?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

02/17/2011 02:20:25 PM · #1226

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

the designer will have created the mechanisms by which snowflakes come into being: He'll have created the laws, not the instances of the laws' application.

The proponents of intelligent design use exactly this argument when they look at a specific result (snowflakes, eyeballs, humans, planets capable of supporting life, etc.) and declare it too complex to be the product of natural processes. There's nothing "too complex" about the laws themselves.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/18/2011 08:37:47 AM · #1227

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the designer will have created the mechanisms by which snowflakes come into being: He'll have created the laws, not the instances of the laws' application.

The proponents of intelligent design use exactly this argument when they look at a specific result (snowflakes, eyeballs, humans, planets capable of supporting life, etc.) and declare it too complex to be the product of natural processes. There's nothing "too complex" about the laws themselves.

It is fascinating how probability and quantum physics ties all this together.

Taking an end result and establishing the probability of it having happened by reverse engineering it and looking at the number of possible alternatives that did not occur misleads you to the conclusion that the odds of anything happening are incredibly remote. This is a key facet of misleading people into believing in intelligent design.

This is also the principle applied in encryption (where a simple calculation is applied and the resulting data is very difficult but not impossible to reverse engineer without an encryption key). And interestingly, this is something that quantum computing will be very good at reverse engineering because it analyses all of the possible inputs (using the multiverse) in parallel (not in series like a mechanical computer) and finds the one accurate input in a single cycle and decodes the message instantly.

The reality is that complicated things can come about (and indeed are probable) through natural processes where they build one upon another. However, very complicated things approach infinite improbability in the context of random sequences (and chaos theory posits that they never occur in stochastic systems where there is regular noise).

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/18/2011 10:29:06 AM · #1228

Work is cranking up, so I will not be able to post quite as frequently as I have been lately. But I can always make time for my divinely-deluded primate brother, johnnyphoto.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

First of all, God did not "desire to despoil" his perfect creation. If God did have a desire to despoil perfection, then he would not be perfect or good.

Yes, this is my point - the collectively claimed characteristics of God are contradictory; the claimed nature of God is incoherent.

However, I think you misunderstand my question.

If God is perfect, always existed and is the creator of the universe, then God must have existed prior to anything else, right?

This means that at one point, God was all there was, he/she/it was the entirety of the universe (and/or all universes). And since God is perfect in every way, that means that the entirety of the universe/multiverse at that point was also perfect. This also means that any change to this state of things must, by necessity, have been a change to something less than the previous perfection. And as your own comment points out, God cannot have "needed" to enact the creation, because to do so would mean that God was not perfect unto him/her/itself.

So, the question becomes, why the creation?

If there could be no need, and prior to the creation all was perfect and good because all was God who is all perfect and all good, then why bother?

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God's creation was, at the time he created it, perfect, just as he intended it to be. A common response is, "but creation became imperfect, which means that God created it with the potential to become imperfect, which must mean that God is not good or that God is not perfect." This is a valid question but there is also a valid response to this question. If God is perfect, then everything he does (or creates) must also be perfect. This creates a dilemma. Creation must be perfect, but it was created with the potential to become imperfect. How can this dilemma be solved? The simplest answer is that this potential was necessary in order for creation to fulfill its purpose and, therefore, be considered perfect. The only logical conclusion is that if creation was not made with the potential to become imperfect then it would be incapable of fulfilling its purpose (which I believe is to glorify God) and without the ability to fulfill its purpose, creation would be an imperfect creation. If one understands this "potential" as "free will" then this solution makes a lot of sense. Creation was made with the potential to become imperfect because humanity (part of creation) was made with free will, which is required for humanity to fulfill its purpose of glorifying God.

Sorry, casting the imperfect nature of the universe simply as a "potential" for imperfection doesn't solve the problem.

First, see above. Why the creation in the first place? The claimed conception of God makes the act of creation itself illogical.

Second, as someone else already pointed out, other claimed characteristics of God - omnipotence and omniscience - means that any imperfection in the creation must be the result of deliberate intent on the part of God. In the mind of the God Christian's claim, there really is no free will, since all time and history is (from God's perspective) pre-ordained.

Because God is all-powerful, he/she/it could have simply created a universe where free-will existed, and all the entities endowed with free will would still have the potential to "choose" wrongly, but instead "choose" correctly. Instead, God intentionally made a creation where he/she/it knew - because he/she/it is all knowing - that the vast majority of entities endowed with free will would "choose" incorrectly.

Also, given the above, since God is all-knowing, we must wonder why he/she/it would intentionally create a universe where those entities who he/she/it knows will choose "wrongly" are condemned to some sort of hell (lake of fire/pain due to being barred from the presence of God/some other "horrible" thing). What is the utility of punishment - especially given the proportionality involved - when, from God's perspective, those being punished are simply acting out their destined roles; roles which were granted by an intentional act of creation from the very entity that condemns them?

None of this makes any sense if you actually believe that the declared nature of God describes an actual entity - one being simply cannot inhabit all of the characteristics ascribed to him/her/it.

It makes perfect sense once you understand that the claimed nature of God is simply an amalgamation of superlatives slapped on the description of God by believers in an attempt to one-up the other set of believers down the road.

Message edited by author 2011-02-18 10:50:03.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/18/2011 11:22:02 AM · #1229

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

If God is perfect, always existed and is the creator of the universe, then God must have existed prior to anything else, right?

This means that at one point, God was all there was, he/she/it was the entirety of the universe (and/or all universes). And since God is perfect in every way, that means that the entirety of the universe/multiverse at that point was also perfect. This also means that any change to this state of things must, by necessity, have been a change to something less than the previous perfection. And as your own comment points out, God cannot have "needed" to enact the creation, because to do so would mean that God was not perfect unto him/her/itself.

Far be it for me to argue for the "other side", but in the interest of playing devil's advocate...

Your logic is valid when filtered through our 3-dimensional view of the universe. But if we place God outside of time (which I think we would have to if we accepted His attributes as Truth), then the creation just exists. There is no before or after. It is like the flat-lander's perception of a sphere passing through his plane. First there was nothing, then a point that grew into a larger and larger circle, then the circle diminishes into a point and disappears. But from the 3-d person's perspective, the sphere was always there. So from God's perspective, the creation was always there. Thus God is perfect (ok, I cringe a little at that, but I think my logic is sound).

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

The free-will thing is a little harder to cast off, but if we accept Greene's multiverse theory, then our free-will is a little less free than it may appear. In the multiverse we make every possible choice. Thus, in an infinite number of universes, we have made the choices that please God, and in an infinte number we have made the choices that displease God. (And in an infinite number of universes we have made the choices that leave God feeling meh).

God, being outside of the multiverse, perceives all of these possibilities.

Do I believe any of this - no. But it leads to some interesting theological possibilities. For example - why am I perceiving the particular path through the multiverse that I am?

Message edited by author 2011-02-18 11:28:33.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/18/2011 11:28:28 AM · #1230

Originally posted by eqsite:

In the multiverse we make every possible choice. Thus, in an infinite number of universes, we have made the choices that please God, and in an infinte number we have made the choices that displease God. (And in an infinite number of universes we have made the choices that leave God feeling meh).

That still leaves unanswered the core of shutterpuppy's post: what's the point? You have to revert to the unsatisfactory "we can't know god's purpose" trope.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/18/2011 11:29:42 AM · #1231

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by eqsite:
In the multiverse we make every possible choice. Thus, in an infinite number of universes, we have made the choices that please God, and in an infinte number we have made the choices that displease God. (And in an infinite number of universes we have made the choices that leave God feeling meh).

That still leaves unanswered the core of shutterpuppy's post: what's the point? You have to revert to the unsatisfactory "we can't know god's purpose" trope.

Oh, I agree with that. I have not idea what the point would be, nor do I believe it. I just find the logic intersting.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/18/2011 12:16:11 PM · #1232

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
If God is perfect, always existed and is the creator of the universe, then God must have existed prior to anything else, right?

This means that at one point, God was all there was, he/she/it was the entirety of the universe (and/or all universes). And since God is perfect in every way, that means that the entirety of the universe/multiverse at that point was also perfect. This also means that any change to this state of things must, by necessity, have been a change to something less than the previous perfection. And as your own comment points out, God cannot have "needed" to enact the creation, because to do so would mean that God was not perfect unto him/her/itself.

Far be it for me to argue for the "other side", but in the interest of playing devil's advocate...

Your logic is valid when filtered through our 3-dimensional view of the universe. But if we place God outside of time (which I think we would have to if we accepted His attributes as Truth), then the creation just exists. There is no before or after. It is like the flat-lander's perception of a sphere passing through his plane. First there was nothing, then a point that grew into a larger and larger circle, then the circle diminishes into a point and disappears. But from the 3-d person's perspective, the sphere was always there. So from God's perspective, the creation was always there. Thus God is perfect (ok, I cringe a little at that, but I think my logic is sound).

Only if you remove the intentionality (aka, the "will") of the creation from God. It is actually the idea that God stands outside space and time that allows the intentionality.

With the conception of an omnipotent and omniscient creator, God's "will" is actually the only "will" that can have any practical meaning, since all other appearances of "choice" would simply be illusion and just a reflection of the "will" of God's intent in the creation.

If you remove this element, God too is just a puppet, acting out a pre-ordained role. (And, in that case, also not actually perfect.)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/18/2011 12:22:39 PM · #1233

Originally posted by eqsite:

So from God's perspective, the creation was always there.

So much for Genesis! From the Biblical claim, creation WASN'T always there. In the beginning there was only God. Since we, and by extension some part of the universe is imperfect, then either an imperfect universe always existed (eliminating the need for creation) or a perfect being created something so faulty that it requires occasional resets to clear the playing surface (eliminating the assumption of perfection).

Originally posted by eqsite:

In the multiverse we make every possible choice.

Choices are sequential and lead to infinite resultsâ�� every decision limits or enables the next possible choice. Therefore achieving every result is not mathematically possible even with infinite starting points: for every attempt you make (even an infinite number), there will always be one more possible outcome.

Message edited by author 2011-02-18 12:34:14.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/18/2011 01:39:34 PM · #1234

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

So, the question becomes, why the creation?

If there could be no need, and prior to the creation all was perfect and good because all was God who is all perfect and all good, then why bother?

I still think the primary motivator would be boredom ...

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/18/2011 01:58:17 PM · #1235

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
So, the question becomes, why the creation?

If there could be no need, and prior to the creation all was perfect and good because all was God who is all perfect and all good, then why bother?

I still think the primary motivator would be boredom ...

Most humans I know aren't exactly a cure for boredom ;-)

02/18/2011 02:01:15 PM · #1236

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
So from God's perspective, the creation was always there.

So much for Genesis! From the Biblical claim, creation WASN'T always there. In the beginning there was only God. Since we, and by extension some part of the universe is imperfect, then either an imperfect universe always existed (eliminating the need for creation) or a perfect being created something so faulty that it requires occasional resets to clear the playing surface (eliminating the assumption of perfection).

Unless you consider the Genesis story as being told from the viewpoint of a 3-d observer. (Again, I don't believe this stuff - but I won't abandon the argument on those grounds alone.)

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
In the multiverse we make every possible choice.

Choices are sequential and lead to infinite resultsâ�� every decision limits or enables the next possible choice. Therefore achieving every result is not mathematically possible even with infinite starting points: for every attempt you make (even an infinite number), there will always be one more possible outcome.

Your last line is confusing to me. It sounds like you are saying that because the set is infinite, it can not exist, since there would always be one more possible addition to the set. But that is the definition of infinite.

Anyhow, quantum mechanics deals with this by assigning probabilities to each possible path. Consider a particle traveling from point A to point B. Quantum mechanics specifies that the particle will actually travel every possible path between those points, no matter how improbable (including bouncing off the moon, or traveling to the other side of the universe and back). It assigns a probability of finding the particle along any of those paths (very high for the direct path, extremely low for bouncing off the moon, infinitesimally small for traversing the universe).

So in essence, every result is mathematically possible (no matter how improbable) and given an infinite number of multiverses, does actually exist, improbable though they may be (see shutterpuppies acknowlegement of Jason's argument vis-a-vis the Shakespearean monkeys).

02/18/2011 02:57:44 PM · #1237

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Doc has still not given me an answer on this:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
[quote=DrAchoo]The important point is that it doesn't make any sense to compared God to an independent standard because there is no such thing.

How do you know? On what basis can you make such a claim?

I don't think this is "known" as much as it is inferred or even accepted as axiomatic. All monotheistic systems I know of consider God to be the ultimate source of everything. He's the one with the giant sign on his desk that says, "The Buck Stops Here". If it didn't, if it stopped somewhere else, wouldn't that other thing supersede him as a better candidate for "God"?

Sorry to keep you waiting so long.

02/18/2011 03:30:04 PM · #1238

Originally posted by eqsite:

It sounds like you are saying that because the set is infinite, it can not exist, since there would always be one more possible addition to the set.

The set can exist, but you cannot assign a probability to it if the possibilities are infinite. A probability of one in infinity does not compute.

02/18/2011 03:42:06 PM · #1239

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
It sounds like you are saying that because the set is infinite, it can not exist, since there would always be one more possible addition to the set.

The set can exist, but you cannot assign a probability to it if the possibilities are infinite. A probability of one in infinity does not compute.

Richard Feynman would disagree with you.

02/18/2011 04:19:53 PM · #1240

Originally posted by scalvert:

I know you might have gotten this from me because I said the exact same thing in the other thread, but it is wrong. 1 divided by infinity is zero. The equation I had confused this with that "does not compute" is infinity divided by infinity. That equation does not work.

Message edited by author 2011-02-18 16:20:37.

02/18/2011 05:12:31 PM · #1241

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

A probability of 0 doesn't help your cause.

02/18/2011 05:25:56 PM · #1242

I don't even know what the cause is we're talking about here. I was just trying to correct an error I may have been responsible for.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/18/2011 05:57:26 PM · #1243

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't even know what the cause is we're talking about here. I was just trying to correct an error I may have been responsible for.

The same thing I've been pointing out for several days now: these scenarios require a finite probability and random conditions. Any system with infinite possibilities foils the math. A chance of 1 in infinity is the same as zero chance, as you so graciously acknowledge. The error you are responsible for is assuming that anything possible in the real world is inevitable given infinite time. It's not true.

This is easily demonstrated with continuously sequential events like evolution, human decisions or the progression of the universe. Imagine you have a bottomless jar, and on each turn you place either a red marble or a green marble in it. Now... calculate the sequence of the second-to-last turn. Take as long as you like. See? It doesn't work. Any binary sequence is obviously possible, yet whatever happens simply happens and even with infinite time you will never realize every outcome.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/18/2011 06:01:29 PM · #1244

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I don't even know what the cause is we're talking about here. I was just trying to correct an error I may have been responsible for.

And so the cycle is complete. Unbeknownst to you, because of your failure, earth is inhabited by the useless population of Golgafrincham. WTG!

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/19/2011 02:26:45 AM · #1245

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

So, the question becomes, why the creation?

If there could be no need, and prior to the creation all was perfect and good because all was God who is all perfect and all good, then why bother?

I believe that God created because he wanted to. That's it. God wanted someone/something to love and he wanted someone/something to love/worship him in response to his great love.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Second, as someone else already pointed out, other claimed characteristics of God - omnipotence and omniscience - means that any imperfection in the creation must be the result of deliberate intent on the part of God. In the mind of the God Christian's claim, there really is no free will, since all time and history is (from God's perspective) pre-ordained.

I understand what you're getting at. At the very least, God allowed creation to become imperfect, so doesn't that make God responsible? Fair question. I believe that the answer lies in the distinction between "allowing" and "ordaining." Just because God allows certain things to happen does not mean that he ultimately wants those things to happen. Some theologians like to call this the difference between God's "wish" and God's "will." It's logical once you wrap your mind around it. Basically the thinking is that what God "wills" are the things that he effects, or allows to happen, but these things might not be what he ultimately "wishes." In other words, God allows things to happen that he really doesn't want to happen, and there are any number of reasons why he would do that. Here's an analogy to clarify this concept. A father watches from outside a candy store while his son inside the store is contemplating whether or not to steal some candy. The father could step inside and prevent his son from stealing the candy because ultimately, he does not want (wish for) to witness his son committing a crime. However, the father does not intercede and allows (wills for) the son to steal the candy. Why would the father allow (will for) this to happen? Perhaps he wanted his son to learn an important less from this episode. Perhaps the father felt that his son would benefit more from facing the consequences of stealing than from being scolded by his father. Perhaps the father simply wanted to allow his son to make his own choices, whether they be good or bad, rather than simply telling him what to do. There are any number of reason why the father would choose not to intercede. Does this make the father a bad parent? Does this make the father responsible for his son's choices?

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Because God is all-powerful, he/she/it could have simply created a universe where free-will existed, and all the entities endowed with free will would still have the potential to "choose" wrongly, but instead "choose" correctly. Instead, God intentionally made a creation where he/she/it knew - because he/she/it is all knowing - that the vast majority of entities endowed with free will would "choose" incorrectly.

I would argue that your first "God... could have" statement is actually a "God did" reality. God did create a universe with free will where agents have the potential to choose wrong but instead choose right. The only qualifier that I would add to that is that the agents that freely choose to do wrong are the unbelievers, and the agents that freely choose to do right are the disciples of Jesus Christ and the children of God. Note: I do not consider "right" and "wrong" to be moral questions, but theological questions. "Right" is anything done in accordance with God's will while "wrong" is anything done in opposition to God's will. I'm not in any way saying that Christians are the only people capable of doing things that are morally right or good.

Did God intentionally make a creation where the vast majority of entities would choose incorrectly? Yes. Hard to swallow? One of the consequences of giving everyone free will is the reality that not everyone will choose to do right. You are right SP. We all have the potential to choose wrong, but we also have the potential to choose right. We all have the potential to do right in God's eyes because we all have the potential to be please God through faith in Jesus Christ (the only way to please God). Everyone always focuses on the fact that God made a world where people do evil things and some are condemned to hell. What about the fact that God made a world where people do good things and some are saved and given eternal life? The interesting thing is that one cannot exist without the other. By definition, a universe that includes free will includes those who would freely choose wrong AND those who would freely choose right. The beauty of the gospel is that while God made creation and allowed (willed) it to continue existing even though he new it would turn from him and choose evil, God pursued us out of his great love and mercy and made it possible for us freely choose to love, worship, and pursue him in return (which was and is his wish for creation).

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Also, given the above, since God is all-knowing, we must wonder why he/she/it would intentionally create a universe where those entities who he/she/it knows will choose "wrongly" are condemned to some sort of hell (lake of fire/pain due to being barred from the presence of God/some other "horrible" thing). What is the utility of punishment - especially given the proportionality involved - when, from God's perspective, those being punished are simply acting out their destined roles; roles which were granted by an intentional act of creation from the very entity that condemns them?

God is just. The unjust must be punished. If God fails to punish the unjust then God cannot be just. That's logical enough. God was merciful enough to allow creation (and humanity) to continue existing even though it was evil. God was even more merciful to allow his creation (and humanity) to be redeemed and delivered from the evil through the blood of his own Son, Jesus Christ. God is merciful enough to allow the wicked to live out their lives on earth, but if God were to allow the wicked to live eternally with his adopted children, that would not be mercy, but injustice. God is loving and merciful, but he is also holy and just. By allowing the wicked to live temporarily, God expresses his love and mercy. By eventually punishing the wicked, God expresses his justice and holiness. If God allowed the wicked to live indefinitely, his holiness and justice would be compromised.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

None of this makes any sense if you actually believe that the declared nature of God describes an actual entity - one being simply cannot inhabit all of the characteristics ascribed to him/her/it.

You're right. It doesn't make much sense to us. The reason why is because our concepts of mercy, love, justice, holiness, etc. are faulty. True (and pure) love, mercy, justice, etc. can (and do) coexist in the true and pure character of God. We are impure, so naturally we cannot comprehend that which is pure. We can catch only mere glimpses of God's pure love and holiness.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

It makes perfect sense once you understand that the claimed nature of God is simply an amalgamation of superlatives slapped on the description of God by believers in an attempt to one-up the other set of believers down the road.

Well if humans were created in the image of God (after his likeness), and that image (likeness) has been diminished by the fall, then we can logically assume that the characteristics of humanity are merely diminished characteristics of God himself. And if God is infinite (which he must be in order to be the creator) then it also makes sense that his characteristics are infinite (superlative) versions of our own human characteristics.

I'm not sure what you mean by the whole "slapped on the description of God by believers in an attempt to one-up the other set of believers down the road" comment...

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/19/2011 06:51:20 AM · #1246

I've yet to hear an understandable explination on how free will and predestination can co-exist. I think I asked in this tread a while back and DrAchoo gave it shot, but they can't co-exist by definition.

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/19/2011 09:47:04 AM · #1247

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I believe that God created because he wanted to.

Anything left wanting is by definition imperfect.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

A father watches from outside a candy store while his son inside the store is contemplating whether or not to steal some candy... Does this make the father responsible for his son's choices?

Your analogy doesn't make any sense with omniscience. The father in this case created the entire situation, including desire for candy, knowing all along exactly what the outcome would be and is therefore entirely responsible for the consequences. Let's say you created a six sided die with a four on every side (every outcome is known). Is there even one iota of logic in rolling that die that you personally made to come up fours while wishing for a three? You can't use the argument of potential here because then the outcome is unknown and omniscience goes poof.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God did create a universe with free will where agents have the potential to choose wrong but instead choose right. The only qualifier that I would add to that is that the agents that freely choose to do wrong are the unbelievers, and the agents that freely choose to do right are the disciples of Jesus Christ and the children of God.

See above. Free will and omniscience are inherently incompatible. If you don't know what choice will be made before you even start, then you're not all-knowing. There can be no potential for an unknown result of your creation, and therefore you are responsible for that result. Moreover, you're ignoring that pre-Columbian Inca tribes and Australian aborigines could not possibly have made the "correct" choice you imply.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Everyone always focuses on the fact that God made a world where people do evil things and some are condemned to hell. What about the fact that God made a world where people do good things and some are saved and given eternal life? The interesting thing is that one cannot exist without the other.

Your contorted rationalizations are somewhere between comical and pathetic. You claim that at one point God- the personification of good- existed alone, and then claim that good cannot exist without evil.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God is just. The unjust must be punished.

See above on omniscience. You create a die with a four on every side and require punishment when you don't roll a three? Any potential for a different result cannot exist every possible outcome is known.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You're right. It doesn't make much sense to us. The reason why is because our concepts of mercy, love, justice, holiness, etc. are faulty.

No, the reason is that it's completely senseless. Your claims refute themselves.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Well if humans were created in the image of God (after his likeness), and that image (likeness) has been diminished by the fall...

Again your claim kills itself. Either humans were created perfect (and therefore could not fall any more than God could) or they were the flawed creation or image of something that you assert is flawless.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not sure what you mean by the whole "slapped on the description of God by believers in an attempt to one-up the other set of believers down the road" comment...

Of course you're not. You seem to be completely oblivious to the history of competing religions.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

02/19/2011 12:03:08 PM · #1248

Originally posted by scalvert:

Anything left wanting is by definition imperfect.

How so?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Your analogy doesn't make any sense with omniscience. Omniscience is a matter of knowing, not a matter of forcing. If you create a six sided die with a four on every side then you do not just merely know what to outcome would be, but you have in fact forced the outcome. This is the difference between pre-knowledge and pre-determination.

Originally posted by scalvert:

This is an elementary argument. I suggest picking up a copy of "Divine Forknowledge: Four Views" edited by James Beilby and Paul Eddy. Then when you can come back with a more thoughtful argument you won't seem so ignorant on the question of the compatibility of omniscience and free will. Clearly you haven't read much on this topic.

Originally posted by scalvert:

You're confused misunderstanding of my argument falls somewhere between shocking and comical. My argument is that a universe with free will must intrinsically include both good and bad. My argument was never that God must be both good and bad. The universe is not God, thus, what the universe is is not necessarily what God is. Existence of evil within the universe does not require the existence of evil within the Godhead. Again, you should read some more material on this issue.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Again, you need to read more.

Originally posted by scalvert:

No, the reason is that it's completely senseless. Your claims refute themselves.

Your face refutes itself. Oh... you want me to support my claim? Too bad, you didn't support yours so I'm not going to support mine. I'll just make a ridiculous claim and leave you wondering.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Why does perfection exclude even the possibility that the perfect thing could become imperfect at some later time? If free will is a requirement of perfection, then the possibility to become imperfect is also a requirement of perfection.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not sure what you mean by the whole "slapped on the description of God by believers in an attempt to one-up the other set of believers down the road" comment...

Of course you're not. You seem to be completely oblivious to the history of competing religions. [/quote]
Maybe that's true. Why don't you enlighten me? You seem to know a lot about it. I am curious as to how competing divisions of Christianity "slapped" descriptions on God "down the road" of history.