PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: God's mass-murder in the flood



Pages : [1] 2

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 01:56 PM
Which is worse, God killing 99.999999% of the creatures in the flood or abortionists aborting perhaps hundreds of pre-born a day?

Granite
December 1st, 2003, 02:03 PM
Apples and oranges: one is judgment and the other is perversion.

granite

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:04 PM
By "worse," do you mean "more wicked?"

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:04 PM
So God was judging the fetuses in the mother's womb? What did they do to incur God's wrath?

Granite
December 1st, 2003, 02:06 PM
What's your point, anyway?

granite

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:06 PM
My point is that God is far more evil than the abortionists many Christians picket.

Granite
December 1st, 2003, 02:08 PM
Uh-huh. Righteously judging a planet choked with wickedness and deliberately murdering the unborn aren't exactly the same thing, chief. While you're at it why don't you picket the almighty for the Holocaust, Mao's great leap forward, the Stalinistic purges. Try again.

granite

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:10 PM
quote:
deliberately murdering the unborn

isn't that what God did, deliberately kill unborn?

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:12 PM
By saying that God is "far more evil than the abortionists," you concede that abortion is evil.


God, being the Creator, has authority over His creation. He can move people from their earthly lives to the afterlife as He chooses.

Humans do not have that authority, except in cases where God has delegated His authority to humans.

Granite
December 1st, 2003, 02:13 PM
Look, you want to debate the virtues and evils of God, knock yourself out. That belongs in an entirely different forum than dispensationalism, for one thing. And for another you're justifying yourself by claiming God's "wickedness" in the flood.

Harping on the injustices of God is as old as man and fundamentally immature. To say that abortionists and God act within the same parameters and can justify their actions equally is a complete non-sequitar.

granite

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:14 PM
I do concede that abortion is evil. Using your analogy, why can't I as the creator of my child, take him from this life to the afterlife. Why is this only reserved for an unseen creator?

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by granite1010
Look, you want to debate the virtues and evils of God, knock yourself out. That belongs in an entirely different forum than dispensationalism, for one thing. Good call. I've moved this thread to the Philosophy forum.

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I do concede that abortion is evil. Using your analogy, why can't I as the creator of my child, take him from this life to the afterlife. Why is this only reserved for an unseen creator? As a parent, you have quite a bit of authority over your children, but you do not have the right to arbitrarily kill them.

You are not the creator of your child.

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:21 PM
I and my wife ARE the creator of my child. The joining of spermazoa and ovum created life where life did not exist.

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:25 PM
Was God wrong to forbid Adam and Eve from killing Cain to avenge Abel?

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:26 PM
No, justice requires death for death.

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:30 PM
Please re-read my question. Your answer doesn't make sense.


God FORBADE Adam and Eve from killing Cain. Was God wrong to do this?

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:34 PM
God was wrong for forbidding Adam and Eve from killing Cain. Cain killed his brother therefore Adam and Eve should have killed Cain. Justice demands punishment.

Granite
December 1st, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by smothers
God was wrong for forbidding Adam and Eve from killing Cain. Cain killed his brother therefore Adam and Eve should have killed Cain. Justice demands punishment.

The state bears the sword, the family does not have this right or responsibility. If I'm not mistaken capital punishment isn't instituted until the creation of cities and organized society in scripture.

granite

Turbo
December 1st, 2003, 02:47 PM
granite1010,
It's actually instituted right after the flood.

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 02:48 PM
When Abel was expelled there was a society, in fact God wanted people to leave him alone. That is why he placed a mark on him.

Granite
December 1st, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
granite1010,
It's actually instituted right after the flood.

Oh, all right. But was the family given that authority or what kind of caveat was placed on it? Just "by man shall his blood be shed," if I remember...

granite

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 03:00 PM
We are getting off on a tangent here. You never asked my question: if a creator has the authority to kill his "children" why can't a parent? I would posit that killing a child is evil, therefore God killing billions of beings is also evil.

billwald
December 1st, 2003, 03:16 PM
Everyone eventually dies so you all are bickering over the timing of one's death?

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 03:18 PM
Absolutely! If everyone one dies, why can't I just kill my children? The answer is obvious, killing someone is taking their life in an unnatural and avoidable nature and is therefore wrong. God killed four year olds whose only "sin" was being alive.

Knight
December 1st, 2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
By saying that God is "far more evil than the abortionists," you concede that abortion is evil.


God, being the Creator, has authority over His creation. He can move people from their earthly lives to the afterlife as He chooses.

Humans do not have that authority, except in cases where God has delegated His authority to humans. :up:

P.S. smothers you are a retard. Just in case you didn't know already. :)

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 05:19 PM
I can usually find out when the opposition is loosing when they start calling you names.

Knight
December 1st, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I can usually find out when the opposition is loosing when they start calling you names. Is that so?

I say....

If the shoe fits.....

smothers
December 1st, 2003, 05:23 PM
Wow! I'm called names twice in two posts. You must be really desperate!

drbrumley
December 1st, 2003, 05:24 PM
Oh brother!!!!

Sozo
December 1st, 2003, 05:29 PM
smothers :think: ummm... is this Tom or Dick?

Jukia
December 1st, 2003, 05:30 PM
And such a classy name too. 5th grade--maybe. Or 3rd?

Knight
December 1st, 2003, 05:37 PM
Oh come on Jukia and smothers can’t you do better than this? I mean seriously…. what a brainless topic.

Don’t you think we all realize that only immature God hating imbeciles are shallow enough to entertain such lame notions?

If you expect serious responses you are going to have to put a bit more thought into your posts.

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 06:53 AM
And it might have been helpful if you had read the story of Cain and Abel before you commented on it. You even could have gotten by if you had read my post with the slightest bit of care:
Originally posted by Turbo
Was God wrong to forbid Adam and Eve from killing Cain to avenge Abel?Just by reading this sentence you should have been able to comprehend that: Cain murdered Abel. God did NOT allow Adam or Eve to punish Cain by killing him.But you answered my question by contradicting yourself,
Originally posted by smothers
No, justice requires death for death." In a later post, you further reveal your ignorance by confusing the victim for the perpetrator:
When Abel was expelled there was a society, in fact God wanted people to leave him alone.

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 07:02 AM
"immature God-hating imbeciles"--up to 7th grade perhaps.

And how is this a brainless topic? I must admit I never thought of it before. God killed every human being, other than those in the Ark (8 people?), for what purpose? To show to the rest of us that he could? To punish man--even the 3 year olds--what were they doing that was so sinful? Or did He do it to confuse us with fossils?

Gotta go to work, you kids play nice now, no running with scissors, etc.

Zakath
December 2nd, 2003, 07:04 AM
... don't forget the thousands of unborn killed in the flood, or for that matter the millions of unborn dying (killed by the deity?) in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) every year in modern times...

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 07:07 AM
Jukia,
Knight called smothers a retard, to which he replied,
Originally posted by smothers
I can usually find out when the opposition is loosing[sic] when they start calling you names."

Jukia, you defended this stance by comparing Knight's comment to that of a 3rd or 5th grader. That is a thinly-veiled form of name-calling, Jukia. You are a hypocr-- er, I mean, your behavior is like that of a hypocrite. ;) ;)



Retard is an informal synonym for fool.

Jukia, God calls unbelievers fools (Psalm 14:1, 53:1). Should Knight hide this fact?

Jesus called people fools in public discourse (Mat. 23:17, 19; 25:2-8; Luke 11:40; 12:20). He also called people swine, dogs, vipers, hypocrites... Was this a sign that Jesus was losing these arguments?



P.S. Retard and smother are both listed as synonyms of deaden. Check it out. (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=deaden) :think: How appropriate. :D

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
... don't forget the thousands of unborn killed in the floodWe've been discussing that all along. I've already responded to that in post #9.


or for that matter the millions of unborn dying (killed by the deity?) in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) every year in modern times... Why do you blame a God whom you claim does not exist for miscarriages? Are you saying that if God exists, He must be killing these unborn babies?

That's silly.

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 07:26 AM
Retard was a word we all used between 3rd and 5th grades. While it may be a dictionary synonym for "fool" it is generally used in a different way.
I was trying to be sarcastic, not name calling.
I suspect Jesus was angry, not losing an argument.
But I guess if Jesus called people names, Knight can do the same. Ah, but can Knight perform a miracle?

Zakath
December 2nd, 2003, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
... Ah, but can Knight perform a miracle?
He can make TOL posters disappear. :think:

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 07:48 AM
Absolute power corrupts absolutely?

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Apparently not: God is not corrupt.


Your accusation against Knight is baseless, Jukia.

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 08:56 AM
Knight = God?

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 09:41 AM
Of course not. :doh:

You said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

You did not say, "Absolute power corrupts Knight absolutely."

God is just an obvious counterexample to the cliche you posted. (Obvious to you I hope, though clearly not so obvious to smothers or Zakath.)

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 10:36 AM
I leave for the night and find others taking up my fight! Way to go people, I'm proud of you!.

My point origionally germinated from reading an article about abortion protesters then immidiately after that seeing an article about Noah's flood. I could not help but make the connection between God killing practically all living beings in a world-wide flood and abortionists killing a lot less in a sterile environment.

God DOES have the power to stop the abortions but doesn't, and did kill sentient beings in a world-wide flood. If an alien had the same attributes as God and killed billions of living creatures and passively stood by while doctors killed babies, everyone would agree that alien is evil. I can only deduce that God is evil as well for actively and passively contributing to evil acts.

In regards to a poster calling me a retard: He claims that Jesus did the same thing. My answer is simply: Jesus was wrong in doing that as well. Ad hominem (sp?) attacks is a clear indication of being desperate. It is a childish reaction when confronted with loosing an argument.

In regards to getting the Cain and Abel story wrong: The point stands, God was wrong for disallowing the parents from killing the person who murdered his brother. A just being, (as opposed to the capricious self-centered being that God presents himself as) would demand the death penalty.

I can only deduce that those who worship this being are either evil or willfully disregarding the evil commited by their diety. I feel sorry for you.

LightSon
December 2nd, 2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by smothers

God DOES have the power to stop the abortions but doesn't, and did kill sentient beings in a world-wide flood. If an alien had the same attributes as God and killed billions of living creatures and passively stood by while doctors killed babies, everyone would agree that alien is evil. I can only deduce that God is evil as well for actively and passively contributing to evil acts.

...God was wrong for disallowing the parents from killing the person who murdered his brother. A just being, (as opposed to the capricious self-centered being that God presents himself as) would demand the death penalty.

I can only deduce that those who worship this being are either evil or willfully disregarding the evil commited by their diety. I feel sorry for you.
I notice that you do not question God's existence, but rather charge Him with being evil and wrong.

The words I use to describe such conclusions are ignorant(at best), reckless, arrogant and wicked.

One who would judge God, is acting as God, and presupposing to replace God. Satan tried this once and we know what it will get him. You sound just like your father, the Evil One.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 11:01 AM
I did not question God's reality as it really is a side-issue. God, (whom I don't have sufficient evidence to accept as real) is a Christian place-holder. The god-concept that you worship is clearly evil.

Again, calling me the son of satan is childish name-calling. Ad hominem attacks are a weak attack on a person NOT the argument. You attacked my conclusions as wicked, yet did not refute my argument that a supreme being who think killed every living thing on the planet must be evil.

Mr. 5020
December 2nd, 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by smothers
I did not question God's reality as it really is a side-issue. God, (whom I don't have sufficient evidence to accept as real) is a Christian place-holder. The god-concept that you worship is clearly evil.

Again, calling me the son of satan is childish name-calling. Ad hominem attacks are a weak attack on a person NOT the argument. You attacked my conclusions as wicked, yet did not refute my argument that a supreme being who think killed every living thing on the planet must be evil. They did give you an argument. It is God's creation, thus He can do with it as He wills. And if you're conceeding that the God of the Bible (for the purpose of discussion) is real, then your child is not your creation, it is His.

Zakath
December 2nd, 2003, 11:22 AM
smothers,

He has a point. Christian theology generally holds that all humans (some say all creation) is basically the chattel property of YHWH. This view also provided historical justification for human slavery as well as genocide.

You're in a losing fight here. These folks actually desire slavery. For them it's far preferable to live as slaves than to live any other way.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 11:25 AM
The creation argument does not hold. If God created and destroyed non-living beings I would agree with you. it is his stuff he can do with it what he wants. What God did was create living beings and then destroy them. That is patently immoral.
We have the technology to parse frog and human DNA together to create a new form of life. If we created this being then killed him that would be evil. If God does the same thing such as with the flood, you rationalize that God can do what he wants with his creation.
I created my children, God only supplied the "technology" to do it. I made a consious choice to create, therefore I am the creator. The child did not arive at the hospital via a stork, it grew in my wife's body. If you are saying that since God created the mechanism for life, he is the creator of all life, than you must also make God responsible for death. He created the environment for ebola viri, the plaque and AIDS, therefore, according to this line of reasoning he created these terrible things.

Zakath
December 2nd, 2003, 11:28 AM
According to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, YHWH creates evil as well as good.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 11:30 AM
If God created evil, how can he hold people responsible for evil?

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
According to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, YHWH creates evil as well as good. citation?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 12:42 PM
According to the Christian, God is the creator of ALL things. If God is the creator of ALL things, He is also the creator of evil.

Evil would not have been available for the Devil if God didn’t create it for him to take. If God is all-knowing, a seer of the future, God should have already known that “evildoing” was going to cause gratuitous pain and suffering throughout human history. Many innocent God worshiping Christian fundamentalists have died because of “evil”. If there is a God, He is neither perfect nor pure.

If God is the creator of ALL things, He is also the creator of evil.

Turbo
December 2nd, 2003, 12:47 PM
Did God create darkness? or coldness?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 12:48 PM
If God created everything then he also created darkness.

Zakath
December 2nd, 2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
citation?

For all of our KJV-only folks, how about:


I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Is. 45:7 - KJV

The American Standard Version, Young's Literal, and Darby all translate it as "evil", as well.

Other, more modern, translations play with the word translated as "evil" by the KJV team and render it as:

"disaster" - NIV
"calamity" - NASB, NKJV

Zakath
December 2nd, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
Did God create darkness? or coldness? According to some believers, YHWH allegedly created the universe in which such things exist. Even though the Bible does not say that.

Darkness and coldness are essentially relative low energy states. Darkness is the lack of photonic energy while coldness is the lack of infrared energy.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 01:30 PM
God gets angry with all of the people on Earth, and kills every living thing on Earth, with a few notable exceptions (Genesis 6 & 7).

God heeded the prayers of the Jews and helped the Jews to "utterly destroy" the Canaanites. Later, God told the Jews that they would leave "no survivors" (including women and children) from among the whole people when they battled the followers of King Og of Bashan. In between those two, the Jews battled the followers of King Sihon of Heshbon, who "God had given him a resistant spirit and stubborn determination" so that he would not surrender his people, and for "even the women and children; there was not a single survivor." (Numbers, Chapter 21; and Deuteronomy, Chapters 2 and 3.)

When the Jews fought the Midianites, the Jewish army killed all of the men, but brought back all of the women and children to Moses, who was then furious at this disobedience of God. Moses ordered all of the male children killed, and all of the females who were not virgins. 32,000 virgin females remained alive; all of the other Midianite people were killed. It is unclear from the text whether or not 32 of these virgins were sacrificed to God (human sacrifice). The Jews enslaved all of the virgin females who lived. (Numbers, Chapters 25 and 31.)

God instructed the Jews that when they invaded the territory that God had granted to them, as for the inhabitants, "you must utterly annihilate them. Make no covenant with them nor show them compassion!" (Deuteronomy, Chapter 7.) God instructed the Jews that, when confronting other people who lived on land other than that granted to the Jews, they could give them an offer of perpetual slavery for their whole population, or else they could kill all the males and take the women and little children as slaves. (Deuteronomy, Chapter 20.) God set rules for male Jews who desired to take a wife from among these captives. (Deuteronomy, Chapter 21.)

When invading Jericho, as instructed by God, the Jews "annihilated with the sword everything that breathed in the city, including men and women, young and old, as well cattle, sheep, and donkeys." (Joshua, Chapter 6.)

When taking Ai, as instructed by God, the Jews "annihilated all who lived in Ai," including all of the men, women, and children. (Joshua, Chapter 8.)

Acting on God’s instructions, the Jews "annihilated everyone who lived in" Makkedah. At Libnah, they again "left no survivors." At Lachish, "they put the sword to all who lived there, just as they had done to Libnah." At Eglon, "they annihilated it just as they had done to Lachish." At Hebron, "they annihilated it and all who lived there." Again at Debir, "they annihilated everyone who lived there; they left no survivors." "Joshua defeated the whole land, including the hill country, the Negev, the lowlands, the slopes, and all their kings. He left no survivors. He annihilated everything that breathed, just as the Lord God of Israel had commanded." (Joshua, Chapter 10.)

At Hazor, "They annihilated everyone who lived there with the sword—no one who breathed remained." "The Israelites plundered all the loot of these cities and the cattle, but they totally destroyed all the people and allowed no one who breathed to live." "Moses the Lord's servant passed on the Lord's commands to Joshua, and Joshua did as he was told. He did not ignore any of the commands the Lord had given Moses." "No city made peace with the Israelites (except the Hivites living in Gibeon); they had to conquer all of them," "for the Lord determined to make them obstinate so they would attack Israel. He wanted Israel to annihilate them without mercy, as he had instructed Moses." (Joshua, Chapter 11.)

King Saul of Israel, acting on God’s orders, "captured King Agag of the Amalekites alive, but he executed all his people with the sword." (Later, God got angry for this "disobedience" of leaving the king alive and for other matters.) (I Samuel, Chapter 15.)

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 01:48 PM
But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves (Num. 31: 18).

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father fifty skelels of silver, and she shall be his wife, and he may not put her away all of his days (Deut:22; 28-29)." (Rape is okay as long as you pay and marry the woman.)

In the case of the rape of a betrothed virgin in a city, the Bible says that both the rapist and victim should be stoned to death: the rapist because he violated his neighbor's wife and the victim because she did not cry for help (Deut. 22: 23-25).


God isn't evil?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 02:13 PM
There be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12) (Mutilate yourself for God. (And I thought circumcision was barbaric!)


If you do something wrong with your eye or hand, cut/pluck it off (Matthew 5:29-30, in a sexual context).

Marrying a divorced woman is adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

Don't plan for the future. (Matthew 6:34)

Don't save money. (Matthew 6:19-20)

Don't become wealthy. (Mark 10:21-25)

Sell everything and give it to the poor. (Luke 12:33)

Don't work to obtain food. (John 6:27)

Don't have sexual urges. (Matthew 5:28)

Make people want to persecute you. (Matthew 5:11)

Let everyone know you are better than the rest. (Matthew 5:13-16)

Take money from those who have no savings and give it to rich investors. (Luke 19:23-26)

If someone steals from you, don't try to get it back. (Luke 6:30)

If someone hits you, invite them to do it again. (Matthew 5:39)

If you lose a lawsuit, give more than the judgment. (Matthew 5:40)

If someone forces you to walk a mile, walk two miles. (Matthew 5:41)

If anyone asks you for anything, give it to them without question. (Matthew 5:42


"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26) (Don't be a family man.

"I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:35-36)


"And that servant [slave], which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47) (Beat your slaves.)

What Jesus said against slavery: NOTHING

What Jesus said against rape: NOTHING

What Jesus said against social injustice: NOTHING

God isn't evil?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 02:30 PM
Ahhh how cute... smothers got himself a "Things your church doesn't want you to know" book. :rolleyes:

Just a heads up to you smothers....

These claims against God are old and lame and have been refuted about a billion times.

Surely you can do better.

Can't you?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 02:31 PM
Go ahead and refute them.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Go ahead and refute them. Uhhh no.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 02:41 PM
I guess you would rather criticize the facts than confront them? Ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims are easier than thinking isn't it?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I guess you would rather criticize the facts than confront them? Ad hominem attacks and unsubstantiated claims are easier than thinking isn't it? "thinking"???????

Maybe if you did some "thinking" of your own, we would take you more seriously. Until then.... you are a cartoon.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 02:57 PM
Calling me names again? Why don't you concentrate on my assertion that God is evil?

Granite
December 2nd, 2003, 02:59 PM
"What Jesus said against slavery: NOTHING

What Jesus said against rape: NOTHING

What Jesus said against social injustice: NOTHING"

What Jesus said about the law: that it was not going to pass away. And that those who love him would keep the law.

Smothers, get over yourself.

granite

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:01 PM
Granite:

Besides calling me names (I'm noticing a trend here.), what is your point?

Mark

LightSon
December 2nd, 2003, 03:14 PM
There are 2 fundamental classes of cognizant entities: creator and creature.

The creator makes the laws, both physical and moral. The creature is subject to those laws.
The creator judges the creature, not the reverse.

When the creature uses the very breath that the creator affords him, to criticize (i.e. call evil) his creator, it is the height of arrogance, impropriety and wickedness.

smothers presumes to call God on the carpet, as if the creator is obliged to give account to His creatures. I'll just step back and let you go ahead there big cheese. Methinks you will be in for a rude awakening.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:18 PM
Just because the creator made the physical/moral laws do not make them just. Conidering the amount of evil commited by commision and ommision of your God, His followers, His Church and His creation, I think He deserves to be called on the carpet, don't you?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Granite:

Besides calling me names (I'm noticing a trend here.), what is your point?

Mark You are right... there is a trend here.

Did you ever consider that the reason people call you names is that you are deserving of the titles?

You see....

TOL has been around a looooonnng time.

And during that time many, many debates have taken place. Most of these debates are interesting.... others aren't. And during this time TOL "regulars" have become very aware and astute at picking out those posters that are interested in serious conversation and those that aren't. It is also very easy to spot those that "copy paste" pre-existing arguments and attempt to pass them off as their own.

You happen to be one of the more transparent posters in TOL history.

Congratulations! You're clear! :first:

Granite
December 2nd, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Granite:

Besides calling me names (I'm noticing a trend here.), what is your point?

Mark

Have I? Don't recall...although now that you mention it, your whole argument on this thread strikes me as sophomoric, repetitive, pointless, and lame.

So, let's call God on the carpet, shall we? Give him a sit-down. Put him through a business review. What exactly are you trying to prove? Life's unfair? God's unfair? God's evil, God's unjust?

Keep shaking your fist, what good it'll do you...

granite

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:28 PM
I see. Again, instead of confronting the facts, you resort to name calling. I could say things like "Your Christian mythology is showing.", but I haven't; they are irrelevant to the discussion I am really interested in a response to my supposition that your version of the divinity is evil. I have gotten exactly two intellegent cogent responses, the rest are a long the lines of:
1) I am a retard.
2) My ideas are retarded.
3) How dare I question God!
4) God's laws are just because he created them.

The lack of rational response to my posts indicates that most on TOL are unwilling to wrestle with the hard questions. I'm willing to change my mind if presented with opposing evidence, are you?

LightSon
December 2nd, 2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Just because the creator made the physical/moral laws do not make them just. Conidering the amount of evil commited by commision and ommision of your God, His followers, His Church and His creation, I think He deserves to be called on the carpet, don't you?
God has the authority to bring His church front-and-center to give an account.
God has the authority to bring all of His creation front-and-center to give an account. You do not have standing to call God to account. Perhaps in your own mind this seems reasonable. But in reality, to shake one's fist at God is just plain stupid. It demonstrates ignorance of your position as creature.

Perhaps you think you have reason to be mad at God. I suggest you approach Him about that in a more respectful way. Here's a rule for you to memorize: God has morally sufficient reasons for whatever He chooses to do or not do.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:32 PM
quote:

God has morally sufficient reasons for whatever He chooses to do or not do.

--------

What are the morally sufficient reasons for allowing abortion doctors to kill babies?

Granite
December 2nd, 2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I see. Again, instead of confronting the facts, you resort to name calling. I could say things like "Your Christian mythology is showing.", but I haven't; they are irrelevant to the discussion I am really interested in a response to my supposition that your version of the divinity is evil. I have gotten exactly two intellegent cogent responses, the rest are a long the lines of:
1) I am a retard.
2) My ideas are retarded.
3) How dare I question God!
4) God's laws are just because he created them.

The lack of rational response to my posts indicates that most on TOL are unwilling to wrestle with the hard questions. I'm willing to change my mind if presented with opposing evidence, are you?

The idea that we must hold God accountable to a human standard is by itself irrational: it implies an equal playing field between created and creator.

granite

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:43 PM
Granite,
Now we are getting somewhere. If it is evil for the "created" to do "x', would it not follow that it is also evil for the creator to do "x"? I await your response.

Mark

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by smothers
quote:

God has morally sufficient reasons for whatever He chooses to do or not do.

--------

What are the morally sufficient reasons for allowing abortion doctors to kill babies? God is not a kidnapper.

God sovereignly chose to create beings with a true freewill. Therefore logically He allows them to choose both good and evil. For if God did not allow His creation to do anything BUT good these creations would have no will of their own which would defeat the purpose of the intended creation.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:51 PM
The logical conclusion of free-will (created by God) is that His creation could DO evil. I am assuming that God knew this possibility when he created this environment. God is responsible for evil in that he chose not to set up an environment in which abortion doctors could kill babies while He looks on and does nothing.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by smothers
The logical conclusion of free-will (created by God) is that His creation could DO evil. I am assuming that God knew this possibility when he created this environment. God is responsible for evil in that he chose not to set up an environment in which abortion doctors could kill babies while He looks on and does nothing. God is no more responsible for creating evil than a axe maker is responsible for a man using an axe to murder someone with it.

I suggest you reconsider your "logic".

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 03:58 PM
If the axe maker had the ability to stop the axe murderer (without risking any bodily harm to anyone) from killing a 9-month old while it was happening, the axe maker would be equally responsible for the crime. Am I not correct?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by smothers
If the axe maker had the ability to stop the axe murderer (without risking any bodily harm to anyone) from killing a 9-month old while it was happening, the axe maker would be equally responsible for the crime. Am I not correct? That is where the anaolgy breaks down.

By definition freewill is not coerced.... therefore for God to give freewill to man He must not coerce man. Otherwise He hasn't really given man freewill has He?

Granite
December 2nd, 2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Granite,
Now we are getting somewhere. If it is evil for the "created" to do "x', would it not follow that it is also evil for the creator to do "x"? I await your response.

Mark

Of course not: the standard is completely different. We're talking about the actions of an omnipotent deity as opposed to the actions of fallen men. There is simply no comparison.

granite

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I do concede that abortion is evil. Using your analogy, why can't I as the creator of my child, take him from this life to the afterlife. Why is this only reserved for an unseen creator?

I Highly doubt that you are telling the truth here. You are pro choice ADMIT IT!

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:08 PM
1. God can do anything.
2. God created the universe and the environment in which his creations operate.
3. The environment which he created includes a concept called "free-will".
4."Freewill" allows people to do evil.
5. God chose not to have an alternative in which evil is not possible in his environment.
6. Through God's passive or active actions He allows evil to occur.

Therefore God is evil.

Although I can not think of an environment in which freewill and evil can co-exist, I think it is reasonable that God could install one.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:09 PM
Quote:

I Highly doubt that you are telling the truth here. You are pro choice ADMIT IT!

-----

Yes I am pro-choice, I want mothers and doctors to choose not to murder their children! :)

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Although I can not think of an environment in which freewill and evil can co-exist, I think it is reasonable that God could install one. If freewill does not allow for one to choose anything but what is predefined then freewill does not exist.

Your point fails.

Want to try another?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Yes I am pro-choice, I want mothers and doctors to choose not to murder their children! :) That might be the dumbest statement ever typed on TOL.

You my friend.... are a moron.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:14 PM
Quote:

If freewill does not allow for one to choose anything but what is predefined then freewill does not exist.

Your point fails.

Want to try another?

--------

Could not an omnipotent God create a situation in which freewill and evil could co-exist? If he could but chose not to, doesn't that make him complicit in evil?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:16 PM
Quote:

That might be the dumbest statement ever typed on TOL.

You my friend.... are a moron.


------

Knight,

You surpirse me. My feeble attempt at humor may fail, but it is no reason to call me names. I demand an apology.

Mark

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Quote:

If freewill does not allow for one to choose anything but what is predefined then freewill does not exist.

Your point fails.

Want to try another?

--------

Could not an omnipotent God create a situation in which freewill and evil could co-exist? If he could but chose not to, doesn't that make him complicit in evil? God is not a fairy.

He cannot make evil good nor good evil. He cannot create a four sided triangle or create a rock so big He cannot lift it. God is not illogical. He is real and rational.

Freewill and non-freewill are mutually exclusive.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight,

You surpirse me. My feeble attempt at humor may fail, but it is no reason to call me names. I demand an apology.

Mark That was an attempt at humor? Uhhh yea... right. :rolleyes:

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:20 PM
God set the stage, why could he not make a universe in which free-will and evil co-exist? Just because we can not comprehend of one, does not mean that it could not exist.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:25 PM
Quote:

That was an attempt at humor? Uhhh yea... right.

-------

Why the sarcasm?

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I do concede that abortion is evil. Using your analogy, why can't I as the creator of my child, take him from this life to the afterlife. Why is this only reserved for an unseen creator?

Since you are pretending to believe in the God of the Bible long enough to accuse him of evil. My responses will also pretend that you belive in God as well. Fair enough. God brought life into existence from non life and gave each person a spirit. You and your wife brought life into existence from life and God gave it a spirit. When a man is killed his spirit still exsists in heaven or hell. So if God decides to send beings to their final state of life since he created them it is his prerogative.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by smothers
God set the stage, why could he not make a universe in which free-will and evil co-exist? Freewill and evil DO co-exist.

Do you mean....

God set the stage, why could he not make a universe in which free-will and the inability to do evil co-exist?

If so....

The answer is simple.

Freewill and non-freewill are mutually exclusive.

If you don't know what "mutually exclusive" means please do some research and find out for yourself.

servent101
December 2nd, 2003, 04:33 PM
smothers


God set the stage, why could he not make a universe in which free-will and evil co-exist? Just because we can not comprehend of one, does not mean that it could not exist.

This place called earth is that - where free will and evil co-exist. Evil is a learning process, and it makes us understand the consequences to our actions, both long term and short term.

Possibly if you considered the possibility of reincarnation - you might accept the way things are. If you throw out the orthodox ideas of hell, and realize that we are in hell right now, to varying degrees, that the conclusion that God is really not all that bad of a Dude may be palatable to you.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by servent101
Possibly if you considered the possibility of reincarnation - you might accept the way things are. If you throw out the orthodox ideas of hell, and realize that we are in hell right now, to varying degrees, that the conclusion that God is really not all that bad of a Dude may be palatable to you. :kookoo:

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 04:56 PM
The answer is simple.

Freewill and non-freewill are mutually exclusive.

-------

Knight, please think outside of the box. Why couldn't an omnipotent God create a universe in which freewill would exist without the possibility of His creation using it to do evil? If God isn't as omnipotent as some claim, then creating freewill allows for the possibility of people doing evil things. God is therefore responsible for evil.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 05:10 PM
Quote:

Since you are pretending to believe in the God of the Bible long enough to accuse him of evil. My responses will also pretend that you belive in God as well. Fair enough. God brought life into existence from non life and gave each person a spirit. You and your wife brought life into existence from life and God gave it a spirit. When a man is killed his spirit still exsists in heaven or hell. So if God decides to send beings to their final state of life since he created them it is his prerogative.

--------

I concede your point that God has the right to send beings to their final state if the method does not involve un-necessary suffering. In the flood story, God caused children younger than the age of accountability to drown. Imagine a pre-school child's horror of watching her mother float away. Imagine hours later the same child, cold and tired sinking to her death. If that isn't cruel I don't know what is.
As you say, God can transport people from one state to another. Why does the method involve cruelty and suffering? Why didn't he simply will the vast majority to their after-life? I'm sure that a just and compassionate being that happens to be omnipotent would choose that route.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight, please think outside of the box. Why couldn't an omnipotent God create a universe in which freewill would exist without the possibility of His creation using it to do evil? If God isn't as omnipotent as some claim, then creating freewill allows for the possibility of people doing evil things. God is therefore responsible for evil. I get your question. It is you that is having trouble comprehending the answer that is right in front of you.

Let’s say "a creator" creates two creatures. He wants these creatures to have wills of their own so that they have their own soul, feelings, thoughts etc etc.

Yet this creator will not allow them to hurt each other.

The creator would be left with only two real options. A. Remove the part of their will that would cause them to hurt one another. Or…. B. Isolate the two from each other so that they were not capable of hurting each other.

Both option’s A and B accomplish the desire to not allow the creatures to hurt one another.

Yet both options also remove vital parts that are inherent to true freewill.

Option A directly removes the creatures freewill. Option B allows some freewill but imprisons the creatures and therefore removes freewill in the form of freedom.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 05:16 PM
Quote:

The creator would be left with only two real options....

----------

Why only two? Isn't God omnipotent?

Aimiel
December 2nd, 2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I and my wife ARE the creator of my child. The joining of spermazoa and ovum created life where life did not exist. That's like saying because you plant an acorn in the ground, that you and the ground are the 'creators' of an oak tree. You have niether created anything, nor are you making any sense. God is The Creator, and created every living thing. They are able to bring forth after their own kind, but creation is only accomplished by One Being, and He is not giving out any of His Secrets, yet.

Aimiel
December 2nd, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by smothers
God was wrong for forbidding Adam and Eve from killing Cain. Cain killed his brother therefore Adam and Eve should have killed Cain. Justice demands punishment. God has yet to make a single mistake. He was demonstrating mercy when He allowed Cain to live, just like He was when He allowed Adam and Eve to live, when they violated His Command, since the wages of sin is death.

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 05:29 PM
Lets see, now smothers is also a "cartoon" (and Knight's avatar is what?--a real picture of him?) and a "moron". Well back to basic name calling I guess.

But seriously, folks, the question of evil is certainly one to discuss. As best I can figure out it does fall out of free will somehow. I can't really understand the triune God (who is not evil by the way) I buy; and the free will/evil issue is, I think, on the same level. One of the things I can buy into but never really understand.

As far as the killiing everyone in the flood issue, perhaps it is a bit easier to take when one realizes that there was no world wide flood.

It is interesting when people read Genesis literally then come up with all sorts of interpretations for other parts of the Bible (see earlier posts by smothers just brushed off by Knight)

I do have a problem with someone complaining about copy pasting arguments. All you need to do is look as some of the creationists (and non-creationists posts but mostly the creationists) on the origins section to find lots of pasting of pseudo creation science arguments.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Quote:

The creator would be left with only two real options....

----------

Why only two? Isn't God omnipotent? Again…. Omnipotence has limitations if it is real and logical.

For instance….

If God is sovereign.... is He sovereign over His own sovereignty? He must be if He is truly sovereign, yet that creates a limitation upon His own sovereignness.

Likewise omnipotence has logical limitations i.e., square triangles cannot be created by a rational God.

Therefore there are only two options: true freewill and untruefreewill – they both cannot coexist simultaneously within the same context and meaning.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 05:31 PM
Jukia, unless you have something intelligent to add... please move along.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 05:32 PM
Quote 1:

God is The Creator, and created every living thing

Quote 2:

God has yet to make a single mistake.

--------

Using your logic, when God creates a child with severe birth defects, he didn't make a mistake. He created a being to suffer or die early on purpose?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 05:35 PM
Quote:

Omnipotence has limitations

-------

So, God can do everything, but he can't do everything? That makes absolutely no sense.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Quote 1:

God is The Creator, and created every living thing

Quote 2:

God has yet to make a single mistake.

--------

Using your logic, when God creates a child with severe birth defects, he didn't make a mistake. He created a being to suffer or die early on purpose? Changing the subject already?

I understand. What else can you do when your making an idiot of yourself in front of the whole world.

You really don’t know much about Christian theology do you?

God created man perfect (no gene defects etc.). Man could live forever with no defects as long as he didn’t choose to disobey God. Man chose to disobey God and therefore man was subject to death (defects). Then man…. Hey there is this book God wrote, it’s called the Bible you might want to read it someday.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Quote:

Omnipotence has limitations

-------

So, God can do everything, but he can't do everything? That makes absolutely no sense. God can do anything He chooses to do within what is rational and logical…. for God IS the very embodiment of logic and what is rational.

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 05:45 PM
My, touchy aren't we?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 05:47 PM
Quote:

You really don’t know much about Christian theology do you?

-------

And the Christians resort to sarcasm again.

I don't know much about Christian theology except for courses at a Christian college in Old Testament, New Testament, Soterology, Nuemenology.

I don't know much about Christian theology except for a minor in religion at a securlar university.

I understand the theology I just don't agree with the validity/logic of some of the key points.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 05:51 PM
Quote:

God can do anything He chooses to do within what is rational and logical…. for God IS the very embodiment of logic and what is rational.

-------

Again, you are placing limitations on God. Rationality and logic are constructs that humans understand. Your version of God is supposed to be omnipotent. Your version of God seems somewhat "human." It is almost as if man created God in man's image, not the other way around.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Jukia
My, touchy aren't we? No thanks. :flamer:

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I don't know much about Christian theology except for courses at a Christian college in Old Testament, New Testament, Soterology, Nuemenology.

I don't know much about Christian theology except for a minor in religion at a securlar university.

I understand the theology I just don't agree with the validity/logic of some of the key points. The question you asked about birth defects made it obvious that you either don't know much about Christian theology OR you are willingly ignorant.

For IF you knew much about Christian theology you could have easily answered your own question even if you didn't accept it as truth.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Again, you are placing limitations on God. Of course!

The God of the Bible has many limitations. For instance.... God is always righteous.

He has dispersed abroad, He has given to the poor;His righteousness endures forever; His horn will be exalted with honor. - Psalms 112:9

God NEVER tempts men to do evil...

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. - James 1:13-14

Only those that do not read His word or understand His reality would make the claim that God has ZERO limitations for even that claim is self refuting. For if God had ZERO limitations He would be severely limited in His limitations.

You continue...
Rationality and logic are constructs that humans understand. Your version of God is supposed to be omnipotent. Your version of God seems somewhat "human." It is almost as if man created God in man's image, not the other way around. My version of God comes from God Himself therefore it is ultimately His version of Himself.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 06:53 PM
Quote:
For IF you knew much about Christian theology you could have easily answered your own question even if you didn't accept it as truth.

------

I'm asking these questions to prove my origional point. God created a situation in which evil exists. He placed an apple in a garden and told Adam and Eve NOT to eat it. He probably had a good idea that they would eat it. This un-measurable thing called sin is somehow transmitted to unsuspecting, innocent babies. Again, God created a situation in which evil can thrive. Doesn't that make God responsible for evil through his willful neglect?

Jukia
December 2nd, 2003, 06:56 PM
God is not tempted by evil? Did not Satan tempt Christ?

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 06:59 PM
Knight:

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 07:01 PM
Knight:

You are missing my point completely. Omnipotence means you can do anything. Placing limitations on this omnipotences negates omnipotence. Limited omnipetence is an obvious oxymoron.

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Quote:



I don't know much about Christian theology except for courses at a Christian college in Old Testament, New Testament, Soterology, Nuemenology.

I don't know much about Christian theology except for a minor in religion at a securlar university.



Yup that explains it allright!

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I'm asking these questions to prove my origional point. God created a situation in which evil exists. He placed an apple in a garden and told Adam and Eve NOT to eat it. He probably had a good idea that they would eat it. This un-measurable thing called sin is somehow transmitted to unsuspecting, innocent babies. Again, God created a situation in which evil can thrive. Doesn't that make God responsible for evil through his willful neglect? I have already answered this objection directly THREE times.

You may not agree with the answer but you could at least acknowledge the answer.

God created man with a TRUE freewill. To do this God knew that evil might become a choice for this freewill creature. God (being a loving God) decided to create a way out the consequences of evil but having His Son pay the price of sin for us if we only accept that and acknowledge it. Our own evil is our own responsibility yet God Himself will took on that responsibility for us if we choose to let Him. God doesn't pay for the sin of those that do not wish or want God to do that for them..... for God is not going to coerce you to do something you do not want to do.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar
Yup that explains it allright! No doubt! :D

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Quote:





And the Christians resort to sarcasm again.



How much more sarcastic could a person be than to accuse a God he doesn't believe in of evil?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight:

You are missing my point completely. Omnipotence means you can do anything. Placing limitations on this omnipotences negates omnipotence. Limited omnipetence is an obvious oxymoron. You have a distorted unrealistic definition of "omnipotence"

Let me ask you a basic question about how you view "omnipotence".

Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 07:18 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by smothers
Knight:

You are missing my point completely. Omnipotence means you can do anything. Placing limitations on this omnipotences negates omnipotence. Limited omnipetence is an obvious oxymoron.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by Knight
You have a distorted unrealistic definition of "omnipotence"

Let me ask you a basic question about how you view "omnipotence".

Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

So I guess smothers really thinks God ought to be able to make a rock so big that he can't lift it!

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by deardelmar
So I guess smothers really thinks God ought to be able to make a rock so big that he can't lift it! Sadly smothers is probably used to dealing with your typical Christian who hasn't put much thought into these issues nor read His word.

taoist
December 2nd, 2003, 07:38 PM
I don't see any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of an object in order to discover its aspects. This is standard mathematics, and a fundamental part of nearly all non-existence proofs. I don't think it's fair to call this sarcasm, assuming Smothers is asking the question honestly.

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by taoist
I don't see any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of an object in order to discover its aspects. This is standard mathematics, and a fundamental part of nearly all non-existence proofs. I don't think it's fair to call this sarcasm, assuming Smothers is asking the question honestly.

What makes you assume that?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by taoist
I don't see any logical contradiction in assuming the existence of an object in order to discover its aspects. This is standard mathematics, and a fundamental part of nearly all non-existence proofs. I don't think it's fair to call this sarcasm, assuming Smothers is asking the question honestly. I think its pretty obvious what smothers is up to.

But hey! Its fun to destroy such weak arguments.

taoist
December 2nd, 2003, 07:46 PM
Knight, I liked the comments on natural limits to omnipotence and sovereignty. Still, these arguments about the limits of free will by looking at recursive formulations, the rock that God can't lift and such, miss the trees for the forest. Yes, I know it's more common to hear this stated the other way.

There are natural limits on the free will granted to any natural being. While there may or may not be a rock too big for god to lift, personally I think it's formally undecidable, there are certainly rocks too big for any of us to lift. A simple example of the limits of free will.

I can crush a bug but I'd rather not try jumping on a grizzly's toes. Natural limits, ya know. Why is it necessary that my free will must encompass the ability to kill other humans?

Of course I've got an even more fundamental objection to the thesis of this thread, but I think I'll hold off for now.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 07:49 PM
taoist... you are speaking but you aren't saying anything.

taoist
December 2nd, 2003, 07:50 PM
deardelmar;
What makes you assume that?

taoist;
Actually, I don't. But it's proper to state your assumptions when formulating a logical statement. And had I been the one starting with the assumption of the existence of god, it would have been a valid criticism.

I'm on record as having a firm belief in the rational undecidability of the existence of god. Kinda like Hilston, except I usually address the issue from the atheistic position.

taoist
December 2nd, 2003, 07:54 PM
Okay, let me be more clear, then, Knight. I can imagine a race of beings inhabiting indestructible bodies without the power to destroy a fellow member of their race. (Do angels come to mind? Totally inadvertent, I promise ya. It just came out that way.)

What I can't see is why this would limit their capacity to have free will.

Delmar
December 2nd, 2003, 07:58 PM
I like the way George Burns said it in OH GOD 2

I never figuered out how to make things with out an opposite. You know up without down , a back without a front, hot without cold...

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by taoist
Okay, let me be more clear, then, Knight. I can imagine a race of beings inhabiting indestructible bodies without the power to destroy a fellow member of their race. (Do angels come to mind? Totally inadvertent, I promise ya. It just came out that way.)

What I can't see is why this would limit their capacity to have free will. This scenario does not limit the ability to do evil it only limits the ability to annihilate.

In fact if you think about it we are already made that way.

All people are eternal.

Murdering someone or killing someone only sends them into the next stage of their life (the after life so to speak).

Therefore you could say that God did indeed create us indestructible. Yet He didn't want to make the choice for us as to where we would spend eternity.

taoist
December 2nd, 2003, 08:16 PM
Good 'nuff, Knight. I might not agree, but at least it's logically consistent. Though I can see how someone else might find scriptural contradictions there, I think I've done enough bible quoting for a while.

I may not believe your god's existence is decidable, but I have definite beliefs about the inerrancy of what's generally taken for scripture and I'd be forced to argue using verses I don't believe are true.

(Can't do that or deardelmar might call me sarcastic and I'd have to have Jukia come in and rescue me from you big meanies.)

Okay, here's the real problem with the subtext in this thread. How on earth can we come up with a natural definition of evil? Given any two choices, I can differentiate between better and worse, safer and more dangerous, but evil?

While I don't have much trouble forming arguments starting from the assumption of a god, evil is inherently difficult to define in a natural sense. And once you've dipped into the supernatural kitty, the argument becomes naturally undecidable.

(Btw, undecidable really is logically equivalent to irrational, but somehow people take more offense to irrational when it's used to describe actions rather than numbers.)

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by taoist
Okay, here's the real problem with the subtext in this thread. How on earth can we come up with a natural definition of evil? Given any two choices, I can differentiate between better and worse, safer and more dangerous, but evil?

While I don't have much trouble forming arguments starting from the assumption of a god, evil is inherently difficult to define in a natural sense. And once you've dipped into the supernatural kitty, the argument becomes naturally undecidable.

(Btw, undecidable really is logically equivalent to irrational, but somehow people take more offense to irrational when it's used to describe actions rather than numbers.) I think were going off topic (not that I really care as you are at least making sensible posts).

I think evil has several acceptable definitions.

Evil can be relative i.e., harm, calamity. Naturally this explains how it would seem that God could cause evil to come upon His enemies in the form of wrath or vengeance. The enemies see this wrath as evil because it is their calamity.

But ultimately evil is absolute. Evil is what is apart from the will of a righteous God. Evil is like cold is to hot or dark is to light, the further something is away from God's righteousness the more evil it becomes.

There is no evil source yet there is the absence of godliness which is evil. Lucifer has no special evil powers yet uses His God given powers (the same powers that other angelic beings have) to do evil instead of good. Satan uses his freewill to do what is not part of God's will therefore he (Satan) is evil.

smothers
December 2nd, 2003, 09:11 PM
Axiom: Evil exists.

Scenario 1) God is able to create a universe in which evil does not exist. God is aware that creating the universe will likely result in evil.
Conclusion 1) God is responsible for evil through an act of commision.

Scenario 2) God is NOT able to create a universe in which evil does not exist. (Knight's position?). God is aware that this limitation will likely result in evil.
Conculsion 2) God is responsible for evil through an act of commision.

Scenario 3) God is able to create a universe in which evil does not exist. God is not aware that creating the universe will likely result in evil.
Conclusion 3) God is responsible and will hopefully clean up the mess later. (Noah's flood.) He is powerful but not qualified to create universes.

Scenario 4) God is not able to create a universe in which evil does not exist. God is not aware that creating the universe will likely result in evil.
Conclusion: God is unqualified and reckless.

Scenario 5) God does not exist.
Conclusion: This thread is an interesting thought problem with no eternal consequences.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 09:12 PM
smothers.... its polite to take the time to respond to those who have spent time responding to you.

Aimiel
December 2nd, 2003, 09:22 PM
Using your logic, when God creates a child with severe birth defects, he didn't make a mistake. He created a being to suffer or die early on purpose?


______________________________________



He designed every soul that will ever live. Whether they have defects or diseases (brought on by the fall, in the Garden of Eden) or not. His Plan is at work. He designed everything that will ever happen. He is The Great Architect, and no one can second-guess Him or call Him on the carpet. If He found that bringing eight people across the water in a boat, and allowing the rest of humanity to drown, to be right, we can find no fault with that. We don't yet know the extent of the evil that was in the earth at the time. I believe that if He had not allowed this flood, that the earth would have been destroyed, or at least the race of men.

I also believe that we would not be having this conversation if Sodom and Gomorrah had not been destroyed. The evil that was embedded in those cities would have polluted the entire human race, and perhaps have wiped it out with AIDS more than three thousand years ago. If God knows anything, He knows how to protect His Sheep from evil men. One way that He does this is by saving them from their own ways and giving them a new outlook. Another way is by allowing the evil that they practice to rain down upon their heads. Which do you prefer?

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Aimiel
He designed everything that will ever happen.I believe that to be a severe overstatement.

For instance....
We know people are tempted.

Yet we also know from God's word that He does not tempt men.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. - James 1:13

Therefore God did not "design" these temptings of men. These temptings are by their own design. Christians need to be careful to not overstate their case or place credit in places where it does not belong.

Knight
December 2nd, 2003, 10:17 PM
:)

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by deardelmar
I like the way George Burns said it in OH GOD 2

I never figured out how to make things without an opposite. You know up without down, a back without a front, hot without cold... Hold that thought, it's where I'm trying to go here.

One Eyed Jack
December 3rd, 2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
God is not tempted by evil? Did not Satan tempt Christ?

Well, he tried anyway. It doesn't appear to have worked.

Delmar
December 3rd, 2003, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by taoist


(Can't do that or deardelmar might call me sarcastic and I'd have to have Jukia come in and rescue me from you big meanies.)



Oh come now Iv'e been playing nice:)

Jukia
December 3rd, 2003, 05:23 AM
Jack: I was responding to a statement by Knight that God could not be tempted by evil. Was Christ not tempted and is there another Bible verse that says God cannot be tempted by evil? I am not (and before anyone else says it--"obviously") a Bible scholar, so if there is a conflicting verse or verses will someone please point them out to me. Thanks.

And back on the general topic of God making mistakes---instead of typing "Thanks" I usually first type "Thansk" and have to go back to fix it. Would God make the same mistake or would His typing always be perfect?

One Eyed Jack
December 3rd, 2003, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
Jack: I was responding to a statement by Knight that God could not be tempted by evil.

And I was responding to your response.


Was Christ not tempted

No, I don't think He was. If I offered to let you keep your car in exchange for worshipping me, would you be tempted? How can you be tempted with something you already own?


and is there another Bible verse that says God cannot be tempted by evil?

I believe the verse already provided says it all. What more do you want? Does something have to be said multiple times before you'll believe it?


I am not (and before anyone else says it--"obviously") a Bible scholar, so if there is a conflicting verse or verses will someone please point them out to me. Thanks.

How about you point out some conflicting verses, because I'm not seeing any.


And back on the general topic of God making mistakes---instead of typing "Thanks" I usually first type "Thansk" and have to go back to fix it.

You're not perfect. God is.


Would God make the same mistake or would His typing always be perfect?

Have you ever known Him to go back and correct something He did wrong?

drbrumley
December 3rd, 2003, 07:23 AM
One Eyed Jack,


No, I don't think He was. If I offered to let you keep your car in exchange for worshipping me, would you be tempted? How can you be tempted with something you already own?

Excellent Observation. I am making a response along these lines as well in another thread to Eloyhim(sp?) in The Forgiveness of sins thread. Just wanted to post here real quick and say good post that you made. :thumb:

Jukia
December 3rd, 2003, 07:24 AM
HMMM, if the flood really occured seems to me He was starting over.
"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain...I am grieved that I have made them" Genesis 6:6-7. And because of this He was willing to destroy "men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air" Genesis 6:7. Sounds to me like He said, "What a mistake, these men are not worth it, time to start over."

Chapter 1 of Mark and Chapter 4 of Luke discuss Christ's temptation. If as God Christ was unable to be tempted what is the point of those passages?

One Eyed Jack
December 3rd, 2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
HMMM, if the flood really occured seems to me He was starting over.

If He was 'starting over,' then why did He leave a remnant? Why not just wipe everything out and start over from scratch?


"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain...I am grieved that I have made them" Genesis 6:6-7. And because of this He was willing to destroy "men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air" Genesis 6:7. Sounds to me like He said, "What a mistake, these men are not worth it, time to start over."

Then why didn't He destroy every single one of them? Why spare eight people?


Chapter 1 of Mark and Chapter 4 of Luke discuss Christ's temptation. If as God Christ was unable to be tempted what is the point of those passages?

Perhaps, in part, to demonstrate that very fact.

Jukia
December 3rd, 2003, 09:37 AM
Jack: I can buy your comment on the temptation.
But you are really ignoring the issue of whether God went back and corrected something with the Flood. I was responding to a post by Aimiel (#105) and your comment about not going back to correct anything. Why did he leave a remant? First, because He left something does not mean He was not correcting something. Secondly it would appear that He changed His mind in mindstream by allowing Noah to live cause first He wanted to wipe out everyone. (Note I do not have a Bible w me so that last is from memory). Biblically it would seem that at the very least He changed His mind a couple of times. Hard to reconcile w the idea of a constant perfect God.

One Eyed Jack
December 3rd, 2003, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
Jack: I can buy your comment on the temptation.
But you are really ignoring the issue of whether God went back and corrected something with the Flood.

Was He correcting His mistakes, or was He exercising His judgement against ours? There's a difference.


I was responding to a post by Aimiel (#105) and your comment about not going back to correct anything.

If He corrected His mistakes, then how are we different from the people that existed before the flood? It seems to me that, as a whole, we're just as messed up as they were.


Why did he leave a remant? First, because He left something does not mean He was not correcting something.

Ok. What do you think His mistake was, and how do you think He corrected it?


Secondly it would appear that He changed His mind in mindstream by allowing Noah to live cause first He wanted to wipe out everyone. (Note I do not have a Bible w me so that last is from memory).

I'm sure you know what hyperbole is.


Biblically it would seem that at the very least He changed His mind a couple of times.

Well, it does seem like Moses talked Him out of wiping out all the Israelites after they worshipped the golden calf. Or maybe He was just testing Moses to see what he would say.


Hard to reconcile w the idea of a constant perfect God.

Do you not believe God is perfect?

Aimiel
December 3rd, 2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Jukia
But you are really ignoring the issue of whether God went back and corrected something with the Flood. I was responding to a post by Aimiel (#105) and your comment about not going back to correct anything. Why did he leave a remant? First, because He left something does not mean He was not correcting something. You seem to be ignoring the implications of the flood upon A Perfect God. He is Perfect, and if not, would try to hide the fact that He is not, by either re-starting creation, so that no memory of it would exist in His new 'test tube.' He used the facts of the flood to affect generations. One way that it has affected everyone on this earth is the promise, which is symbolized by the rainbow. If He made a boo-boo in man, why would He not start over with a perfected being, I believe, was what Jack was driving at, by asking about the remnant.
Secondly it would appear that He changed His mind in mindstream by allowing Noah to live cause first He wanted to wipe out everyone. (Note I do not have a Bible w me so that last is from memory). Biblically it would seem that at the very least He changed His mind a couple of times. Hard to reconcile w the idea of a constant perfect God. Not at all, since He knew these things were going to come to pass, before they happened. He saw the end of time when He started the first second of this temporal realm, the big 'flash' where light was created.

Aimiel
December 3rd, 2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Knight
I believe that to be a severe overstatement.

For instance....
We know people are tempted.

Yet we also know from God's word that He does not tempt men.

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. - James 1:13

Therefore God did not "design" these temptings of men. These temptings are by their own design. Christians need to be careful to not overstate their case or place credit in places where it does not belong. :chuckle:

:doh: God is NOT The Tempter.

Thank you, Knight. I see what you are saying, and agree that He did not design the temptation, but did design the being(s) that brought it about, and even those who give themselves totally to the enemy. He is not out to destroy anyone, but His Plan (when fully revealed) will be not only clear, just and perfect, but absolutely the BEST Plan ever conceived. We (then) will also see the reasons for such things as the flood, sin and even why we have to have such things as mosquitoes, poison ivy, rap music and homosexuality; all of which would seem to be totally useless.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel
:chuckle:

:doh: God is NOT The Tempter.

Thank you, Knight. I see what you are saying, and agree that He did not design the temptation, but did design the being(s) that brought it about, and even those who give themselves totally to the enemy. He is not out to destroy anyone, but His Plan (when fully revealed) will be not only clear, just and perfect, but absolutely the BEST Plan ever conceived. We (then) will also see the reasons for such things as the flood, sin and even why we have to have such things as mosquitoes, poison ivy, rap music and homosexuality; all of which would seem to be totally useless. OK fair enough :up:

Although I would state that we already know why God flooded the earth....

Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 11:29 AM
Quote:

He is not out to destroy anyone, but His Plan (when fully revealed) will be not only clear, just and perfect, but absolutely the BEST Plan ever conceived. We (then) will also see the reasons for such things as the flood, sin and even why we have to have such things as mosquitoes, poison ivy, rap music and homosexuality; all of which would seem to be totally useless.

--------------

Why are obvious questions such the existance of evil, God's childish and cruel temper tantrum and flood placed in the category of "mystery"? Why is the Bible, which obviously borrows its contents from other sources, taken at face value. Even in the light of contradictions, scientific inaccuracies, barbaric murder of entire cities by God's chosen wandering nomads, the whole fairy tale is taken seriously.
I just don't get it. Trusting a diety who refuses to show himself in ANY objective manner is simply wishful thinking. The obvious contradictions implied in the classic argument against God from evil have NEVER been explained without nonsense about an omnipotent being constrained by free-will. Since when is onmipotence constrained by anything?
I urge everyone to seriously think and examine their spiritual beliefs in the light of reason. Don't be afraid of stepping out of your comfort zone. Most here seem rather intellegent, but refuse to directly face the obvious reality that Christianity is patently false.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:36 AM
smothers... it is not polite to ignore the responses and questions of those that have taken the time to respond to you.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 11:38 AM
Knight:
I would be happy to answer any questions posed to me. Please enumerate them and I will answer them one at a time. From my limited perspective I have not seen any direct questions.

Mark

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by smothers
Most here seem rather intellegent, :chuckle:

Emphasis mine. Apparently smothers wasn't counting himself among the "most here"

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 11:39 AM
deardelmar;
Oh come now Iv'e been playing nice. :)

taoist;
I knew you'd love that one. It was a kind of peace offering. No hard feelings about Crow's Origin's thread?

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight:
I would be happy to answer any questions posed to me. Please enumerate them and I will answer them one at a time. From my limited perspective I have not seen any direct questions.

Mark I asked you back on post #127.... Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 11:42 AM
Quote:

Emphasis mine. Apparently smothers wasn't counting himself among the "most here"

--------

Knight: It is a mark of insecurity to consistantly attack and call other people names in a debate.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight: It is a mark of insecurity to consistantly attack and call other people names in a debate. Actually it was you who was making a backhanded insult regarding certain peoples intelligence. I was merely poking fun at you for the manner in which you spelled the word.

P.S. I normally don't make fun of peoples spelling errors but in this case it was appropriate.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 11:51 AM
Knight:
The possive form of "people" is "people's" not "peoples".
Mark

P.S. I normally don't make fun of peoples spelling errors but in this case it was appropriate.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight:
The possive form of "people" is "people's" not "peoples".
Mark

P.S. I normally don't make fun of peoples spelling errors but in this case it was appropriate. :up:

One Eyed Jack
December 3rd, 2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by smothers
Knight:
The possive form of "people" is "people's" not "peoples".
Mark

P.S. I normally don't make fun of peoples spelling errors but in this case it was appropriate.

LOL!!!

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 11:54 AM
I think my position is rather clear, so I will cease from posting any new material. I will be happy to answer any questions from anyone regarding my positions.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by smothers
I think my position is rather clear, so I will cease from posting any new material. I will be happy to answer any questions from anyone regarding my positions. So you are ignoring my question yet again????

Posts... #127 and #164.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:08 PM
Knight
I think were going off topic (not that I really care as you are at least making sensible posts).

Spoken like a true redneck, troll-thread fellow-hijacker. Crow would be so proud.


I think evil has several acceptable definitions.

Absolutely, relative to the individual, of course. ;)


Evil can be relative i.e., harm, calamity. Naturally this explains how it would seem that God could cause evil to come upon His enemies in the form of wrath or vengeance. The enemies see this wrath as evil because it is their calamity.

I can accept this, even under my wildly variant conception of a limited, universal (using a definition of the universe as limited), impersonal, amoral god. Your statement is probably more catholic (small "c," not the proper noun) than you realized.


But ultimately evil is absolute. Evil is what is apart from the will of a righteous God. Evil is like cold is to hot or dark is to light, the further something is away from God's righteousness the more evil it becomes.

I can accept this also, believe it or not, but only in the abstract. I have a fundamental problem with its application though. While I can be content with a working definition of evil as all that is not-god, the idea of "further away" from god requires a metric, a way of determining "how far" away from god a particular action being judged must be.


There is no evil source yet there is the absence of godliness which is evil. Lucifer has no special evil powers yet uses His God given powers (the same powers that other angelic beings have) to do evil instead of good. Satan uses his freewill to do what is not part of God's will therefore he (Satan) is evil.

Sometime we're gonna have to go into a debate on the moral applicability of mathematics' "axiom of choice." But if I were to apply it to this, I would say it's also acceptable.

My fundamental problem with this model is that it is only one of four that would each explain our observations, and all of them seem to be just as applicable. The choice seems arbitrary.

You've given me — I know, you don't believe you're the originator, but work with me here — a model that calls for an unsourced evil opposed to an absolute good. Fine.

I don't see how any metric applied to this model would not apply just as well, allow us to just as easily judge our actions, under the other three models: absolute evil opposed to absolute good, absolute evil opposed to unsourced good and unsourced evil opposed to unsourced good.

(Taoism, by the way, uses the viewpoint of that last model. "Nameless indeed is the source of creation." Though your conception of good and evil isn't really translatable into Taoism. Words aren't the essence.)

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:13 PM
Knight;
Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

taoist;
As an atheist, I'm justified in calling myself an objective source on this. Assuming your omnipotent something has infinite power, Cantor's laws of cardinal arithmetic imply it can actually give away an infinite amount of its power without diminishng itself.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 12:13 PM
Post 127:

Does something that is all powerful (omnipotent) have the power to give away some of its power to another entity?

Yes. I will approach this question from a mathematical standpoint. God has all (or Infinite) power(s). As any graduate student in mathematics knows, Infinity - any number is still infinity. Therefore God can still give away some of its power to another entity and still be omnipotent.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:16 PM
Cardinal arithmetic (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=334297#post334297)

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 12:16 PM
Are there any other questions you would like me to answer?

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:17 PM
Smothers;
As any graduate student in mathematics knows, Infinity - any number is still infinity.

taoist;
As any professor of mathematics knows, graduate students in mathematics who try to apply the operation of subtraction to infinity don't pass the class.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by taoist
My fundamental problem with this model is that it is only one of four that would each explain our observations, and all of them seem to be just as applicable. The choice seems arbitrary.
I don't think so. I think it is pretty cut and dry.

Evil is what is apart from the will of a righteous God. The more "apart" from that righteous will the more evil the act (and or person) is.

"Evil" that is done by a righteous God or righteous person would actually only be a figure of speech for harm or calamity. I.e., "God brought evil upon the wicked people." Would only be a figure of speech for... "God brought justice, wrath and vengeance upon the wicked people".

Would you agree with the following statement?

If no righteous God exists there is no such thing as true evil?

One Eyed Jack
December 3rd, 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by taoist
Smothers;
As any graduate student in mathematics knows, Infinity - any number is still infinity.

taoist;
As any professor of mathematics knows, graduate students in mathematics who try to apply the operation of subtraction to infinity don't pass the class.

That was priceless. :D

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:24 PM
But Knight, I've already said I agree your model is valid. My objection is exactly that is not unique when it comes to applying any derived metric. Now, about your question, as you've defined evil as everything separate from god, I'd have to say true evil cannot exist without it, by definition. You're nothing if not consistent.

But my issue is the metric. Or more appropriately, your metric. I'm looking not just for disagreement here, but for agreement as well. How do you judge "how far" something "further removed" from god really is. Given two actions, which one is closer to god? In other words, how do you make relative decisions? Is it really true that I can't use your metric without resort to using your god?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 12:25 PM
1. I defer to taoists "infinite" wisdom! He made the point better than I would ever be able to.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Yes. I will approach this question from a mathematical standpoint. God has all (or Infinite) power(s). As any graduate student in mathematics knows, Infinity - any number is still infinity. Therefore God can still give away some of its power to another entity and still be omnipotent. I am not sure I would state it the way you did but I do agree.

Which should make us all wonder why you were semi mocking me for asserting that omnipotence has logical limitations.

You have now agreed with this concept in that if God can give away power.... and therefore the "all power" doesn't necessarily mean "all power" since now another entity might have some of it.

Yet omnipotence actually should be understood to mean "nothing MORE powerful" - or all the power that God chooses to retain that is within His logical reality.

In other words.... if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him. And He can do anything He chooses to do within His righteous character.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by taoist
But my issue is the metric. Or more appropriately, your metric.I never was a fan of the metric system. :D

You continue...
I'm looking not just for disagreement here, but for agreement as well. How do you judge "how far" something "further removed" from god really is. Given two actions, which one is closer to god? In other words, how do you make relative decisions? Is it really true that I can't use your metric without resort to using your god? This is the very reason God left us His word.

Using God's word we can KNOW for certain what is a part of His righteous will.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: - 2Timothy 3:16

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 12:32 PM
Quote:

In other words.... if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him. And He can do anything He chooses to do within His righteous character.

-------

I think Taoist would agree with me on this. You can have two sets of infinite things, but one of those sets can be bigger than the other.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 12:34 PM
If we apply the math theory then if God is omnipotent there could still be something with more power than him.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I think Taoist would agree with me on this. You can have two sets of infinite things, but one of those sets can be bigger than the other. smothers try hard to make a rational point..... please?

You and I are BOTH infinite beings for we will both live forever.

Yet one of us is probably bigger than the other.

So what?

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by smothers
If we apply the math theory then if God is omnipotent there could still be something with more power than him. And I rest my case as to why I call smothers names. :D

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 12:37 PM
I better get some work done.... I will be back in a few hours.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:42 PM
Umm, Knight? Does that verse apply to itself?

Okay, metric means measuring system, your ruler. I was approaching this discussion as an innocent trying to put aside my prior knowledge to see if I wouldn't find something different. But you've really said what I would have expected you to say. Your metric is the bible. In choosing which of two action is "better," you "measure" them by how closely they come to actions approved by your scripture. I was actually hoping for something more.

Yet were I to use the standard of your bible without acknowledging belief in your god, I could still make the same decisions using the same reasoning. This is what I meant about the metric being independent of the model. As the bible exists, and forgive me for saying it, a righteous life relative to the natural world is possible without accepting the existence of god.

Understand I'm arguing only the logic, not the truth. I really don't know the answers. But then again, I don't believe you do either, except perhaps "super-rationally."

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 12:44 PM
I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

It seems that we are equating all-powerful with "infinite". You stated that if God is omnipotent then nothing can be more powerful than him. If there are two beings with infinite power, according to number theory one of those two being's infinite power could be more than the other's Your statement
if God is omnipotent then nothing is MORE powerful than Him.
is demonstrably false.

By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling, it makes you look like a grade-schooler.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 12:49 PM
Knight;
And I rest my case as to why I call smothers names. :D

taoist;
Don't blame him for confusing a mathematical model with your god. He's quite correct in the mathematics. Any god modeled as an infinite structure can be used to construct a greater god. The usual method is to construct the superset, the set of all subsets. The resulting superset has a larger cardinality.

(Cardinals are to the size of infinite sets what whole numbers are to the size of finite sets. The cardinality of a set is its cardinal.)

Turbo
December 3rd, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by smothers
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling, it makes you look like a grade-schooler. Knight does not agree that name-calling is always inappropriate. Haven't you figured that out by now? God calls people names at times. Knight is following His example.

If you find name-calling so reprehensible, why did you just call him silly and compare him to a grade-schooler?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 01:55 PM
I'm not sure I would use the God of the Bible as a good role model for social behavior!

Under normal circumstances in social discourse adults do not resort to name calling. I'm making an obvious point that mature people do not normally and consistently use it in normal conversations.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 02:07 PM
smothers;
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling.

taoist;
By all means, let's improve the quality of our name calling.

:turbo:;
Knight does not agree that name-calling is always inappropriate.

taoist;
But he makes exceptions for people like :BillyBob:, :Tye:, :lucky:, and :crow:, not to mention :sibbie: and :turbo: who we get to call by their avatars.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 02:09 PM
I know, I know, it's "whom."

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by taoist
taoist;
But he makes exceptions for people like :BillyBob:, :Tye:, :lucky:, and :crow:, not to mention :sibbie: and :turbo: who we get to call by their avatars. :confused:

Zakath
December 3rd, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by taoist
:turbo:;
Knight does not agree that name-calling is always inappropriate.

taoist;
But he makes exceptions for people like :BillyBob:, :Tye:, :lucky:, and :crow:, not to mention :sibbie: and :turbo: who we get to call by their avatars.
Of course there's always the avatar Knight purposely christened (now there's a religiously fraught word!) with my screen-name. :chuckle:

Turbo
December 3rd, 2003, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I'm not sure I would use the God of the Bible as a good role model for social behavior!Of course you wouldn't. But Knight would.
Under normal circumstances in social discourse adults do not resort to name calling. I'm making an obvious point that mature people do not normally and consistently use it in normal conversations. Knight does not always use name-calling in conversation. I have had many conversations with Knight and as far as I can recall he has never called me a name. He generally uses it only when the situation calls for it.

Like right now for instance: You say that one should not resort to name-calling. Then you called Knight a silly grade-schooler. It is therefore appropriate to call you a hypocrite.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 02:46 PM
Knight
:confused:

Okay, so I'm not always clear.

taoist
smothers;
By the way, you should really stop the silly name-calling.

taoist;
By all means, let's improve the quality of our name calling.


The transition with the Turbo quote just didn't work.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 02:54 PM
I would assume that Knight wouldn't call you names, you are after all a like-minded individual. I have noticed that the Christians on this board attempt ridicule on those that oppose their world-view. It does not reflect well on your religion.

Aimiel
December 3rd, 2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Why are obvious questions such the existance of evil, God's childish and cruel temper tantrum and flood placed in the category of "mystery"? Simple: we don't understand why the heck they became necessary. I would have thought that an all-powerful being could have put things together in such a way that 'starting over' would not be necessary. He found doing so appropriate, and when we are with Him, we will be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is; and at that point we will be able to understand His Reasoning. Until then, we can only see Him as if through a glass, 'darkly.'
Why is the Bible, which obviously borrows its contents from other sources, taken at face value. Because it is not only true, but God has claimed that it is and proven so.
Even in the light of contradictions, scientific inaccuracies, barbaric murder of entire cities by God's chosen wandering nomads, the whole fairy tale is taken seriously. The Bible does not contradict Itself, there are no scientific errors in it (perhaps mis-interpretations or language / understanding differences), and is not a 'fairy tale.'
I just don't get it.As I have said before, this is obvious. You consider The Gospel to be foolishness, and have no light; so you can't help but mis-understand. Your attitude is preventing you from coming to God for forgiveness and eternal life. Such a great thing being missed (eternity) for such a small thing (pride). What a shame.
Trusting a diety who refuses to show himself in ANY objective manner is simply wishful thinking.When He did so, the Egyptians did not believe in Him. The Israelites wandered around in the wilderness for forty years, with a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night and did not believe Him; they all had to die, and were not allowed to enter the Promised Land because of their un-belief. Though one rose from the dead to testify that hell is real and to show the way to repentance and eternal life, still people are marching into hell. It seems impossible, but it is happening every day. Has been for quite some time now.
I urge everyone to seriously think and examine their spiritual beliefs in the light of reason. Don't be afraid of stepping out of your comfort zone. Most here seem rather intellegent, but refuse to directly face the obvious reality that Christianity is patently false. I would urge you to seriously examine yours, for if you are right, we have lost nothing. If we are right, you have lost your soul. For ETERNITY!!! You seem rather intelligent, but if you have said, in your heart, "There is no God," then you are a fool. The reality of God and His Word is obvious, but first, you have to believe in Him. If you don't believe in Him, you can never receive anything from Him:

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Everyone has been given faith:

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

But, by making use of the faith that is in you, believing that God exists, studying His Word, and reaching conclusions about God, you can actually come into a relationship with Him, confess your sins, and He will be able to give you eternal life.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Zakath
Of course there's always the avatar Knight purposely christened (now there's a religiously fraught word!) with my screen-name. :chuckle: Oh I get it now..... taoist meant "smilies" (or emoticons) when said "avatars" right?

That was funny.

Turbo
December 3rd, 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I have noticed that the Christians on this board attempt ridicule on those that oppose their world-view. I have noticed that you do, too, even though you say it's inappropriate.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 03:04 PM
Quote:

The Bible does not contradict Itself, there are no scientific errors in it (perhaps mis-interpretations or language / understanding differences), and is not a 'fairy tale.'

----

You're kidding right? There are NO errors? No instances in which the Bible claims rabbits eat their kud, no instances in which insects are said to have four legs (not six)? There are no contradictions in the resurection story between the gospel? The bible doesn't display PI has 3? The bible doesn't say man origionated from the middle east when clear and indisputable archaeological evidence shows man started in Africa?

I would classify the six day creation story and the fall of man as clear fairy-tales. Most people view noah building a boat then placing animals in it as a nice story; but not one to be taken literally. What else could you call it when a woman talks to a snake, eats an apple then gets expelled from a garden?

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by smothers
You're kidding right? There are NO errors? No instances in which the Bible claims rabbits eat their kud, no instances in which insects are said to have four legs (not six)? There are no contradictions in the resurection story between the gospel? The bible doesn't display PI has 3? The bible doesn't say man origionated from the middle east when clear and indisputable archaeological evidence shows man started in Africa?

I would classify the six day creation story and the fall of man as clear fairy-tales. Most people view noah building a boat then placing animals in it as a nice story; but not one to be taken literally. What else could you call it when a woman talks to a snake, eats an apple then gets expelled from a garden? smothers with all due respect....

You are a classic moron. (and unlike you... I find it very appropriate to call you names).

I mean seriously.... try to think a little on your own. Don't be so sure that your "Bible bashing" sources are at all accurate.

You are the classic troll :troll: ... attempting to raise eyebrows and not having any intention of pondering the real issues at hand.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 03:19 PM
I think we are done here. You are so close-minded and set in your ways that you will likely never grow as a person. If you want to take the mythology seriously, go right a head. If you want to keep your blinders on and take the Bible at face value, please continue to live in your little fantasy-land.
It is no wonder that Christianity is loosing ground all over the world. Fundamentalist non-thinkers like yourself are giving it a bad name. Viewing the world through your God-tinted glasses is a tragic way to live your life. If you continue to live in the philosophical ghetto called fundamentalist Christianity you will find that only like-minded people will ever take you seriously. From the tone of your posts, I can tell no one else does.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I think we are done here. You are so close-minded and set in your ways that you will likely never grow as a person. If you want to take the mythology seriously, go right a head. If you want to keep your blinders on and take the Bible at face value, please continue to live in your little fantasy-land. You may be done here... but the rest of us are having an interesting intelligent discussion.

You continue...
It is no wonder that Christianity is loosing ground all over the world. Fundamentalist non-thinkers like yourself are giving it a bad name. Viewing the world through your God-tinted glasses is a tragic way to live your life. If you continue to live in the philosophical ghetto called fundamentalist Christianity you will find that only like-minded people will ever take you seriously. From the tone of your posts, I can tell no one else does. What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. - Billy Madison's principal.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 03:25 PM
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.
Smilies, not avatars.

:doh:

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 03:26 PM
:up:

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 03:26 PM
Why would I want you to award me points? What makes you think I take your opinion seriously? Which God should take mercy on my soul?

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 03:26 PM
toaist.... Actually I should have figured that out. Especially after I re-read your post. :doh:

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Why would I want you to award me points? What makes you think I take your opinion seriously? Which God should take mercy on my soul? What was that song.....?

You know that song from the 80's....?

How did it go?

Let me think...

"You're such a dork at the party...."

Yea.... that's how it went. :D

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 03:33 PM
Quote:

You're such a dork at the party...."

-----

Wow,he just gets creepier and creepier.., I hope he doesn't behave like that at in his Freshman math class.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 03:38 PM
As a point of fact, smothers, though I agree insofar as you think Knight has a restricted world view, you're entirely wrong in assuming he doesn't think deeply about it. While I believe he's drastically wrong in a lot of his basic assumptions, his posts are almost always serious when he's dealing with a serious opponent.

Sure, he's kinder with the christians. He's a christian! It's a christian board! It's HIS christian board! And he still gives free bandwidth to freeloaders like myself and a few other atheists around here. If you're looking to engage someone of your own mindset, you picked a pisspoor way to show it. Everyone here saw you were pontificating around about your third post. Seeing as I'm an atheist, I gave you more slack than he did.

But you're still a troll. And troll-baiting isn't just a spectator sport around here. You were never looking for a serious discussion with him, and surprise, surprise, you didn't find one.

I've got an account over at internet infidels too and a bunch of other boards. I post here when I want to talk with christians. Or I wouldn't post here at all.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 03:57 PM
I take exception at your claim that I never was looking for a serious discussion. I am more than happy to deal honestly and deeply with philosophical and theological issues. You have been on this board longer than I have so I'll defer to your characterization of Knight. From my limited engangement with him, I can tell he would rather cut his right arm off than concede a point.
My origonal hypothesis that the God of the Bible (if taken literally) has committed far more atrocities than abortionists still stands. It was NEVER met with any serious consideration. "You are just a mornon." is not a response. After answering his question considering God's omnipotence, he did not continue with the issue, he simply resorted to name-calling, and spell-checking. I sincerly hope that his demeanor outside of TOL is more mature than in it.
I'm willing to entertain Knight's line of reasoning, if he is.

taoist
December 3rd, 2003, 04:17 PM
If you're expecting him to sit down with you in your freshman math class, it's not gonna happen. It'd be speaking greek to a swahili bushman.

(Besides, you really need to work on cleaning up your math exegesis, dude. Infinity - a number? Don't you have a younger cousin or something to polish that up on first? I can read past your mistakes there cause I've had thousands of students, but it's just not reasonable to expect that kind of leeway with the general public, even the college educated.)

In point of fact, I've raised exactly the same kind of issue here on this board, with a poster called LucyBelle, and got a truly sincere and thoughtful answer, despite the fact I didn't think she had it in her. It's all in the presentation. I still think she's wrong, but it was really enlightening to see the way she thinks. Honestly, that's the best you can expect when you wander in somebody else's neighborhood. They live here. You don't.

Turbo
December 3rd, 2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by smothers
My origonal hypothesis that the God of the Bible (if taken literally) has committed far more atrocities than abortionists still stands. It was NEVER met with any serious consideration.Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I first asked you to make a clarification (post #3) and then gave you a straight answer to your question (post #9).

But you ignored my answer, and others', becoming fixated on the evils of name-calling.

Knight and I have pointed out that name-calling is sometimes appropriate according to our standard of righteousness (God), and that Christ called some people names (particularly those who asked him questions dishonestly). We are Christians, after all, so why wouldn't we follow the example of Christ, and the apostles, and the prophets?

What is your standard or righteousness and justice? On what basis do you conclude that namecalling is always wrong, or that murderers must be put to death? I suspect that your standard is "what seems right to smothers." Whatever it is, you fall short even of your own standard, since you have repeatedly called Knight names.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 04:26 PM
That is a good point. It is rather fruitless to point out fallacies of Christianity to a Christian. My initial reason for raising points like these is to see how strong/weak the apologetics are.
Still, the argument of non-existance of God from evil IS NOT new, neither is Biblical criticism. I was looking forward to seeing the defence of the faith was. It is disappointing that all I got was the "trust in God" and "you are a moron." response. I was really interested in seeing where Knight was going with his infinity/omnipotence line of reasoning; but I guess we'll never know.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 04:28 PM
Quote:

What is your standard or righteousness and justice? On what basis do you conclude that namecalling is always wrong, or that murderers must be put to death?

My standard of righteousness and justice lies in what aids in the preservation of life.

I do not hold the position that namecalling is ALWAYS wrong.

I conclude that murderres must be put to death, because a swift death penalty leads to LESS people dying.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 04:30 PM
Answer to post #3

By worst I mean more wicked.

jjjg
December 3rd, 2003, 04:33 PM
Evil is subjective and incidental. The reason God destroyed evil men was to try to save the human race.

The goal was good. The evil double effect was incidental.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 04:36 PM
I would argue that evil is that which destroys life. The Christian God killed more people than abortion doctors, therefore God was MORE evil than abortion doctors.

I don't exactly see why God needed to kill people to save humanity, I would think that God would be able to figure out a less drastic measure.

Mr. 5020
December 3rd, 2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Answer to post #3

By worst I mean more wicked. Hmm...the answer to post #3 on post #220. Interesting. :think:

Turbo
December 3rd, 2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I would argue that evil is that which destroys life. Human life? or any life?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 04:52 PM
Human.

LightSon
December 3rd, 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Human.
Well that's a little arbitrary, you specie-ist. What gives you any more right to survive than Elsie the beef cow?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 04:59 PM
A beef cow can not reason, create or live on the same plane as a human. Humans are clearly more superior than cows. Therefore cows have a lesser right to survive than Elsie the beef cow.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 05:05 PM
err.. let me rephrase that...

Cows have less rights to survive than humans.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I was looking forward to seeing the defence of the faith was. It is disappointing that all I got was the "trust in God" and "you are a moron." response.Actually that isn't what you got at all! But you didn't pay close enough attention to the answers you were being given. Instead you plodded along as if we had all ignored you and then claimed we were not responding.

It is this behavior that has us all convinced that your just a :troll:.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 05:11 PM
I'm sorry, Knight, were you saying something.. I nodded off for a moment.

LightSon
December 3rd, 2003, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by smothers
A beef cow can not reason, create or live on the same plane as a human. Humans are clearly more superior than cows. Therefore cows have a lesser right to survive than Elsie the beef cow.

err.. let me rephrase that...

Cows have less rights to survive than humans.

I understand.
So you base a value on life based on ones ability to reason.
That is an interesting judgment, but an arbitary judgment nevertheless.

There are some posters here at TOL whose reasoning ability is impaired. Would you recommend they be harvested as dinner fodder? A little soylent green. You wouldn't see anything immorral there would you? How about people born mentally retarded. Would you argue that they get "recycled" immediately?

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by smothers
My standard of righteousness and justice lies in what aids in the preservation of life.

I conclude that murderres must be put to death, because a swift death penalty leads to LESS people dying. My first response would be.... why is preservation of life a worthy standard?

Where does the standard come from and what do we stand on when we talk to those that disagree with our standard?

So... is this standard the smothers standard? Is that what it is called? On what authority should I be compelled to think it has any validity?

Furthermore....
How would we apply such a vague standard?

For instance.... one group of people might justify murdering another group of people and use our standard against us i.e., "we really thought we needed to kill that other group to preserve our lives".

Can we determine if they were wrong or right? And if so... how?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 05:20 PM
No I wouldn't. It is self-evident or axiomatic that humans are superior to all other species on the planet. My value system is based on what preserves (human) life. I therefore conclude that killing any human purely for food would not be ethical.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by smothers
No I wouldn't. It is self-evident or axiomatic that humans are superior to all other species on the planet. My value system is based on what preserves (human) life. I therefore conclude that killing any human purely for food would not be ethical. Is there any compelling evidence to suggest your "standard" has any validity? If so.... please expand.

In other words....
Explain your standard as if you were explaining it to someone who has a different standard. For instance lets say your trying to convince someone of your standard over their own standard which is "survival of the fittest" or... "do whatever it takes to survive" even if it means eating other people for food.

Why is your standard any better than theirs?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 05:30 PM
Q: My first response would be.... why is preservation of life a worthy standard?

A: This should be self-evident or axiomatic. Life is good, death is bad, as it were.

Q: So... is this standard the smothers standard?

A: Actually it stems from Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy.


Q: On what authority should I be compelled to think it has any validity?

A: If it is axiomatic, then "authority" is not an issue.

Q: How would we apply such a vague standard?

A: Do things that preserve life, don't do things that harm life. For a fuller description read Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead."

Q: For instance.... one group of people might justify murdering another group of people and use our standard against us i.e., "we really thought we needed to kill that other group to preserve our lives".

Can we determine if they were wrong or right? And if so... how?

A: If they had a reasonable objective reason to think we were going to murder them first, (American tanks at their border, a decleration of war etc.) they would be justified in using this philosophy.

We can determine if they were right or wrong based on the circumstances.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 05:32 PM
Q: Is there any compelling evidence to suggest your "standard" has any validity? If so.... please expand.

Are you asking me to explain why preserving life is good and harming life is bad?

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Q: My first response would be.... why is preservation of life a worthy standard?

A: This should be self-evident or axiomatic. Life is good, death is bad, as it were. It may be self evident to you but WHY is it self evident to you? And further.... what makes you right and those that disagree with your standard wrong? We can all think of dozens of examples of those that thought your standard was in error. (Hitler etc.)

You continue...
Q: So... is this standard the smothers standard?

A: Actually it stems from Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy.OK... so what makes the Ayn Rand standard right and other standards wrong?

You continue...
Q: For instance.... one group of people might justify murdering another group of people and use our standard against us i.e., "we really thought we needed to kill that other group to preserve our lives".

Can we determine if they were wrong or right? And if so... how?

A: If they had a reasonable objective reason to think we were going to murder them first, (American tanks at their border, a decleration of war etc.) they would be justified in using this philosophy.

We can determine if they were right or wrong based on the circumstances. Oh really?

You forget that what is "reasonable" to you is not necessarily "reasonable" to others. You need to produce an objective way to determine if this "standard" is being applied correctly.

So... who will make this determination? Me? You? Someone else? Who?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 06:21 PM
Q:It may be self evident to you but WHY is it self evident to you?

A: Most likely from the survival instinct.

Q: And further.... what makes you right and those that disagree with your standard wrong?

A: The quality of life of groups that adhere to the preservation of life is higher than those that don't. For example, Africa is in chaos as its policies are not in line with life-preservation, while the US has the highest standard of life as it does things that promote life.

Q: OK... so what makes the Ayn Rand standard right and other standards wrong?

A: I'm not sure how to answer this. I'm not prepared to provide a defence of Ayn Rand's standards. I am only defending my own.

Q; So... who will make this determination?
A: Me, you, society at large.

Delmar
December 3rd, 2003, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by smothers
I'm not sure I would use the God of the Bible as a good role model for social behavior!



I should say not since by your standard God is SO EVIL!

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by smothers
A: The quality of life of groups that adhere to the preservation of life is higher than those that don't. For example, Africa is in chaos as its policies are not in line with life-preservation, while the US has the highest standard of life as it does things that promote life.smothers do you see what you are doing here?

Preservation of life isn't your standard after all is it? As it turns out..... your preservation of life standard appeals to yet another standard of "quality of life". Quality of life is a pretty subjective standard wouldn't you agree?

My guess is your not going to find much agreement on what constitutes quality of life.

So... the obvious follow-up question is....
What makes your version of the "quality of life" standard correct and other versions of quality of life incorrect?

You continue...
Q; So... who will make this determination?
A: Me, you, society at large. But we may disagree. How shall we make a final determination if we disagree?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 06:41 PM
q: As it turns out..... your preservation of life standard appeals to yet another standard of "quality of life". Quality of life is a pretty subjective standard wouldn't you agree?

A: Quality of life can be described as the statistical length of a group's life.

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 06:44 PM
Q: But we may disagree. How shall we make a final determination if we disagree?

A: We would choose an objective third party.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by smothers
A: Quality of life can be described as the statistical length of a group's life. Really???

So you would state that two people who lived the exact same span of years had the same quality of life no matter what their circumstances?

If yes - that is a bizarre standard.
If no - why did you state that?

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 06:50 PM
So you would state that two people who lived the exact same span of years had the same quality of life no matter what their circumstances?

Generally, yes.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by smothers
Q: But we may disagree. How shall we make a final determination if we disagree?

A: We would choose an objective third party. ROTFL... :D :D you have got to be kidding me? Are you for real? Or are you a fake sent here to make things easy for me? :chuckle:

smothers....
If we disagree, how on earth could we agree on an objective third party??? I.e., the only one of us who would think our third party was objective would be the one that was ultimately exonerated - heaven knows what would happen if our objective third party didn't agree with either of us! - :shocked:

And furthermore... by what standard could we determine if our third party was actually being objective? Your standard? My standard? Yet a forth parties standard???

I am doing everything I can to keep a straight face and deal with you on a rational level.... but I beg of you to consider your position a tad more carefully.

drbrumley
December 3rd, 2003, 07:02 PM
This is just a behold to watch Knight, keep it up :up:

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 07:02 PM
Q:
If we disagree, how on earth could we agree on an objective third party??? I.e., the only one of us who would think our third party was objective would be the one that was ultimately exonerated - heaven knows what would happen if our objective third party didn't agree with either of us! -

A: Isn't choosing a third party to decide the basis of government, mediation and the court system?

Q: And furthermore... by what standard could we determine if our third party was actually being objective?

A: Objective means an accurate representation of reality. One would choose a third party by their quality of viewing/deciding things based on reality.

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by smothers
So you would state that two people who lived the exact same span of years had the same quality of life no matter what their circumstances?

Generally, yes. What else can I say..... but..... your a knuckle-head!

OK lets get this straight...

Fred Jones lives to be 75 years old. He has a beautiful loving wife, three kids a high paying job and excellent overall health. His life is filled with family, friends, freedom and happiness.

Tom Smith lives to be 75 years old. At age 5 he was captured by natives and forced to live in a cold dark cave his entire life digging for gold for these fairly odd natives. Occasionally when he didn't perform to the pleasure of the natives they would torture him. He wasn't allowed any outside contact and was fed only mush for food his entire life.

According to YOUR "quality of life" standard these two men had identical "qualities of life". :rolleyes:

Knight
December 3rd, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by drbrumley
This is just a behold to watch Knight, keep it up :up: Thanks... but its kinda like playing baseball against little kids. :D

smothers
December 3rd, 2003, 07:08 PM
The person who lived in a cave would statistically not live to be 75. This person is a statistical outlier. You should choose a better example.