Charismatic Chaos

I don't disbelief in Satan I reject the concept of supernatural sky or fire daddies, good bad or indifferent and thus I can't listen to something that does not exist any more than I can listen to a turned off radio.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I'm afraid your rejection of God, Satan and all the rest of it doesn't make them go away. If they exist they exist, regardless of your rejection of them. And if they exist and exert influence then that they do, irrespective of your rejection of them.A radio has a knob. God does not.

Atheism is very falsifiable: Simply prove that a god exists. Perhaps you were confusing it with something else?I am also extremely confused about the "*has* to possibly exist" line. How exactly do you pair definite and and indefinite terms like that, and what does it mean? Certainly, that is the first step. Nothing cancels anything out; they are not in the picture remember?I propose that no aspect of human behavior need change for this to be a possibility. Can you come up with something that humans do that could not possibly happen without a god in the picture?

Not off hand. The entire necessity for salvation argument hinges on the Original Sin argument. If both are thrown out, there is no need to worry about God, but there is, I would argue, still an intrinsic awareness of right and wrong. Surely doing ones best is not entirely relative, though often culturally varied.My point is this: Assume that I concede that there is no way to prove God and that for the sake of this argument, God is entirely imaginary.

Humans still have an obligation to try and do their very best (loving their neighbor as themselves) in the life that we have.

​

Whether we are judged by an absolute standard or not, we are judged by our own beliefs.

​

Finally, and hypothetically, IF God turns out to exist after all....when we die should we be judged for ignoring Him? (Or just plain never considering that He existed?) Or....rationally, logically, and honestly concluding that he did not exist?

​

My point is that it would be wrong of God to allow these people to be punished. Judgment is an individual thing.(be the judge God or be the judge our own internalized beliefs and morality)

You have a claim. I don't believe it.You are not trying to prove your claim because you cannot prove it. It also cannot be falsified.My disbelief cannot be proved correct because your position cannot be falsified. Therefore my position being unprovable is a direct result of your position being unfalsifiable, without requiring you trying to prove your claim.Interestingly it also does not require me to put forward an argument, so I don't have anything to box.

That would certainly be a compelling argument, if there was some shared ethical knowledge independent of nature or nurture. I assume since you would argue the point that you have some examples you think are universal?Before outlining those examples I would remind you of the neurological conditions of Psychopathy/Socipathy. These conditions are described as chronic disregard for ethical principles, with the former being considered to originate by nature, and the latter through nurture. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) requires that those classified as having this disorder exhibit a lack of remorse, guilt, and empathy.I suggest that this is strong evidence that ethics are not universal. For your first point, an obligation to whom exactly? Society perhaps, but there are many social obligations we are comfortable to ignore if our personal views differ.As for the second, that is quite true. Of course the problem comes when people do not consider what they do to be wrong. How many illegal drug dealers beat themselves up about their trade? Thieves? Murderers?In my experience people who have a choice in the matter will stop doing things that they believe are morally wrong. In many cases acts that are considered immoral are justified as excusable for a variety of reasons. A thief might admit theft is wrong, but justify their actions as only stealing from those who "can afford it". An illegal drug dealer might admit breaking the law is wrong, but that it is OK because they don't agree with that law, or their life is hard enough that they can ignore it. A murderer may recognize murder as immoral, but claim strong emotion temporarily removed their moral obligation, or that they just "couldn't control" the impulse to kill. If God turns out the exist then my personal opinion on how it should judge people would be worthless. However, I don't see how a god could be fair or just for judging anyone who never had a chance to consider the question. As for those who chose wrongly they must be the vast majority, and on tests that is often a sign of a bad question rather than a stupid class. I agree with you there. Does this mean that if the Christian god were to exist then you allow the possibility of disagreeing with its actions on moral grounds?Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.

Why would something that has no existence have to go away? My point what makes your god any more real than Zeus, Thor or any other supernatural entity? I just reject one more than those who reject all except one.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

To clarify what I believe is his point, he cannot listen to *or* ignore something he does not hear.

You start out right iano, and I find myself agreeing with you a little. However, the Honda analogy doesn't really quite fit: maybe a more apt idea would be Honda creating all cars with some kind of defect that would be activated if the driver pressed it... (Not really sure where I'm ultimately going with this... :-) ) Same here. I think you're missing the point, iano. It's not a matter of whether he wants us to do evil; it's a matter of can he prevent that evil. Perhaps an apt analogy would be a school counselor checking up on a possibly malevolent student to talk about some issues (I'm sure many people would prefer an ultimately visible God- even as a shrink) Yes, but this doesn't explain why he didn't just create us that way in the first place; if this is a desirable outcome, then God could have just started creation this way without those evil infidels. Yes, you may be thinking of God in rational terms (I know many theists who try), but you're not getting the point. I apologize if I was too vague. The idea is not if the crime is never committed; the idea is that any crime would be futile as God could just talk with that person mano-a-mano and tell them what they're doing wrong and why.
I don't think we're asking much: simply an easily visible God that we can actually form a direct relationship with. The equation of lust and anger with adultery and murder wasn't what I was getting at iano. Once again, I apologize if I was too vague.
The intent and the ability are the only things that determine a crime: If a person is already going to try to murder someone/commit adultery and has the resources and/or ability, then it (hopefully) wouldn't be too beyond God to stop them before they got too far and help them keep to their morality. If an just, almighty God existed, then it is not too far-fetched too admit the existence of only the lesson and perhaps the punishment of the situation rather than the crime itself. The purpose of justice is ultimately rehabilitation, not punishment.
Please don't bring up "free will" unless you honestly think that a rapist's right to freely sin (rape) is greater than the right of the raped innocent to freely want to stay alive.Interesting points.T&UEdited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

The ability to chose evil isn't a defect. It's intrinsic to what God created man to be: free willed. But you seem, on the other hand, to agree that so far, God hasn't put a toe wrong.- Above we saw that free will (or better said; the free-est of wills) necessitates provision of the ability to reject God. God cannot provide such a level of free will and take away that provision - at the same time. It's be like asking God to create an object too heavy for him to lift.People will ultimately get to see God. He prefers that too. But just not yet, not before we decide in which we want to experience seeing him. He is both love and wrath. We only get to see one or other aspect.Choice. It's all about choice. Our choice.- God can't create being who has chosen to be without sin - without that being actually choosing. But he could have created being incapable of sin from the outset. There'd be a vast difference between the two creatures: the one chose God of own volition, the other is programmed to choose God.The former provides the opportunity for meaningful relationship, the latter provides the opporunity for a pet. Supposing God didn't want a pet?- First thing first. And the first thing is which kind of relationship do we want with God - that is the process we are engaged in.You'll have heard the fairytale about the king who sees and falls in love with a pauper maiden who lives in the woods? He knows that if he turns up at her door as he is, his glory will overpower her. Her acceeding to his suit would be the result, even if only partial, of his being king, not because of who he is. And so he dresses himself as a pauper and stops by one day to ask for water. And so the relationship develops. And so she falls in love with him.God is about truth and love and meekness and patience and kindness. This life is your opportunity to discover whether it is those things you love ultimately or whether wickedness is your hearts desire. There is no need for God to 'reveal his kingship' to you at this point - you've yet to decide which it's going to be.You've no need to worry that somehow you'll miss the boat, or that you have to figure it all outt. The mechanism of salvation has it's finger on your pulse and knows what quickens it. And works to have it quickened by God.- You can't have it both ways T&U. If the crime is effectively committed at 'intent and ability' then the persons morality has already been lost. Plenty of able people have pulled out of an intent so it would appear that some other element is involved. A 'point of no return decision' would be it in my view.I don't agree in any case. If my hearts desire is to see someone suffer because I hate them, and I want to take their possessions after I've cleared them out of my way then intent and ability aren't going to provide my hearts desire. Are they?- For the purposes of permitting evil, God permits one will to overrule another. He doesn't necessarily provide the will with the power to access everything it would desire - doing so would require that we all be God.Remember what this gig called Life is about: finding out our hearts desire. It's not about our being happy and contented. Or even having our fulls hearts desire met - this side of the grave. The full weight of our desires will be met after the grave - not before

So then God does tempt man, intentionally. He sets up the failure for everyone (because it is impossible not to sin) and then says he's the only way to salvation. Does that not sound tyrannical or diabolical to you? Different cultures aren't abhorred by the same things. If everyone was of God, you would expect to see universal expressions of conscience. For what great purpose does it serve to try and ambush people? A cosmic gag-reel? It's all circular. God intentionally creates humans weak with a strong desire for sin, says but if you sin you will die. Then extorts you by offering salvation, but oh by the way, if you don't accept it you'll be in torment for all eternity.That's like being offered a chainmail suit from the person who just pushed in to shark infested waters. No, this is much worse. I call it a sick game perpetrated by a diabolical sadist.So nowhere in that can you see that your description amounts to extortion or sadism?

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

When used in conjunction with a (presumably) all-powerful and omnibenevolent being, yes, evil is a defect. It's not like asking God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift; it's entirely different. It's about God using a person's intention to sin and showing them the error of their ways without anyone having to get hurt. iano, you have to realize that we're not asking much. Just beings that could freely only choose to love God. (kind of like we can only choose to obey gravity ).
Once again, you seem mistaken; God can have his cake and eat it too. If he wants people with the ability to choose, then he can prevent those actions while at the same time making the sinner a better person. Think of it this way; a man is going to rape an innocent woman in a dark alley. God is the policeman walking past the alley at midnight. He sees the man about to assault the woman, presumably with no doubts with his intention to rape. If he is all-powerful, then it would be child's play to simply stop the rapist and let the innocent go unharmed. Remember my above post; justice is about rehabilitation, not punishment or guilt. iano, once again: We are not asking for much. Would it be too hard for God to talk to each of us individually through manifestation like Jesus? (I'm guessing that those around him weren't continuously in awe and the disciples were all able to build pretty close relationships with him. He even stopped them if they were going to sin.) You misunderstand me, iano. The crime itself is not committed with 'intent and ability;' rather intent and ability can lead to either the crime and harm done, or God helping us to see the error of our ways. Not much; just a little pat on the back and a "Dude, you're doing this wrong."
Also, I don't entirely understand your "heart's desire." If it is a conscious decision because you hate them, then it is pretty easy (I would think) for God to come down and omnisciently talk you out of doing so, thereby making you a better person. However, if you are saying that our "heart's desire" is unconscious and thus God will/can not change it, it does remove any responsibility from ourselves. That's the point iano. If God wants to permit evil, then he is evil. Furthermore, favoring the free will of an evil person over the free will of an innocent is also in the domain of an evil being. The crime doesn't have to be committed for a sinner to be helped to be a better person.Just a random thought: If God wanted us to be able to choose sin or goodness, then why didn't he have us live out our lives individually in a simulation, then allowing us to go to heaven if we get things right? Presumably, it would not interfere with our free will and, furthermore, no one could get hurt as a result of our actions.T&U

But there are two issues. We live in a world with limitations on what our will is able to actualize, and we live in a world where our will itself is limited.I can decide to fly, but no amount of trying can make that decision bear any fruit. An all-powerful god could have put the same limitations on decisions to harm another, innocent person. If god wants to punish people who choose to do wrong, does he have to wait until they actually do so? Can't he punish them for making the decision in the first place?To the other point, there are a whole multitude of things I can't conceive of, and therefore, can't will myself to do, whether they're possible or not. My will is therefore limited already. God could have given us free will, but made it impossible for us to conceive of doing wrong. We would still be able to make decisions on what to do, our options would just be a little more limited than they are now.I don't see how the fact that we can, and do, commit wrongs means they are necessary for free will. Any being with unlimited power and imagination could have come up with an infinitude of scenarios where we would still have "free" will (as we do now) but where innocent people would not have to be harmed for his own sick desire to punish people who, as you've said, merely follow through on their in born addiction.

I'm not sure what your objection is. Ultimately you either love what God stands for and want to spend an eternity in a realm containing that. Or you don't.God has set a mechanism in place whereby we are the one's who (effectively) get to choose where it is we end up. In a realm containing God and what he stands for, or in a realm containing God and what he stands opposed to. The choice presented us is made a balanced one too.It's a simple offer ultimately and I see absolutely no cause for complaint. Perhaps you could skip past the posturing, cut to the chase and tell me precisely what problem you have with the way it is (assuming I describe it as the way it is).- Correction. God created human with a will that could chose equally either way. When man fell and in doing so, obtained a strong desire to sin, God countered that imbalancing of the former free will with a knowledge of good and evil.Our will might not be free in the sense that Adam and Eve were free. But it's effectively free, our imbalanced nature being compensated for by Gods work via conscience.

True. And I'd point out at this stage that our will isn't free in the sense created by God in Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve, I'd argue were the first and last (bar Christ) to have a free, unfettered will. Once sin entered man, man's will was skewed by an addiction. An addiction and tendency towards Sin.We can't speak of an addict having a free will. So I usually put the word 'effective' before the words 'free will' when talking of the will of post-fall humans. The imbalance caused by our natures addiction to sin is countered by conscience which gives our choice an balance as if we had an Adamic style free will.We could go into that more if you like. But for the purposes of considering the justness of God's dealing with mankind, I consider us to have a free will.- What matters is that you have a range of things to choose for in order that your choice wrt to your eternal destination can be established. There is no need to give you the possibility to do simply anything in order to give you sufficient for the purposes intended.Free will as I understand it, involves the ability to chose equally either way; without predisposition or undue influence pushing you in a particular direction. It might simply involve eating a particular fruit or no. It is not diminished by the inability to choose to fly.Desiring to hurt someone doesn't involve the same degree of wickedness as actually pulling out their fingernails. Given that our evil brings consequences which can be utilised by the mechanism of salvation, we shouldn't object to our evil be left to run riot. It might very well be the saving of us - and the person on whom we inflict suffering.- See what I mean by free will above. It should deal with this.- Gods ultimate purpose for all of us is that we have opportunity to say yes/no to his desire to form an eternal loving relationship with us. Because we are all fallen, our natural tendency, whether we're the ones pulling someones fingernails out or whether we're the one whose fingernails are being pulled out; is to resist God's advances.Inflicting evil involves the suffering of a guilty conscience. Experiencing evil involves the suffering of being treated unrighteously. All people do both. And so all people suffer. Suffering is natures (and thus God's) way of telling us that there is something wrong. And there is something wrong: we're lost sinners heading towards wrath.You're suggesting that God should eliminate one of the central things that might bring us to our knees before God? To do so would diminish the opportunity for our salvation - why on earth should God do that.He want's us saved and went to extraordinary personal suffering to enable that.