Confession of a former christian

quote:

---

Haha, iano you just confirmed my atheism again. Yup, that's why I'm an atheist.

---

Actually, one has to see the other side of the coin, before concluding. Finding errors in one religion, does not prove the motion ascribed by the video: he still has an even greater problem than every religion, including those based on evidential myth. Negating everything, even if that negation is vindicated, does not favour the motion by itself.There is the inexplicable X factor - even so noted by the greatest of scientists, including Newton and Einstein. Now let's examine some of the factors mentioned which was rejected in the reasonings of that author.1. That man was sited as made from dirt/dust.This is hardly what is ascribed in genesis, when its context is considered. The heb term for dust is an appropriate one, written for all generations of mankind, and representative of the status quo of this generation, namely pointing to particles, molescules and other sub-atomic structures. Here, there is a total backing by state of art science and biology, that humans [as are all life], organic and made from the earthly elements. Had it not been so, then science itself would be dismissable, but science evidences genesis' statement as correct. Fact is, when the OT was first translated to another language [300 BCE/Septuagint] - there was simply no word or notion of the relevent hebrew word, and it was stated as 'dust'; there is also no word such as scuds in the OT. I thus challenge anyone to nominate a better explanation than the one used in genesis, and let it apply to all generations, including one 4000 years ago, and one also applicable 5000 years from today?2. Massacres in ancient times.Ancient Egypt was sited. The omission was that this was in fact not a genocidal massacre as portrayed, but its reverse - namely a response to a prolonged, sustained genocide by the egyptians. The other omission was, that these type of wars were commonplace in primitive ancient times, throughout the world, in effect vindicating the genesis report as 100% truthful: some wars, due to ancient superstitions, forbade the taking of prisoners. Occultism prevailed in those times, to the extent that during a crisis, a parent or a king would sacrifice their most cherished child to offset a calamity. There were beliefs of spells and spirits which would linger if certain enemies were not totally inihilated, including children - its reasoning was not mere cruelty, but a wrong or primitive reasoning. In fact, we cannot even say wrong and primitive here - those who did these things were our own ancesters, and if we lived in those times, we would absolutely agree with it. One must examine the situation w/o today's knowledge, else it is not a scientific or truthful understanding. One must also examine the texts as an intergrated one, as opposed to cherry picking what can be made to look blatantly bad, with little deep thought and knowledge. This does not mean we can condone those attrocities today, but it is less than scientific or prudent to depict it in such shallow terms. The OT is not a candy-coated document, but the world's most honest and historically vindicated writings in existence. Its first quality is truth and factual: those kind of genocides were commonplace. The miracles sited therein [a topic on its own], must be regarded with its millions of factual stats and specs throughout its verses, and given at a juncture of humanity when advanced alphebtical books never existed for a 1000 years after. Grammar itself was introduced here. The reprt of the ancient egptian's diets, and the travel distance from Goshen to Median - is authetically vindicated; the 1000s of names in generations, is also scientifically accurate. the author is not saying these are not true or accurate, but that he does not like what is said, a view made from this generation.3. Age.This was sited in the video, with no reference what it applied to. But there is an astonishing factor with the ages and datings given in the OT, which defies anything else as its equivalence. Consider that genesis declares that speech endowed humans are less than 6,000 years old [many eronously think this refers to the age of the earth]. Now we must admit, this is a high risk, bold declaration to make by any ancient writings, and that it did not have to take such risks. But the astonishing part is, it is 100% vindicated today. We have not a single 'name' older than 6000, not a single writing, not even history per se. This does not become dented by some alledged finds such as cave markings and agriculture imprints; that there is even a 50% chance of genesis being correct, or debatable, is an astonishment. Which writings any place can say such? And why do we find that world populations and human mental prowess match only the genesis datings? How come the Hebrew calendar is the oldest and most accurate of all calendars even upto today? I list these factors while the video did not give reasons for its age rejections.4. Hell.Here, the notion of hell is not an OT premise; in fact there is no reference to the afterlife in the OT, and we find this knowledge is elusive to all, including science - vindicating the OT's silence. The author of the video mentions that he upholds deeds over belief. Does he realise that this is the exact advocation of the OT, which gives no immunity to one belonging to any religion? What does 'only the soul that sinneth it shall pay' - mean, when no religion is sighted, and no exit clause allowed for kneeling or prostrating in its stead?The author hails science, while not realising where this faculty emerged from. The OT is the first doc which declared:That the universe is finite [it had a beginning]. That entropy occured [formless became form]; the light is a primodial force; that this planet underwent critical changes to anticipate life [seperation of water and land; day from night; etc]; evolution [the first recording of the chronological emergence of life forms, from veg, water, air, land to humans]; speciation [via the seed factor, able to tranmit all imprints including skeletal and dna]; medicine [the first seperation of this faculty from the occult, with the ID, treatment and quarantine of contagious, infecticious and malignancies/leprosy]; Grammar; the first alphabetical books; judiciary laws; Creationism [which still reigns a surpreme premise, with no alternative on the table]; Monotheism - the most logical premise ever contemplated.One cannot even mention science w/o the OT. what appears to be the case, is a belief in a creator source is inherently known and felt by all life forms [including atheists], but this is also the easiest trait to exploit. All religions cannot be right. But it is manifest the OT is the world's most astonishing and mysterious document in existence.

quote:

---

It might be about God, and it might be a story of a peoples search for God, but it is not 'God's word'.

---

It is still inexplicable, how a document can record historical events and 1000's of names, dob's, dods and locations - for a period of 2500 years before its contemporary time - and be vindicated. Such details were not available in libraries or recallable; in fact there were no historical writings or alphabetical books before that time and for a 1000 years thereafter. That a small, ever wondering nation, which came late on the scene, did so, while other mightier and older nations did not - is an anomoly. It is not condusive to man's writing ability either, thus a mystery.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Where does it say that the mountains were different?If you're interpreting the Bible to mean that then you are no longer reading it literally.You don't read the Bible as if its the literal word of God?Why should I accept your interpretation over another?ABE (added by edit):If you're going to interpret the mountain thing (and also say that child stoning is metaphorical), then why can't you just say that the whole flood story is a metaphor too?How do you decide what is metaphor and what is not?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

(and also say that child stoning is metaphorical),before Jesus's Coming
Where does it say that the mountains were different? it doe'nt does It? but if there was a world wide flood don't you think there would be Changes on the earth?thats just sense.
you don't read the Bible as if its the literal word of God?i take it this is a Question for me.In Job God asks alot of Questions right job never answers them the Questions were so Job would thing different.and yes I would and do and always will read the Bible As Gods words that Is From God to man.
If you're going to interpret the mountain thing (and also say that child stoning is metaphorical), then why can't you just say that the whole flood story is a metaphor too? I could ask you the Same thing cause you were
'nt there in the begining.How do you decide what is metaphor and what is not? this question is pretty obvious Is'nt?!!
Now I want to move to another Topic cause we are'nt talking about Confession of a former christian.
where would you like to move this?

Hi there DwarfishSquints and welcome to EvC Forum.I'm finding it quite hard to follow you're posts, since the quotes from other members are all mixed in with your own words. It's much clearer to use quote boxes and it's really easy.Just type;[qs]This is a quotation[/qs]and it will appear as; Or, you can do it this way;[quote]This is also a quotation[/quote]which gives this effect;

quote:

---

This is also a quotation

---

I hope this helps.

---

Mutate and Survive

There's an acronym you're going to encounter very soon: PRATT. It stands for "point refuted a thousand times". It is applied to the typical proven-to-be-false claims that are posted ad nauseum on countless creationist sites and that newly arrived creationist gather and post here, often verbatim (ie, they just copy-and-paste that garbage).The truth of the matter is that those creationist claims have been around for decades and were exposed as false very shortly thereafter. And yet creationists continue to circulate and regurgitate those false claims despite the truth. This is because the older falsified writings continue to be published unchanged, such that newer writers just lift the false claims from them and spread the lies further, and new creationists arrive all the time (as in "a new sucker is born every minute") and gobble that garbage up as if it's the newest thing, even though it had been refuted before they were even born.From my links page (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/links.html) where I recommend the Talk.Origins Archive site (TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy):

quote:

---

This web-site is an excellent source of information of specific "creation science" claims and why they are wrong. It is somehow connected -- I don't know precisely how -- with the talk.origins newsgroup. Just about everything that there is on the subject can be found there, including a list of messages. Includes a search engine.

​

This site is an invaluable resource for both sides of the issue -- especially for those who want to use creation science claims, eg for proselytizing or for winning arguments. Pro-creation-science resources are notorious for recycling old dead claims and notoriously remiss in informing you of the history of a claim, of what objections and criticisms and refutations have been raised against it, or even whether the claim had been retracted by its originator. Instead of charging in over-confidently with "brand-new evidence" that you think will blow your opponent away, you'd be better off knowing what your opponents know, that that "brand-new evidence" is actually several years old and was found to be utterly bogus. I have seen it happen and it is not a pretty sight [1]. Knowing what your weaknesses are is part of Sun Tzu's advice to "know yourself."

​

---

​

[1] Here is a true story to illustrate that point. About twelve years ago at The City mall (now completely rebuilt as The Block) in Orange, California, creationist Scott Alexander was hosting a series of amateur-night creation/evolution debates in which the members of the audience were invited to get up and make presentations. One young creationist (I would judge him to have been about 18 to 21 years old) got up and announced that he had some new hard science that would blow the evolutionists away: the speed of light has been slowing down! The pro-evolution half of the audience immediately burst into uncontrollable laughter. That claim of Setterfield's had already been known to them for a decade, it had been refuted many times, and they started to explain to the poor hapless creationist exactly why that claim was false. He didn't know what had hit him.

---

Another link is to an article written Answers in Genesis which warns of the dangers of using false claims to proselytize: What About Carl Baugh? No webpage found at provided URL: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm
BTW, I contacted Answers in Genesis directly about this article and they verified that it's exactly what Glen Kuban says it is.

---

Which also explains the placement of plant fossils as well? As soon as those more advanced plants saw the Flood coming, they just pulled up their roots and ran for high ground, right? Huh? What makes you think that "all that" had to have developed at the same time?Would that be something like the fact that amphibians and reptiles have three-chambered hearts while mammals, which evolved from reptiles, have four-chambered hearts? Would you claim that with such a big change everything would have had to have fallen precisely into place within one generation? Would you want to bite on that one? Please disregard the trip wire set to spring the trap.
(HINT: the crocodile) The same basic claim. Please explain just what your claim is and what your assumptions are. Explain your claim, please. Are you trying to say that something spectacular will happen when you mix hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone together without a chemical inhibitor? Like, that they would spontaneously explode? Do please tell us.Really, do tell us. Because I have a great story to tell.OBTW, it's called a "bombardier beetle". Knowing the correct name will help you to seek the truth. Well, at least you got one thing right.Edited by dwise1, : added HR tag within quote to separate the footnoteEdited by dwise1, : correcting his misnaming of the bombardier beetle

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

just open another forum and then i'll tell you how you're wrong.

Go right ahead and open another topic for that purpose. But I would request that you try to write an intelligible OP for it? So far you've been writing jumbled messes. Though once you seemed to actually be writing in English, but it was still somewhat of a mess.I informed you about PRATTs because those claims that you were dropping were PRATTs. At least now when our response is "PRATT!", then you'll know what we're saying.To read up on "Bomby", start here and follow the links: CB310.1: Bombardier Beetles and Explosions.
It's part of an index of PRATTs (though I have only seen that acronym used on this forum). You should peruse it and start to discover the truth about the creationist claims you've been fed.It started with Gish's claim in the 1970's that the bombardier beetle couldn't have evolved because everything had to have been in place -- kind of like Behe's equally false "irreducible complexity" claims -- because hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone will explode spontaneously when mixed together. Circa 1980 in their two-model class at San Diego State University, Thwaites and Awbrey demonstrated before Gish and the class that that was not true. Gish responded by saying that he had been misled by his source, and yet he and the ICR continued to use the claim, just very slightly modified.I had started studying creation science around 1981 and first started discussing it around 1985 with a creationist, Charles, at work. I started with the question about whether lying was condoned by Christian teachings and he told me that it's not and why did I ask. So I told him the story about Gish and Bomby and he was shocked, because Gish was his hero. Later, we both went to a big debate featuring Gish & H. Morris vs Thwaites & Awbrey. And on just about table there they were selling books about "Bomby", all of which contained the same false claims that even Gish himself had had to admit were false. Charles dearly did not want to see that those books were there, but it was unavoidable. Though he was far more shaken at end of the debate: all this time his religious leaders and the creationist had been telling him about their having mountains of evidence for creation -- evidence that would just literally blow the "evolutionists" away -- , and yet with his very own eyes and ears he saw the top-most creationists in the world ducking and dodging and doing everything they could to avoid presenting any of that evidence. We lost track of each other shortly after that (the project ended), but then I bumped into him 5 years later. He had gone on to study creation science more completely and to check their claims. He had ended up thoroughly disgusted with creationists and wanted nothing more to do with them.As I had described earlier in this topic, I stopped being a Christian when I started reading the Bible in a navely literalist manner and very quickly found that I couldn't believe any of it, so I simply left.But one thing that guarantees that I will never return to the fold -- especially the fold of those who so zealously proselytize -- is "creation science". Not just because they would require me to believe something that is so false, but also because of their witness that I have been the recipient of for decades on numerable independent occasions. Their determined opposition to truthfulness and their open hatred of the truth. Their "un-Christian" conduct (though many would deem such conduct to be quite Christian) and open hypocrisy. They prove to be the evil fruit described in the Matthew 7:20 test, through which they proved that their religion is a false one.PS
The thing about the reptilian 3-chamber heart, the mammalian 4-chamber heart, and the crocodile. I've encountered a creationist arguing that the reptile-mammal transition is impossible because none of the transitional forms could have survived while the 3-chamber heart was slowly turning into a 4-chambered heart.And yet the crodocile does it within its own life-time. It's born with a three-chamber heart and as it grow to full size the single ventricle divides into two chambers, quite literally without skipping a beat.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

Stay with me on this I'm going to make this Very Simple {this is a joke}.If animals have {evolved} why do Squirrels Run in front of cars? now If you guys still want to talk with me one of you is Going to have to make another Topic. I only want to Argue On your Terrain so you have no Excuse.

In response to your (yes, that was the entire post)
I wrote: What part of that do you not understand?I certainly cannot open the other topic because I have absolutely no idea what your post meant. "Wrong" about what? I asked you for more information about your PRATT claims. I also informed you of what a PRATT is.Only you can say what you meant by your short and cryptic post. And now this: makes even less sense.You create a new topic with an OP that actually says something. Then we'll have something to talk about.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

Non sequitur. Wanting to provide choice doesn't mean you want all that can be chosen.

---

Quote mine. Let's follow the entire conversation thread, shall we? Thus, we're not talking about evil in and of itself. We're talking about "the existence of beings that act 'contrary to god's will/desire/pleasure.'" In other words, there are evil people.Why would god allow evil people?This would necessarily mean that god wants evil. How is that good?

quote:

---

I pointed one possibility out to you already.

---

And I responded to it that it doesn't actually answer the question but rather, in fact, leads to the conclusion that god wants evil. An omnipotent god, being capable of doing anything, can create a world without evil and populated by free-willed beings.Since we do not live in such a world, this necessarily means that god wants evil (assuming an omnipotent god).How is that good?

quote:

---

1) Because he can - being omnipotent?

---

It's not a question of can. It's a question of why. Of course an omnipotent god "can" create evil. But how can the creation of evil be good when it is possible, being omnipotent, to achieve the same results without any evil at all?

quote:

---

2) Non sequitur. God is a title irrespective of his caring or no.

---

Then the devil is just as much god. Does this make you a Satanist?

quote:

---

3) Because evil arises out of our choice. He cares that we can chose.

---

But an omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

4) As above.

---

Not an answer. Let's try again, shall we?An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

5) Already answered in a previous post

---

And already shown to be insufficient in response. Let's try again, shall we?An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

Evil is defined as an act/thought/intention etc that is against Gods will.

---

But we just established that god is omnipotent. Therefore, there is no reason for the existence of beings that act "contrary to god's will/desire/pleasure" and yet are still "capable of choosing."Wait...Didn't I just say that? Why, yes! Yes, I did! Back in Message 56! Congratulations, iano, you've just completed your circular argument.Let's try again, shall we?An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

God cannot act against his will.

---

Then because god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil, then the only reason that there are free-willed beings that do choose but do choose to act against god's will is because god wills it.This clearly means that god wants evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

If the goal was to have people decide what kind of beings they were going to finally be, then I cannot see how omnipotence helps achieve "the same result".

---

Huh? You keep forgetting that god is omnipotent. There is no reason that god cannot create free-willed beings that decide all on their own what kind of beings they were going to finally be...and just so happen to never choose to act against god's will.God can do anything, so this is not a problem.Since god clearly did not do this, and if god cannot act against his own will, then god clearly has willed for there to be evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

Perhaps you are defining omnipotence as the ability to do simply anything at all - such as create an object too heavy to lift yet be powerful enough to life any object?

---

No. No logical paradoxes.Just because you have a choice doesn't mean all possible options will be chosen.I wrote a program in college that did exactly that: Free choice, but it never seemed to choose the wrong one.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Be my guest- We're not talking about the existance of beings that act contrary to Gods will. We're talking about beings who were created so as to be able to chose. There is no evil before the choice - just beings capable of choosing. When they chose against Gods will evil is created by them. It's their desire - not Gods - that brings about evil.God tolerating the existance and acts of people who chose against his will is another matter. One which has to do with his forbearance and patience and love.- I don't agree that omnipotence means you can do anything at all. How can you prevent a free-willed person from choosing to act against your will without constraining the will or limiting the choice?If your solution is to claim omnipotence as being able to do simply anything at all, then you belong to the object-too-heavy-to-lift school of omnipotence and we would be talking past ourselves.- As pointed out, God cannot create evil. Evil is defined as acting against Gods will. God cannot act against God's will. "Why evil" is addressed above. It arises out of creating choice. Evil is a product of choice.- How do you know it worked then? How do you know it was a free choice programme?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

As an O.T. expert, Joe, could you give us an approximate figure for the average number of factual stats per. word achieved in the book?Another thing you might find interesting, if you can manage to decode your own posts, is to look at the one I'm replying to, then look up the word "cite" and compare it to "site". Then, a recommended exercise when you next attempt a post of that length would be to try and achieve it with a spelling/typo/grammar mistake count of less than fifty.If you can achieve that before you finish Junior High School, you might possibly be writing some kind of adult English by the time you reach college age.But most interesting, get to work on the math that I requested, as I'm sure that everyone will be astonished at the O.T. miracle of consistently fitting several "factual stats and specs" into each word.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

We're not talking about the existance of beings that act contrary to Gods will.

---

Yes, we were. From your own post, Message 55: When you figure out what your own argument is, please let us know.

quote:

---

There is no evil before the choice - just beings capable of choosing.

---

But in choosing, they become evil.However, an omnipotent god can create beings that will never choose evil, even though they have free choice to do so.Since we do not live in such a universe, and since by your words god cannot act against his will, then it necessarily is the case that god wants people who will choose evil.Therefore, god wants evil.How is that good?

quote:

---

How can you prevent a free-willed person from choosing to act against your will without constraining the will or limiting the choice?

---

One way would be to show them the error of their ways. Grant them perfect understanding (there's that tree of knowledge thing) and even though they could choose it, they never will.And what's wrong with limiting the choice? Evil is never good, yes? So if you can make it so that evil will not happen, how is that not preferable to a system that allows evil?We're back to the Mhing vase example. If you put your delicate vase on a rickety pedestal, it really doesn't matter how many times you tell a toddler, "Don't touch." When the vase comes crashing down and shatters, everybody knows to blame you for being stupid enough to put a delicate item in the reach of a toddler, who is innocent and doesn't know any better.

quote:

---

If your solution is to claim omnipotence as being able to do simply anything at all, then you belong to the object-too-heavy-to-lift school of omnipotence and we would be talking past ourselves.

---

Ahem. I directly said I wasn't. If you're not going to read the posts to which you are responding, you should get used to being wrong an awful lot. Too, it will make conversation quite difficult.

quote:

---

As pointed out, God cannot create evil.

---

But god created beings who are evil (through their own choice). Since it is possible to create a being that has free will and yet will never choose evil, and since god can never act against his will, the only outcome I can see is that god wishes there to be evil (even if he can't make it happen directly, himself).How is that good?

quote:

---

"Why evil" is addressed above.

---

Incorrect. It is avoided above. Let's try again, shall we?An omnipotent god can create a world without evil and populated with free-willed beings that do choose, but just so happen to never choose evil. Since we do not live in such a world, this clearly means god wants evil.How can that be good?

quote:

---

It arises out of creating choice. Evil is a product of choice.

---

But as you said: So there is no reason for there to be any beings who will choose evil.Since there are, and god cannot act outside his will, then it necessarily follows that god wants there to be beings who will choose evil and thus, god wants evil.How can that be good?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

"Could choose it"? You mean skew the choice to the point where it becomes a choice no more? To me a choice means balance - not forgone conclusion.- God extended the choice to what he extended it to be. He willed it so it's good - per definition.I can see the logic of why he did what he did though: his way means that created beings get to (effectively) choose whether to have a relationship with God or no for all eternity. You couldn't have beings freely choosing to have a relationship with you without giving them the option to freely choose not to have a relationship with you.Evil becomes a necessity in such a system. You might yourself agree it is good (in the relative sense) that God provide us this choice - that he doesn't force people to be with him forever. Your presuming Adam and Eve weren't faced with a balanced choice. One could argue back and forward about that. But if balanced then the above example doesn't apply. Certainly Eve was aware of the prohibition in her consciousness "But God did say..." in a way you couldn't expect of a toddler and the Mhing vase.They're culpable, the toddler isn't My apologies.- I don't see that you've established your point (which you presume established for the rest of your post).Skewed choice is not free choice. You might say I could freely scream down the motorway at 160mph on my Yamaha. But if my choice to do so is so heavily skewed by the various things which restrain me from doing so then we're not talking free choice anymore.Free choice is more like resting on the middle of a balanced see-saw. Equally weighed options rest at either end and only your own will left to decide which one. Skewed choices are not free in that sense.