Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Doss]

I had my doubts over this posters legitimacy when he stated that Heppell may win the Brownlow because his blonde hair stands out

He wasn't legitimate. Jab is right.

 

[RobbieGray17]

He wasn't legitimate. Jab is right.

Do you think he was an atheist trying to troll the board?

 

[RobbieGray17]

Romans 1:20New International Version (NIV)

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Interesting: those who haven't heard about God or Jesus, can't be saved

 

[Boston tiger]

Romans 1:20New International Version (NIV)



Interesting: those who haven't heard about God or Jesus, can't be saved

Everyone has heard of God.

 

[RobbieGray17]

Everyone has heard of God.

How so? what about those who have had no contact with any civilization? there are still places in the amazon.

And besides. I'm talking about the CHRISTIAN GOD!!!

 

[Boston tiger]

"since the creation of the world" leads me to think that it pre dates Christ

 

[Tiger71]

I just found this thread, god help me for posting in it

Now I am not into organised religion, I respect it and don't describe to some of the hate directed to it on this thread. Yes bad does come from it but also some very good things come from it as well. As to those rubbishing people who believe in god, well I do believe in God but to suggest God is not real due to the bad things that happen in the world is simplistic in the extreme. Not one person has mentioned the concept of free will. If someone blows up a plane, its not gods fault or IMO it is not some grand design. Just a man who chose to do the act.

I believe in judgement, that how you act in life you will be held into account once your life ends. To many things have happened and do happen that show God is real but that is just my opinion. It does not make my opinion any more correct then those that believe otherwise. IMO regardless if you believe in a god or not respect should be given and offered.

I dont agree with fundamentalist on both sides as they try to compartmentalize God to fit there own concept and value. To me God is above all that.

Anyway, just my 2cp.

 

[Empire_Persian]

Pretty simple explanation really, not limited to atheists or theists, people are just assholes who do assholic things, perfectly easy explanation. That might explain why non-religious people can be good people and religious people can be bad, coz they're all people, and good and bad is the luck of the draw

People do stupid things because we have free will.

But in some Christians' world, bad things done by bad people happen because apparently this all knowing, all people, all seeing God who can save anyone, who can stop anything, intentionally allows these evil to happen so that some apparent intangible unseenable "good" can come outta these atrocities. That's not an explanation, that's just delusion

Some food for thought...

If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?

If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?

 

[CotchNCo]

If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?
If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?

So God gives us free will and then gives us ten commandments?

 

[Cooldude]

People do stupid things because we have free will.

And an apparently just, loving and omnipotent/omniscient God will allow free will for people to do bad things against good people because.....? Free will is as lousy an explanation as you can conjure. Yes I allow you to do whatever you want, even heinous things, I am just, I am love, I am good, but I will allow these bad things to happen to those undeserving. You don't see the contradiction?

Some food for thought...

If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?

Can easily flip the question around

If God allow free will and allow people to do heinous things then what is the point of God being all powerful, all loving and just? He did it a lot in the OT ya know

If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?

Hahahaha what?

Erm the ten commandments are there to stop people from doing those bad things...............

 

[Empire_Persian]

So God gives us free will and then gives us ten commandments?

Erm the ten commandments are there to stop people from doing those bad things...............

That is the point.

You assume that if "God" gave us laws, we have free will.

It would be stupid if "God" gave us laws, but did not give us free will. Seems like a pointless exercise.

And an apparently just, loving and omnipotent/omniscient God will allow free will for people to do bad things against good people because.....?

That is the point of free will, you can do what you want. If God intervenes, then we do not have free will.

Free will is as lousy an explanation as you can conjure. Yes I allow you to do whatever you want, even heinous things, I am just, I am love, I am good, but I will allow these bad things to happen to those undeserving. You don't see the contradiction?

I don't see the contradiction. However I do appreciate that if you believe in a "God" that is supposed to be all-powerful and all-merciful, that can be confusing and angering.

Also free will is not a lousy explanation of anything. It is a fundamental existential question. It substantially alters your viewpoint if you believe you have free will or you believe that everything is pre-destined.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Unfortunately for WLC the kalam argument presupposes and infact requires a god to exist. I wrote this a few months ago

The kalam argument relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.

From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"
Quote:
The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.
Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)
Quote:
from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.

Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.

From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)
Quote:

So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that

In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)

So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?

Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)
Quote:
we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it.

Hooray for deductive reasoning with circular logic

WHAAAAAAT?

 

[skilts]

Also free will is not a lousy explanation of anything. It is a fundamental existential question. It substantially alters your viewpoint if you believe you have free will or you believe that everything is pre-destined.

Is this to say that you have its answer?

 

[Jaffa Fan]

Unfortunately for WLC the kalam argument presupposes and infact requires a god to exist. I wrote this a few months ago

The kalam argument relies on the controversial a-theory of time (tensed theory). that the present is intrinsically real and other moments cease to exist or have not yet existed.

From William Lane Craig "the nature of time"
Quote:
The moments of time are ordered by past present and future, and that these are real and objective aspects of reality. The past is gone, it no longer exists. The present is real. The future has not yet existed and is not real.
Craig further explains how the kalam argument relies on a-theory time in "the Blackwell companion to natural theology" (p. 183 - 184)
Quote:
from start to finish the kalam argument is predicated upon a-theory time. On b-theory time the universe does not infact come into being or become actual at the big bang. It just exists tenselessy as a 4 dimentional space-time block which is infinitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless then the universe never really came into being. Therefor a quest for a cause of it's coming into being are misconceived.

Ok cool. The problem with this is that a-theory time is not compatible with Einstiens theory of special relativity which tells us that you cannot place absolute values on time as time is relative. The present is no more reality than the past or the future.

From Einstiens "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (1905)
Quote:

So we can see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneousity, but that two events, which, viewed from a system of coordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisanged from a system which is in motion relatively to that

In response to this, Craig wrote a number of books on time and put forward neo-lorentzian relativity, which Craig claims is as observationally correct as Einstiens theory (albeit a lot more complicated)

So what reason do we have to believe neo-lorentzian relativity over Einstiens simpler theory?

Craig from "time and metaphysics of reality" (p179)
Quote:
we have good reason for believing neo-lorentzian theory is correct, namely, the existence of god in a-theory time implies it.

Hooray for deductive reasoning with circular logic

WHAAAAAAT?

42

 

[hardon]

People do stupid things because we have free will.

if i'm not mistaken 'free will' is just a christian patch-job on the problems created by god allowing evil. and just like all the other supernatural nonsense that only the indoctrinated mind can believe, it is a nonsense concept to the unindoctrinated.

Some food for thought...

If "God" stopped people from doing stupid things what is the point of free will?

free will would be the ability to chose between an awesome outcome and an even more awesomer outcome in a safe and loving environment?

If "God" stopped people from doing bad things what is the point of the ten commandments?

there would be no point indeed. he should have stopped people from doing bad things and cancelled the commandments. that seems cool.

 

[hardon]

That is the point of free will, you can do what you want.

well you can't really "do what you want" at all. you can only 'choose' from the possibilities that god supplied in the regime he imposed on you.

If God intervenes, then we do not have free will.

i don't understand how this makes sense. if i intervene in a fight between two kids they haven't lost their "free will". i just stopped them from belting each other. their "free will" will be just as present afterwards as it was before.

 

[Cooldude]

That is the point.

You assume that if "God" gave us laws, we have free will.

It would be stupid if "God" gave us laws, but did not give us free will. Seems like a pointless exercise.

No, you are missing the point. How can a God that freely allow evil and heinous acts on those undeserving, be loving, just, fair and powerful at the same time? Yes I let you choose whether to follow my laws because I wanna empower you by letting you do whatever it is that you choose, which means you'd be free to kill/persecute others as well, it's a free country!

Oh btw I also love you people, I am just, I am omnipotent and omniscient, and will neither leave nor forsake you. How can that even make sense? Unless God is a psychopath.

That is the point of free will, you can do what you want. If God intervenes, then we do not have free will.

Missing the point exhibit 2, I do not want repeat myself on how far you've missed the point.

I don't see the contradiction.

Of course you don't

However I do appreciate that if you believe in a "God" that is supposed to be all-powerful and all-merciful, that can be confusing and angering.

Also free will is not a lousy explanation of anything. It is a fundamental existential question. It substantially alters your viewpoint if you believe you have free will or you believe that everything is pre-destined.

It's not a matter of predestination or free will, it's the matter of claiming God is love and justice and grace and mercy, yet at the same time heinous acts are allowed to happen unintervened (and btw God intervened a lot in the OT, so don't use free will as an excuse here), that just cannot possibly be coherent or make any sense. That's the contradiction

It alters nothing unless you have shut out all sorts of reason and decides to use it as a very flimsy excuse to justify your own selfish beliefs

Btw, even predestination is clearly stated in Romans and Ephseians as real, "He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will…In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will."

You can't claim free will is the reason for all this clusterbeep when even the bible itself disagree with you and tells you at the very least some form of predestination exists. You don't get to blank out bits of the bible that doesn't suit your warped premises

 

[Empire_Persian]

if i'm not mistaken 'free will' is just a christian patch-job on the problems created by god allowing evil. and just like all the other supernatural nonsense that only the indoctrinated mind can believe, it is a nonsense concept to the unindoctrinated.

Sure, if you do not believe in a spiritual existence, then the broader concept of free will is irrelevant. However the question raised was why would a "God" allow bad things to happen, and in that context I think the concept of 'free will' is totally relevant.

free will would be the ability to chose between an awesome outcome and an even more awesomer outcome in a safe and loving environment?

Yeah why not. If you assume God has the power to create this world and all that is therein, you could also assume that he had the power to create human being without the capacity to commit acts of evil.

No, you are missing the point. How can a God that freely allow evil and heinous acts on those undeserving, be loving, just, fair and powerful at the same time?

Good question and I'm not sure. I'm interested to know what you take issue to - that "God" allows bad things to happen, or, that he claims to be loving and merciful? If he did not claim the latter would you still have a problem with the former?

You can't claim free will is the reason for all this clusterbeep

Well if you don't believe in God, you certainly can claim it

when even the bible itself disagree with you and tells you at the very least some form of predestination exists. You don't get to blank out bits of the bible that doesn't suit your warped premises

I'm not a man of "the book", but I think humans operate within a reality that is influenced by both destiny and free will. I know that sounds like I'm sitting on the fence, but the best way I have heard somebody else describe my fence sitting views is: a painter can paint whatever he likes on a single canvas, in that, the painters creativity is 'free will' and the parameters of the canvas is 'destiny'.

Is this to say that you have its answer?

**** no!

 

[Sydney Bloods]

If there was no God, then how would morality evolve into the world?

morality exists in many cultures that don't follow your bible, the fact is your bible was written by men, ergo morality existed before your little book was written. to assign the notion of morality to god, when there are plenty examples of morality that exist before your bible was written and people living by "morals"

it's a false argument.

Without organised religion, where would billions of people in the world get their social network, which is proven to provide a blanket of happiness and economic prosperity?

Family, Footy club's, school, sites like this. I haven't been in a church since i was around 6. none of my mates are religious most of my family is religious. Yet I've never felt isolated alone or cut off from the world.

welcome to the 21st century.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

LOL. I highly doubt that. Sorry.

There's a reason being a good person is synonymous with being a Christian.

wait so hindus, muslims, buddhists are all immoral? the most peace loving moral expunging good bloke that teaches everyone should avoid extremes, be kind to each other and try to make the world a better place. (the dalai lama) is not a good person because he's not a christian?

it's been a while since i stumbled across this sort of zealous ideals.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I'd like to believe Hitler would go to hell, since he was an atheist in life, but then everyone deserves God's love and forgiveness so it comes down to his judgment day and whether God thinks he purified his heart as a result of his actions or not.

dear god this get's better and better, you believe hitler would go to hell for being an atheist. not for you know, ordering the executions of millions of people, bribing the christian churches or trying to start his own paganist cult where he was worshipped like an idol which is strictly prohibited in your bible.

nope biggest crime is not believing the bible was a crock of s**t.

christian morality at it's finest.

 

[Contra Mundum]

dear god this get's better and better, you believe hitler would go to hell for being an atheist. not for you know, ordering the executions of millions of people, bribing the christian churches or trying to start his own paganist cult where he was worshipped like an idol which is strictly prohibited in your bible.

nope biggest crime is not believing the bible was a crock of s**t.

christian morality at it's finest.

Hitler and Mussolini were baptised Catholics and were never excommunicated - a women who has an abortion or joined the communist party was more likely to be excommunicated (NB: admission against interest)

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

No, you are missing the point. How can a God that freely allow evil and heinous acts on those undeserving, be loving, just, fair and powerful at the same time?

I think Epicurus said it best:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[KrakFiend]

Yeh because abusing someone for their beliefs is far more interesting than finding out the fantasy behind them

EFA

 

[Partridge]

I'd like to believe Hitler would go to hell, since he was an atheist in life, but then everyone deserves God's love and forgiveness so it comes down to his judgment day and whether God thinks he purified his heart as a result of his actions or not.

A unique kind of atheist called Roman Catholic.