knowledge to infinite as i showed before.

Yes, but only because all does not equal infinite, and omnipotent doesn't mean being able to create square circles and rocks so big he can't lift them.

Omnipotent means all-power, power=energy and energy is infinite.

Pretty easily. I can conceive of a dog so big it could mush houses under its paws, but no such dog can exist.

Why is that better than perfection?

Don't be so egotistical. "Your" definition is not "the standard definition."

I disagree. I have read a few phylosophical books and they all mention God in this way. They didn't just make it up so they could argue against it. They got the definitions from theologians and religious books and use the most widely used definitions of gods in their arguments. They do not use the ones held by individual belief systems, if they did they would not be discussing gods in general, but a certain god.