Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Movie: "God on Trial"
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 1420 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 61 of 114 (601038)
01-18-2011 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Larni
01-18-2011 11:36 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
Larni writes:
before your god puts us out of our misery
Except we are never put out of our misery. We are put INTO misery, for eternity.
Correction, WE put ourselves into eternal misery, by making the wrong decision- excuse me, the unfortunate decision - between two choices which have been made to look like 6 in one, 1/2 dozen in the other. This is so that God can ligitimately claim that he never biased our decision with the actual facts of the matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 01-18-2011 11:36 AM Larni has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 62 of 114 (601047)
01-18-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Larni
01-18-2011 11:36 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
iano writes:
He owns us and can set any condition he likes
Assuming this is true,
Having a God take interest in our self-concious lives, and then make eternal decisions about those lives without consulting us... shows more about God's character than anything else.
If this is true, it does not depict any God worth respecting.
Anyone who does respect this kind of God has done nothing more than sell their soul out to the highest bidder.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 01-18-2011 11:36 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:23 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 114 (601147)
01-18-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by iano
01-18-2011 4:27 AM


A least that strawgod has been put to bed
You're right; there's no reason to believe in the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God. Whether or not that's a "strawgod" seems debatable - maybe that's not the God that you believe in but belief in such a deity is certainly widespread, wouldn't you agree?
When we talk about "God", are we always necessarily talking about the God you, specifically, believe in? Why would that be reasonable? I mean sometimes we're not even talking to you, Iano, if you can believe that.
We might disagree on the level of response to wrongdoing but I'm sure we agree that wrongdoing should attract sanction
"Sanction" is what humans do to people who commit crimes; the reason we sanction criminals is because we don't know how to restrain them prior to their criminal acts without harming people who aren't going to commit crimes.
But God isn't limited in that way. A just God would make sin impossible, not sanction sinners. To do otherwise is a serious injustice to the victims of those who do evil unto others. People who are getting murdered would rather have not been killed, they don't care about the notion of murders being subject to divine justice years or even decades after the fact. God could make it that knives directed towards human bodies to do harm turn instantly to harmless gas, that guns leveled at human targets refuse to fire, that bludgeons aimed towards human craniums instantly grew soft, fun Nerf padding. That conveniently sidesteps the problem of human choice - people could still choose to do evil to each other, they could point guns and fire them with the intent to kill - they just wouldn't be able to do so. Even if the outcome isn't what you wanted you still freely made the choice. Nobody is guaranteed outcomes anyway, just choices.
I'm not sure I see any argument allowing me to conclude malevolent here.
Killing all human beings?
You don't view that as malevolent? Is it possible that you're an immoral person, Iano? Perhaps you don't see the desire to extinguish all human life as malevolent because you yourself are a sociopath.
God does kill everyone at some point (by omission or commission) but that's probably not what you meant.
You believe in a God who desires the death of sinners. But all men are sinners - therefore God desires the death of all men.
How could that not be malevolent?
All are worthy of it - whether it fits Gods purposes to take them out of the game now or later notwithstanding.
So God suborns justice to His own ends, and you consider him just? That makes no sense.
Fair enough - although I'm not quite sure how anyone could overlook the wrath of the biblical God.
It's certainly a compelling case against the benevolence of God. But to answer your question - the way they overlook it is that they don't bother to read it. The vast majority of your co-religionists have not ever read your religion's scriptures. Their conception of God comes from the dishonest marketing your religious leaders engage in, because it's difficult to win converts to the worship of a God of evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iano, posted 01-18-2011 4:27 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:11 AM crashfrog has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 64 of 114 (601192)
01-19-2011 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by crashfrog
01-18-2011 10:48 PM


Crashfrog writes:
You're right; there's no reason to believe in the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent God. Whether or not that's a "strawgod" seems debatable - maybe that's not the God that you believe in but belief in such a deity is certainly widespread, wouldn't you agree?
When we talk about "God", are we always necessarily talking about the God you, specifically, believe in? Why would that be reasonable? I mean sometimes we're not even talking to you, Iano, if you can believe that.
Much ado, CF. Your only-benevolent angle can be laid to one side now.
-
"Sanction" is what humans do to people who commit crimes; the reason we sanction criminals is because we don't know how to restrain them prior to their criminal acts without harming people who aren't going to commit crimes.
But God isn't limited in that way. A just God would make sin impossible, not sanction sinners.
A just God is one who ensures justice is done at some point (I would have thought). I don't see it as unjust to allow free will to express itself.
To do otherwise is a serious injustice to the victims of those who do evil unto others. People who are getting murdered would rather have not been killed, they don't care about the notion of murders being subject to divine justice years or even decades after the fact.
What people would prefer is neither here nor there. The issue is God and his being just. If he decides to balance the scales in one fell swoop at the end of all history then what of it?
God could make it that knives directed towards human bodies to do harm turn instantly to harmless gas, that guns leveled at human targets refuse to fire, that bludgeons aimed towards human craniums instantly grew soft, fun Nerf padding. That conveniently sidesteps the problem of human choice - people could still choose to do evil to each other, they could point guns and fire them with the intent to kill - they just wouldn't be able to do so. Even if the outcome isn't what you wanted you still freely made the choice. Nobody is guaranteed outcomes anyway, just choices.
Why would anyone point a gun at someone anymore? They might as well just shake their fist. Hasn't this solutiion effectively manacled up the will by removing any means of expression (unto evil)?
-
Killing all human beings?
You don't view that as malevolent? Is it possible that you're an immoral person, Iano? Perhaps you don't see the desire to extinguish all human life as malevolent because you yourself are a sociopath.
Perhaps. But in the context of a debate forum the usual approach is to support your position with reasoned argumentation.
Malevolent = spiteful. Killing all isn't necessarily motivated by spite (or any other negative thing).
Your turn.
-
You believe in a God who desires the death of sinners. But all men are sinners - therefore God desires the death of all men.
How could that not be malevolent?
Ditto above.
-
It's certainly a compelling case against the benevolence of God. But to answer your question - the way they overlook it is that they don't bother to read it. The vast majority of your co-religionists have not ever read your religion's scriptures. Their conception of God comes from the dishonest marketing your religious leaders engage in, because it's difficult to win converts to the worship of a God of evil.
I don't mean this as a slight CF but you sound like you're either irritated or weary of debate. The above is patent nonsense in the face of intelligent discussion on the subject on both sides.
My suspicion is that you are using a definition of omni-benevolence which means only-benevolence (in the same way as folk often use omni-potence to mean God can do simply anything at all)
I'd imagine the actuality of the debate involves something slightly more nuanced - such as hating evil being good (something many can agree with)
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by crashfrog, posted 01-18-2011 10:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by crashfrog, posted 01-20-2011 2:30 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 65 of 114 (601194)
01-19-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Stile
01-18-2011 12:41 PM


Re: The core of iano's argument
Stile writes:
Assuming this is true
Of course.
-
Having a God take interest in our self-concious lives, and then make eternal decisions about those lives without consulting us... shows more about God's character than anything else.
But God does consult us. Now it might not be in the manner you yourself would demand but no matter - as long as it is (and can be shown to be finally) our will which does the deciding.
The mechanism appears to be pretty simple in fact.
1) We are equipped with a knowledge of good and evil (our believing or not in that as stemming from God being irrelevant)
2) We respond to it's promptings all day every day - in word, thought and deed. We clearly can't choose not to respond.
3) Our will-expression is placed into a rolling-algorithm (as it were) which outputs the result finally: saved or no. The algorithm doesn't affect the fact that our will is determines the final result.
4) The result: saved/unsaved is a reflection of what it is we have loved - or better said, to what we have clung to at the point of the fat lady singing (which may before the point of death but not after). "Our clinging to" is an outworking of will expression.
-
ps: Sorry for leaving our other discussion to one side for the moment - I've gotten a bit tied up here.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Stile, posted 01-18-2011 12:41 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 66 of 114 (601195)
01-19-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Larni
01-18-2011 11:36 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
iano writes:
He owns us and can set any condition he likes.
Larni writes:
This is your justification for every nasty thing your god does to us, isn't it?
What more does he need? As you might expect, he acts according to his character so he won't do certain things and will do other things. One of those characteristics is goodness - which means even the nasty things are aimed at achieving good purposes - including:
- discipline
- punishment
- restraining evildoing
- growth
- warning
- salvation
All these things are good things to my mind.
-
He made us so he can do what ever he wants with us and we should not criticise becuase we are only here because of him so we should be greatful for what ever crumbs of happiness we can claw together before your god puts us out of our misery to make a point to somebody else.
Sorry about the sentence length.
Er.. no. Sorry about the sentence's brevity.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Larni, posted 01-18-2011 11:36 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 5:40 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 67 of 114 (601196)
01-19-2011 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Aware Wolf
01-18-2011 10:56 AM


Aware Wolf writes:
There's a couple of ways I could go with this. For one, it seems very twisted to say that the situation where information is witheld from the chooser results in a more free choice.
Then you haven't grasped what a fuller knowledge of the environment of Heaven and the environment of Hell would do to the average unbelievers choice. They wouldn't be an unbeliever for one..
-
For two, and I guess this is more opinion than cold hard logic: limiting, or even eliminating, free choice is easily justified by keeping the chooser from an eternity of suffering. It's not even close.
Eliminate free choice and you eliminate the person. Which means there is no point in making the person. But if there is no person to speak of you can't say it's better for the person that they never exist (other than as a figure of speech). There would be no person for it to be better for.
It would seem the definition of a person requires the level of free choice we have. Limit that and we might be like dogs or something. There's enough of them already probably.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Aware Wolf, posted 01-18-2011 10:56 AM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Aware Wolf, posted 01-19-2011 8:12 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 68 of 114 (601197)
01-19-2011 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by iano
01-19-2011 5:30 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
Er.. no. Sorry about the sentence's brevity.
What part of my long sentence do you disagree with?
Why would anyone point a gun at someone anymore? They might as well just shake their fist. Hasn't this solutiion effectively manacled up the will by removing any means of expression (unto evil)?
I have often wanted to kill people but the risk involved and the bother I would have to go through precludes that activity.
As your god apparently made the universal laws in such a way as to preclude me from being able to kill people with mind bullets I'm left with no recourse but to not kill people.
Where is my free will?
Edited by Larni, : Mind bullets

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:30 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:50 AM Larni has replied
 Message 70 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:55 AM Larni has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 69 of 114 (601198)
01-19-2011 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Larni
01-19-2011 5:40 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
Larni writes:
He made us so he can do what ever he wants with us
He made us in order that he might do what we want with us from the options offered. Those options lie at the extremes: cleaved to God (without whom we cannot live) or separated from God (without whom we cannot live)
and we should not criticise becuase we are only here because of him so we should be greatful for what ever crumbs of happiness we can claw together before your god puts us out of our misery to make a point to somebody else.
You are free to continue on the path you are born into: criticising, hating, rejecting God (and others and yourself). And free to start anew in the manner he intended you for.
It's true that there is a lmiited number of choices presented you but since it consists of the very best and the very worst of existances you can appreciate the honour bestowed you.
You truly are in the top percentile of created beings when it comes to the potential offered you. You could be thankful for that honour at least.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 5:40 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 5:56 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 70 of 114 (601199)
01-19-2011 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Larni
01-19-2011 5:40 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
I have often wanted to kill people but the risk involved and the bother I would have to go through precludes that activity.
So you settled for anger instead maybe. A lower* tier expression of will but an expression of will all the same. If you willed to ramp that up to murder then there was nothing (except your will) stopping you.
As your god apparently made the universal laws in such a way as to preclude me from being able to kill people with mind bullets I'm left with no recourse but to not kill people.
Where is my free will?
Free will means you can do it if you want to. It doesn't mean there won't be any consequences for your doing it. If you choose to weigh up the consequences and decide against then that too is a free expression of your will.
God finds mind bullets murderous btw. The same heart that shoots those would shoot live bullets were there a chance of getting away without negative consequences. It's the thought* that counts - there's hardly merit in your motivation for not murdering being the fact you might get caught.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 5:40 AM Larni has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 71 of 114 (601200)
01-19-2011 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by iano
01-19-2011 5:50 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
You have not answered my question:
What is factually wrong with my long sentence?
And, did you read my ABE:?
ABE: I see you read my ABE:
Edited by Larni, : ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:50 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:58 AM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 72 of 114 (601201)
01-19-2011 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Larni
01-19-2011 5:56 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
Factually wrong:
He made us in order that he might do what WE want with us.
There is no 'should' about your being grateful. If you don't believe there is no 'should' about being thankful to someone you have no reason to be thankful to. If you are a believer you should be grateful for his having saved you from the consequences of your sin and the fact that blissful eternal life has already started.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 5:56 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 6:09 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 73 of 114 (601202)
01-19-2011 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
01-19-2011 5:58 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
I'll edict my sentence for clarity.
He made us. (As a result) he can do what ever he wants with us and we should not criticise becuase we are only here because of him so we should be greatful for what ever crumbs of happiness we can claw together before your god puts us out of our misery to make a point to somebody else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 5:58 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 6:37 AM Larni has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 74 of 114 (601203)
01-19-2011 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Larni
01-19-2011 6:09 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
Larni writes:
He made us. (As a result) he can do what ever he wants with us
Indeed. Whatever his purpose was in making us is his to determine. Our basis sense of ownership rights tells us that.
-
.. and we should not criticise because we are only here because of him
This 'royal we' allied to "should" is problematic. It implies (and is derived from) a moral dimension. If your moral compass is calibrated correctly (let's say for arguments sake mine is as a Christian) then the 'should/should not' line is clear for me to see and work in relation to. I should do ... because I've signed up for it.
If your moral compass is wonky - let's say for arguments sake your's is as an unbeliever - then you should still do what your moral compass says - it's just that it might not be what you should do (in an absolute sense.
I don't think someone should be thankful/non critical just for being here. If, for example, it was known that God's purpose for me was eg: only to harm me then I'd spend all the time I could telling him what a git he is - since that is what my moral compass informs me to do.
-
..so we should be greatful for what ever crumbs of happiness we can claw together before your god puts us out of our misery to make a point to somebody else.
I wouldn't let the fact I've been thrown a fiew bones divert me from the larger negative picture if that was my view. 'Should' implies a moral dimension - it's for you to weigh up what you should do with the moral equipping you've got.
Should you refer what you should do to what God says you should do? Since he's given you a choice in that matter then clearly not necessarily.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 6:09 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Larni, posted 01-19-2011 6:47 AM iano has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 75 of 114 (601204)
01-19-2011 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by iano
01-19-2011 6:37 AM


Re: The core of iano's argument
If, for example, it was known that God's purpose for me was eg: only to harm me then I'd spend all the time I could telling him what a git he is
This statement can only mean that you believe that even though your god could (and often does) create somebody with the intention of them living in agony for a spell then dieing there is infact something else that balances this up for the individual- if he accepts salvation in Jesus's sacrifice.
Am I on the right track, here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 6:37 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by iano, posted 01-19-2011 6:52 AM Larni has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024