|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 856 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pick and Choose Fundamentalism | |||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
GOD did do something about it: Genesis 2:17 " but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." I know, it's seems such a minor little thing, like your attempt to disguise the nature of GOD. No, he didn't. He knew his little lecture would fail. He told Adam, "Don't eat of this or you'll die." BUt as he did, he still knew that Adam would eat of the tree and, well not die, but be punished by God. So, God created the Universe, knowing Adam would disobey, and didn't create a different Universe in which Adam didn't disobey. He made a Universe where there was no other option but for Adam to disobey. If I know what I'm doing won't stop something bad from happening, and I know there's something I could do to stop it from happening, but I keep going along my impotent path, did I really do anything to stop it? In fact, did I let the bad thing happen by not doing what I knew would stop it rather than what I knew wouldn't? Don't I have at least a little responsibility for letting it happen when I could have stopped it, and knew it?
Clearly, we got free will I would argue this point as well, but maybe in a different thread.
Why is this deception necessary? Is it because you actually perceive the error in this argument or is it just you expressing your nature? What deception? Are you refering to my anthropomorphization of God? It was an allegory to drive home the point that God could have done something, but didn't, knowing how things would turn out, and as such, nothing could have unfolded other than he created it to unfold.
Of course it may be that we merely have the illusion of free will but the bible suggests otherwise. As does my experience. But the Bible could be wrong, or it could be a necessary illusion, so God, knowing we need to believe we have free will, tells us we do, knowing that we don't. Based on what the Bible implies, free will is impossible if the Bible is completely true.
If GOD can create some dimensions it would seem logical to assume GOD could ,at least, manipulate other dimensions. I don't understand what this has to do with the argument, unless free will is a dimension, but I don't see how that makes sense either.
Your argument appears to be logical but can not include all the available information, cause if it did, it might be wrong. It includes all available information at hand. If there is more information out there, such that logic isn't a good way to suss out the workings of the Universe, then my conclusion might be wrong, but until we are shown that logic doesn't work, I don't see how my logic could follow from correct premises and be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think it must be a genuine repentance, this was one error that undermined Pascal's wager. Yeah, but you tell that error to get in line! There are a lot of errors that are knocking on the Wager's door!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Come on, more of your deception, unless he is hiding out at your place, Adam did, in fact, die. But not for close to a thousand years, right? If I tell you, "Don't steal my stuff or you'll die." You then steal my stuff, and I say, "Ok, you're gonna get it!" But then I walk away and 50 years later, you're lying on your deathbed from old age, and I pop my head in and say, "See, I told you! What do you think about stealing my stuff now?!" Does that sound like I carried out my threat? God KNEW that Adam would disobey him if he created the Universe he created, right? God is omnipotent, and could have created a slightly different Universe where he knew Adam would choose not to eat the fruit, right? So, the fact that God, knowing what would happen, chose to make this Universe anyway means he set Adam up to fail.
Folks have the option of doing something bad or not. To stop folks from doing something bad you would need to rob them of the opportunity to choose something good. Clearly GOD choose to gift people with the freedom to choose what they believe, yes, knowing some, even many, would make choices contrary to GOD's will. This is the gift of love, freedom to choose. Under this program you are responsible for your own choices, even if your choices are known to GOD. But, see, you're using the word choice. How can I choose contrary to what God knows I'll choose? If I do so, he's no longer omniscient. Given the 6000 years since he created the Universe, if people could choose contrary to what he knew (or in this case, it would be "thought," since "know" implies "is right") God would have little to no idea what was going to happen next, he'd be just like us.
Oh, I think you understand just fine. I think it's the implications of dimensional manipulations that trouble you. An entity that can move freely in and out of, and around in dimensions like space and time would certainly invalidate your position, so you had best ignore it. Not at all. It matters not what he can do, that's sort of implied by the word "omnipotent." I'm not concerned with that word. I'm concerned with the word "omniscient." It's the fact that he knows what will happen and yet doesn't do anything to stop it that makes him responsible. Do we share responsibility, I guess you could argue that, and I won't necessarily disagree, but you have to admit that God has some responsibility.
Logically, a logical argument must include all relevant information, however, if your position would crumble using all available information then it is logical that you would misrepresent that information in an attempt to maintain the illusion that your position is logical. Ok, show me where I missed available information, rather than just saying that if I had, my argument would be invalid, which is sort of implied.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
No, actually it isn't. My philosophy, taken to it's logical conclusion, allows all folks to make their own choices and face the consequences, even if they may choose to reject GOD. So, somehow it's better to let the baby enter into a world full of pain, lies and the chance of being separated from God's glory and salvation for all eternity, rather than making it a certainty that the baby will never suffer for ever and ever amen? Doesn't that make your philosophy sort of sadistic? "I have a way to give a baby, and in fact all babies, eternal love and salvation, never having been touched with any little bit of corruption, but I won't do it because I feel it's better for them to feel corruption and fear and sadness." Sadisitc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
But if Adam had the opportunity to live forever, then God did carry out his pronouncement by allowing Adam to grow old and die. Can you quote me where it says Adam would have lived forever? If he would have, why would God have created the Tree of Life, which he worries Adam and Eve will eat from and live forever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Had he allowed them to eat from it, they could have lived indefinitely. Ok, so they weren't created to live forever, God just placed the possibility somewhere in the Garden, but didn't tell them about it until they disobeyed, and he only told them about it to illustrate the fact that they were now cut off from it. So, in otherwords, Adam and Eve would have died anyway had they not stumbled upon the Tree of Life and decided to eat of it. So, again, how exactly did God kill Adam for eating of the Tree of Knowledge if Adam was going to die anyway, barring his eating from a particular tree. The best you could say is that God removed the merest possibility of living forever, but definitely did not kill Adam or Eve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
the tree of life was a representation of everlasting life, not a literal life giving tree. Then why was he worried that they would eat of the tree and become like gods, living forever? If the tree was a metaphor or a representation, then they could have eaten of it and not changed a thing.
But when they were removed from the garden, they no longer had everlasting life as a prospect. Ok, but that means everlasting life wasn't a given, it was just a possibility. By having god remove them from the garden, he removed the possibility, but that doesn't equate to killing someone.
So he did kill them in that he allowed them to die. I would disagree with this interpretation. Again, if I threaten someone with death, having it come from old age 100s of years later doesn't mean I carried out my threat, even if I had the possibility to prolong their life. I didn't kill them, I just didn't stop them from dying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3257 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
but thats not what happened in the case of A&E. God purposely removed them from the one place where they would live forever. So, if I take someone from a first world nation, where we have antibiotics and many good health increasing medicines, and take them to a third world nation, where there is less access to drugs and more cases of disease running unchecked, and 10 years later, they catch malaria and die, is it my fault because I removed them from the place where they would not have caught malaria or had good drugs to combat it? Or, perhaps closer to home, when England sent convicts to Australia and some of them died, was England responsible for their deaths?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024