Confession of a former christian

Yes, it is me. Who else could it possibly be?This isn't a catch-22, it's just the way things are. I am me, and I am the only one capable of judging my thoughts, my actions and my senses. There are good ways and bad ways to do this. By testing myself to ensure that that I am only following the good ways, how is this a negative thing? No. All this test requires is that I can possibly be fooled. As is shown to me over and over again on a daily basis. Everytime I forget something, everytime I mis-interpret something, everytime I make a faulty or even misleading assumption... it shows me that I can be fooled. Since I know I can be fooled, I need to protect against this, the only way to protect against being fooled is to test for it. What sort of god do you know of that can be fooled? I am no god, I am simply a human being who is capable of being fooled. No. It's simply the recognition that I can be fooled. God has nothing to do with it. Well, perhaps God placed this ability-to-be-fooled upon me, but that has yet to be shown as well. However the ability came to be, I can be fooled and I need to test for such before I make any serious decisions.To do anything less would be foolish.What are you arguing against now, anyway? I thought you stated that what I was doing was fine: But perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you now stating that this level of certainty actually is a problem to God? Why would that be? Why would God want us to leave ourselves open to following false-Gods or maybe even just our imagination?

If God proved himself in an empirical sense, then people wouldn't need to have faith in god, they would know that god exists.For some reason, God has it so that we have to have faith in him.I don't know why, but there's a thread on it: Why is Faith so Important to God?I haven't read it all yet...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

I agree. This does not follow from all the information we have about reality, here are some alternatives:1. God does not exist.
2. God (for whatever reason) cannot use empirical methods to indicate His existence to us.
3. God doesn't care to empirically indicate His existence to us.
4. There are other powerful beings preventing God from empirically indicating His existence to us.
5. Something we don't yet understand or know about.I don't see how your statement of reality ("God has it so that...") is more valid than any of these alternatives.

I didn't state any of the assumptions or premises that my conclusion was based on.....One assumption was that god does exist. Sure, any of those could work for some undefined god, but not for any god. For example, an omnipotent god would not work with number 2. I was just sayin'...Its an opinion.

Yes, this is true. An omnipotent god also wouldn't work with number 4. Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything to the contrary.Perhaps I should note that all the alternatives I listed are also only opinions.I suppose it's up to us all individually which assumptions about reality (if any) we should be making.The problems start when people try to prop their assumptions up as 'better' than other assumptions (or none at all) based on their own subjective feelings. I should point out that I don't think you've done this.

I suppose, but your question still stands:

quote:

---

Why would God want us to leave ourselves open to following false-Gods or maybe even just our imagination?

---

Why does the Christian God rely on faith for us to believe in him rather than comming down and showing us that he exists?The thread I linked to had a lot of BS in it and I'm not so sure the question was addressed specifically. Maybe the thread could be revamped, or maybe a whole new thread is due.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

For example, an omnipotent god would not work with number 2.

---

Of course, with an omnipotent god, we run into the problem of "whence cometh evil"? If we allow that god can, we are left to wonder why he doesn't. If it's because he doesn't care, why call him god? If it's because he does, then where does evil come from?

---

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.

It's not that it's a negative thing, it's that it's an impossible thing. You can't know (by testing) whether this reality exists, instead you assume it exists and go about investigating the nature of it by testing. If the reality you find yourself encompassed by includes God, you don't go around testing to see if God exists, you test to find out more about the nature of that reality.You are sure the reality around exists and that you are not being fooled regarding that - because there is nothing else to do and no test to apply. By 'god' I mean someone who sets themselves up as ultimate authority. When it comes to the reality you perceive around you you have no authority, you simply assume because there is nothing else to do. Yet with the exact same class of thing: reality in which God is present you suppose to test for it. god thus.That sort of god can be fooled by himself - not least by his own schemings.- You are supposing that God cannot demonstrate his existance to you in a way which would leave you in no doubt. You are taking what you know about the way the world works and extrapolating without justification unto what God knows and can do. Do you really suppose God is limited by what you're limited by?When I said "how sure do you want to be?" I was implying that you could be certain to a level grater than the tentitive way you set your sights at. You do set your sights at a tentitive level don't you? The testing posed being 'scientific' in nature. That is not certainty.There is nothing to say that common-to-yours observations of others should increase your certainty that you are not being fooled. All common observation tells you is that others see the same thing in the same way. Not that they aren't being fooled about what they see.Let's not make a god out of a convention on the matter of common observation

If someone asks me why I believe the answer is simple and rational: I believe because I have evidence supporting that belief. I have a concrete reason to believe. That the evidence isn't empirical doesn't matter to the question at hand. My answer remains rational.If I was to ask you why you believe, what would you say? For you seem to eschew notions of evidence. But if there is no evidential reason to believe then you are engaged in blind belief - are you not? And if blind then why not belief in pixies (for which I myself have no evidence and in whom, thus, I do not believe).

If evil is defined as "thoughts/actions/deeds arising from beings rendered capable of choosing, which are contrary to Gods will/desire/pleasure" then the question "where evil comes from" is answered.It comes from those beings.Is it evil to create beings capable of choosing to act contrary to Gods will? Not if it's Gods will to create them so capable it's not.Can we say that God doesn't care just because he permits willed beings to express will - including expression in the evil direction. I don't see why so. God would cease to care about us if he removed our ability to express our will in that way. Cease to care because we would cease to exist.Unless one could be said to care for robots of course.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

If evil is defined as "thoughts/actions/deeds arising from beings rendered capable of choosing, which are contrary to Gods will/desire/pleasure" then the question "where evil comes from" is answered.

---

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."

quote:

---

Is it evil to create beings capable of choosing to act contrary to Gods will? Not if it's Gods will to create them so capable it's not.

---

Huh? When god does what god considers evil, it isn't evil anymore? God is omnipotent, so whence cometh evil? God could get rid of it, so why doesn't he?

quote:

---

Can we say that God doesn't care just because he permits willed beings to express will - including expression in the evil direction.

---

Who knows? The point is that if god is omnipotent, then god could easily create free-willed beings that don't contradict him. Since he is responsible for his creation, why does he allow evil when he can stop it?Are you saying evil is good?

quote:

---

Unless one could be said to care for robots of course.

---

Who said anything about robots? Didn't we just establish that god is omnipotent? If so, then there is no reason why free-willed beings that were created by god must defy god.

---

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.

The reason they exist is because God created them in such a way that they would be able to choose both for and against his will.I'm not sure what omnipotence has to do with it - unless your supposing omnipotence to mean God can do simply anything at all (such as create a weight that is too heavy for him to life)- God doesn't do what God consider evil. How could he do evil (given the defintion of evil). Beings he creates choose against his will (= do evil). God is responsible for creating them (which is not evil) - not for their choices.Evil comes from whence it comes - from beings who chose. Why God doesn't get rid of them (and their abilility to bring evil about) is another issue.Certainly having his will done (allowing beings he creates to chose) cannot be done if he prevents them choosing. That much stands to reason. But having his will done in this sense means his will isn't done in another sense. The resolution to that condundrum is the product called "evil". Evil is what occurs when Gods will is not being done. Certainly God could create beings who could choose freely from a range of options all of which fall within his will. It would be like the Garden of Eden without any forbidden-of-any-tree fruit.Of course, such beings wouldn't have chosen to be created so, so it might be the case that God created beings who could (in some way) decide which kind of beings they wanted to be. Beings that operated within Gods will or beings that operated outside Gods will. This temporal life being the place where that decision gets made by what are in fact eternal beings Evil is something which goes against Gods will. But in the sense of it being used to (arguably) achieve God's overall purpose it is good.For instance, if it is Gods intention that a being gets to (effectively) chose whether to be with God or away from God for eternity and evil is the substance which enables the being to have it's choice exercised then evil is a good thing.It depends on which level of God's will you are dealing with. Is it my will that a child hurt itself in any way? Of course not. Is it my will that a child learn of danger through hurting itself? Certainly. Poor analogy but that kind of thing.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

iano responds to me:

quote:

---

The reason they exist is because God created them in such a way that they would be able to choose both for and against his will.

---

That means god wants evil.How is that good?

quote:

---

I'm not sure what omnipotence has to do with it

---

An omnipotent god can do anything, including creating a world without evil and populated by free-willed beings.Why don't we have such a world? Does god want evil?How is that good?

quote:

---

God doesn't do what God consider evil.

---

Then why does an omnipotent god allow evil? If he doesn't care, then why call him god? If he does, then why is there evil? Does god want evil?How is that good?

quote:

---

Certainly God could create beings who could choose freely from a range of options all of which fall within his will. It would be like the Garden of Eden without any forbidden-of-any-tree fruit.

---

So why didn't god do that? Adam and Eve certainly weren't stupid. They were merely innocent (we've had this argument before.)

quote:

---

Evil is something which goes against Gods will.

---

So since god created everything, then god must have created evil.How is that good?

quote:

---

Is it my will that a child learn of danger through hurting itself?

---

When you can achieve the same result without anybody getting hurt, being omnipotent, how is that good?Why does god want evil?How is that 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.

Testing myself against being fooled certainly is not impossible. Here's an example:I think my car keys are in my pants' pocket.
Test: check pocket
Result: no keys
Conclusion: I was fooled, my keys are not in my pants' pocket.That's not impossible at all. It's a rather mundane daily occurance. Saying such a simple task is impossible does not help build yourself as an authority on describing reality. I most certainly do not assume there is nothing else to do. I test to see if I am fooling myself, and the test has always come out negative, therefore I must do something because no one else will.You keep declaring things about me when I've told you over and over again that you are incorrect. You should try dealing with reality, it's much simpler, you don't have to remember all the made-up stuff in your imagination. Again, I most certainly do not. Please stop imposing your imaginary views of how other people 'must live' onto how I live my life in reality.I do not suppose anything about God whatsoever. As soon as God demonstrates His existance to me in a way which leaves me in no doubt, I'll be perfectly happy to start a wonderful relationship with Him. So far, this has yet to happen. Of course not. And I've told you plenty of times that I don't suppose this, I don't suppose anything about God. I believe in the true God of this reality. Not the one made up in your head. When will you start listening to reality instead of listening to your imagination? That's fantastic. Again, though, I don't set my sights to any level, I simply test for things I've learned that I need to test for (I get fooled a lot). But if God can grant me a level of certainty that's even above what I'm asking for, that's great. This doesn't change the fact that it hasn't happened yet. It also doesn't change the fact that I can be fooled, and I still need to test for being fooled until God grants me a level of certainty that no longer includes such a high chance of being personally fooled. What you've said here is patently false:Common-to-mine observations of others absolutely does increase my certainty that I am not being fooled. I could be imagining something. If others observe it too, the chance of me imagining it is greatly decreased.Yes, common observation does tell me that others are seeing the same thing in the same way. That's exactly the kind of assurance I'm looking for. I can be fooled very easily. If others observe the same thing, it's possible that we are all being fooled equally, but the chances of this are much lower than the high-chances of me being personally fooled. Even better is if I can get multiple people reproducing the same observations over and over again. Once this happens, there has never ever been a case where this knowledge has been shown to be fooling anyone.Of course, that may just mean that the entire solar system (or even universe?) is being fooled... but that's getting into the realm of being paranoid. I don't.
I've told you I don't.
I've shown you I don't.
All I do is recognize that I have faults and that I need to test for those faults. As soon as you or anyone else shows that this is an incorrect course of action, I'll abandon it. You have yet to do so. The very fact that I'm willing to abandon my methods as soon as you show that they are incorrect proves that I do not hold myself up as any sort of god.What sort of 'god' are you talking about that has faults, recognizes those faults, gets help from others to prevent those faults, and is willing to do anything else anyone (including you or any supreme entity) can show them to improve upon those faults?Calling such a person a 'god' totally re-defines the word 'god' to be the exact opposite of how it's used in common language.And I still don't understand what you're arguing with me about now. I thought you said God had no problem granting me a high level of certainty? So what's the problem? If God is going to grant me a level of certainty greater than what I'm hoping for... what's the problem?Of course, it hasn't happened yet. Maybe your argument is with God for being slow? I suggest that you should work on your patience. I have no problem waiting for God. I am in no rush to hear from a possibly non-existent entity. Reality is the way it is, any appeals to our imaginations will not change reality. Either God will attempt to demonstrate Himself to me, or He will not. Either God exists, or He does not. It really is much easier living within reality. What exists within reality is set, we cannot change it with our will alone. I will wait to be contacted by the real God that actually exists in this reality (if He even does exist). I have no interest in being contacted by the God that only exists within iano's imagination. I don't even understand how such a thing would actually work.Edited by Stile, : Added a new title

Non sequitur. Wanting to provide choice doesn't mean you want all that can be chosen.- I pointed one possibility out to you already. The one in which temporal beings get to decide which kind of beings they want to eternally be.God providing that choice doesn't mean he wants all the possible outcomes, one of which is evil.I'm sure it will come up so I'll mention it here. Omnipotence doesn't mean God can do anything at all. For example: he cannot create a being who can chose against his will but who does not do evil in so chosing (given the definition of evil)- 1) Because he can - being omnipotent?2) Non sequitur. God is a title irrespective of his caring or no.3) Because evil arises out of our choice. He cares that we can chose.4) As above.5) Already answered in a previous post- Evil is defined as an act/thought/intention etc that is against Gods will. God cannot act against his will. Not unless he wanted to, that is Thus God cannot create evil in that sense.- 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". Make their choice and it isn't theirs. Let them chose to be beings operating against your will (so that their choice is established) and you have (per definition) evil and of necessity, hurt.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?Edited by iano, : No reason given.