Vice President’s Commentary On Bob Enyart’s Interview Of MSA

[Granite]

Hi Granite:

Since you are a Satanist, does this mean you disagree with atheists?

Is worshiping Satan an acknowledgement that God exists?

Thanks for your time.

I don't worship Satan.

 

[Metro State Atheists]

Now, I know you have seen the below Venn diagram before.

The red circle is truth. Everything in this circle is true.

The blue circle is what you believe. Some things you believe are factual, and some things are false. For example, you believe there is no God. I believe there is a God. One of us is right and one of us is wrong. Therefore our Venn diagrams are different.

When we die, and find out who was right and who was wrong, the purple part of our own diagrams will be larger for whoever was right.

Everything in the blue circle is obtained from rationalism, empiricism, and faith.

Let’s not get all technical about truth. For now, let’s assume all truth is absolute.

There are truths we do not believe, and there are truths we cannot know (i.e. Does God exist)

However, if you wish to be a wise man, remember this: “There are things you don’t know that you don’t know”.

Ok...but by what mechanism does faith or rationalism lead to knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Chalmer

 

[Town Heretic]

Your restatement, however, doesn't correct what I said at all.

It illustrates the inference by demonstrating how it could have been objectively stated.

It is perfectly reasonable to point out one of the implications of your position.

We aren't agreeing that it is such.

If God permits us choice unrestricted by his own standards of good or evil, then that permission necessarily includes permission to choose to do evil on some level.

You're playing a fine game with language. If I give you a gun it doesn't follow that I mean for you to rob a liquor store, even if you subsequently do.

Surely if we can figure out that God is offering us the choice to do good or evil, God can figure that out as well.

He's offering us sentience, the result of which is that we can and will think for ourselves and make choices. We make errant choices because we are imperfect in our reason and will frequently choose, even in the face of a known wrong and horrific consequence, to advance error where it serves our immediate interest.

Well, if not for the "more than", God's desire to prevent evil would have to trump free will, and we would have to expect that there would be no evil.

Not really. Equal to would suffice and if free will is the unavoidable consequence of sentience then...there you are.

 

[Town Heretic]

I wasn't making the argument. I was giving an example of of a class of related arguments and, as I was typing the OP, the problem of evil was the first to pop into my head. If you'd, I can provide some example of arguments aimed at Gods' attributes that I do favor?

If you like.

Then he is not omnipotent. That's not to say you can't still call him God, it just means omnipotence is inherently inconsistent.

No, you misuse omnipotence, a matter of might, in that you seem to suggest any limitation on the use of that power is a limitation of the power itself. The might of God is undiminished by its restraint in His nature. A bomb you will never use is no less or more powerful for that qualification.

There are two kinds of suffering: those imposed by nature and those imposed other individuals. Usually, the person who willfully administers suffering is taken to be evil.

I'd say the person does evil, perhaps is enthralled, habitually drawn to and the proponent of evil. I wouldn't say a person is evil.

I didn't mean to imply that suffering itself is evil, or that by not eliminating natural sources of suffering God has failed to be benevolent. The only suffering that matters in reference to the problem of evil is the sort administered by other persons.

I agree.

I'm inclined to agree with you.
- Chalmer

Two in a row :think: an argument for the possibility of the miraculous...:chuckle:

 

[tetelestai]

Ok...but by what mechanism does faith or rationalism lead to knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Chalmer

There is none.

You will never find proof that God exists, that is why it is called faith.

However, you will not find proof that God does not exist either. You cannot prove a negative.

And, as I have pointed out, a good amount of your knowledge (that has nothing to do with God) is based on some faith whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This argument certainly puts human free will at a premium, doesn't it? More than relieving suffering, the almighty thinks we creatures of dirt and ash deserve to agonize and agonize one another. I'm not sure if this kind of clinical detachment and hands-off sadism is touching or torturous.

God does not think that we should agonize and be agonized by each other. Look at what Jesus had to say about how we are to treat each other. God allows us our freedom to choose to agonize each other and He does not interfere with that choice for His own reasons. Sometimes as a parent you see your child doing something that you know will result in a scraped knee. You tell them to stop but you don't physically stop them and sure enough, they end up with a scraped knee. They learn that the next time Mom and Dad tell them not to do something that they should listen. I think that it is similar with God. We learn more from our failures than we do our success.

 

[rexlunae]

It illustrates the inference by demonstrating how it could have been objectively stated.

We aren't agreeing that it is such.

The only change your version makes is to move from the particular to the general. It doesn't exclude the particular in the process. It just removes the focus of the statement on the specific.

If God gives us freewill unrestrained by his sense of good, then he is permitting us to commit evil, where he might have done otherwise. That is to say that he puts a higher premium on unrestrained freewill than on eliminating or preventing evil. I don't know of a plainer way to put it.

You're playing a fine game with language.

I don't think it's a language game at all. It's very straight-forward reasoning. I think you're trying to make an impossible distinction.

If I give you a gun it doesn't follow that I mean for you to rob a liquor store, even if you subsequently do.

The difference here is that as an ordinary human, your knowledge and your power are limited. You can't know that a man would rob a liquor store if you give him a gun, and you can't necessarily stop him even if you do know, so your moral and legal liability are limited. How does the moral scenario you state change if the man tells you ahead of time that he's going to use the gun to rob a liquor store? Or if he gives you the opportunity to stop him at no risk to yourself?

On the other hand, God, given his traditionally granted traits of omniscience and omnipotence, could both know that we would commit evil given freewill, and could prevent us from doing so.

Not really. Equal to would suffice and if free will is the unavoidable consequence of sentience then...there you are.

Well, the fact that he allows evil to exist entails a de facto choice on the part of God in favor of freewill over prevention of evil in at least some cases. It may be possible that there are cases in which he would act to prevent evil at the cost of freewill, in which case we might be tempted to ask where he was during the Holocaust, but that's really out of scope for the discussion at hand.

 

[Metro State Atheists]

There is none.

You will never find proof that God exists, that is why it is called faith.

However, you will not find proof that God does not exist either. You cannot prove a negative.

And, as I have pointed out, a good amount of your knowledge (that has nothing to do with God) is based on some faith whether you want to admit it or not.

I would be happy to admit it if you could give me an example. And if there is no mechanism, it seems a little silly to call it knowledge. If I find that I do have faith in something, I'll stop believing it. I've done it before.

 

[Granite]

God does not think that we should agonize and be agonized by each other. Look at what Jesus had to say about how we are to treat each other. God allows us our freedom to choose to agonize each other and He does not interfere with that choice for His own reasons. Sometimes as a parent you see your child doing something that you know will result in a scraped knee. You tell them to stop but you don't physically stop them and sure enough, they end up with a scraped knee. They learn that the next time Mom and Dad tell them not to do something that they should listen. I think that it is similar with God. We learn more from our failures than we do our success.

What person in their right mind would not heal or prevent the agony of a loved one if it was within their power to do so?

 

[tetelestai]

I would be happy to admit it if you could give me an example. And if there is no mechanism, it seems a little silly to call it knowledge. If I find that I do have faith in something, I'll stop believing it. I've done it before.

Why does faith scare you so much?

Is it afraid of being wrong?

 

[Granite]

Why does faith scare you so much?

Is it afraid of being wrong?

Faith is the mechanism used to avoid any chance or doubt of being wrong, so I think you've got some wires crossed.

 

[Town Heretic]

:think: We're all operating on faith here. The only question involves the nature and worth of it. Rationalists assume the measure of their measure, that reason itself is trustworthy. There's no demonstrating that it is without using it as proof, a logical fallacy of begging the question...so....

 

[Metro State Atheists]

Why does faith scare you so much?

Is it afraid of being wrong?

Why do you ask loaded question? Faith doesn't scare me anymore than the bogyman. I don't appeal to faith becuase I think it is irrational. I want to know truth, and faith does nothing to aid me in distinguishing reality from fantasy.

And yes, I am afraid of being wrong, hence my distaste for appeals to faith and fallacy. I believe in what is probable, not comfortable.
- Chalmer

 

[bling]

Says who?

Where in the world do you get this idea from?

Logic my friend.

If God is the ultimate Lover and this “Love” is defined in part as being unselfish, then God would be the most unselfish being there could be. God would then have to be driven by this “Love” to serve others (it is still out of His choice), because “Godly type Love” compels individuals to do stuff and for God that would be everything. We talk about “free will” and the way Godly type Love is defined there has to be free will, but if you have the ability and can allow Godly type Love to always prevail (like it would be for God) then God will always do the very best thing every time which is the most Loving thing. That does not mean God can not destroy or punish evil individuals (bad for them), since that is the best thing for agents that can, will and do Love like He Loves.

If God did not make humans as the result of His Love then what other logical reason could there be and still be consistent with God being the ultimate Lover and example of that Love?

 

[bling]

Your restatement, however, doesn't correct what I said at all. It just generalizes it. It is perfectly reasonable to point out one of the implications of your position. If God permits us choice unrestricted by his own standards of good or evil, then that permission necessarily includes permission to choose to do evil on some level. Surely if we can figure out that God is offering us the choice to do good or evil, God can figure that out as well.



Well, if not for the "more than", God's desire to prevent evil would have to trump free will, and we would have to expect that there would be no evil.

Have you read my post 13? Godly type Love requires free will.

 

[bling]

I don't agree they were the best representatives of the human race. My Children mind better than Adam and Eve. If you're so rebellious you can't go 1 day without defying God, why get best human credit? Most of the people on this board go much longer than that following much harder commands of God than don't eat some fruit.

Thank you for your comments.
First, no one believes it was just one day (Adam named the animals before Eve came on the seen for one thing). You do not have to believe this story actually happened as written to get the message.
(I know enough about myself to realize I would have eaten that fruit before Eve even got there.) The reason I believe Adam and Eve are presented as the best the human race has to offer is the following:
1. Their bodies with the help of the tree of life could last forever.
2. They inherited no bad genes from a mutated stock of old genes.
3. They were “adults” that had not sinned.
4. Their brains were not the result of any defective parts handed down from their ancestry.
5. They were trained (programmed) to adulthood by the best parent there could ever be; God Himself.
6. God would have trained (programmed) them with all the information they might like to have/ need (like any good parent would do for their children).
7. What happen could have been protected by anyone, since it fits the actions of humans that are given free will.
8. The message of why the Garden does not work for humans would best be taught with the example using the best humans possible (Christ is both human and God).

 

[bling]

What person in their right mind would not heal or prevent the agony of a loved one if it was within their power to do so?

God did not save His own son from suffering, because the son was doing it out of His Love for Him and others. God allows great suffering to happen in this world out of tremendous anguish for Him to provide the opportunities needed for willing individuals to see, experience, share, give, and receive “Godly type Love”. You think you want God to provide us all with our own Garden of Eden situation, but that does not work! Read my post 13.

 

[bling]

Why do you ask loaded question? Faith doesn't scare me anymore than the bogyman. I don't appeal to faith becuase I think it is irrational. I want to know truth, and faith does nothing to aid me in distinguishing reality from fantasy.

And yes, I am afraid of being wrong, hence my distaste for appeals to faith and fallacy. I believe in what is probable, not comfortable.
- Chalmer

It is all very logical. Read my post 13.

 

[IoverE]

Thank you for your comments.
First, no one believes it was just one day (Adam named the animals before Eve came on the seen for one thing). You do not have to believe this story actually happened as written to get the message.
(I know enough about myself to realize I would have eaten that fruit before Eve even got there.) The reason I believe Adam and Eve are presented as the best the human race has to offer is the following:
1. Their bodies with the help of the tree of life could last forever.
2. They inherited no bad genes from a mutated stock of old genes.
3. They were “adults” that had not sinned.
4. Their brains were not the result of any defective parts handed down from their ancestry.
5. They were trained (programmed) to adulthood by the best parent there could ever be; God Himself.
6. God would have trained (programmed) them with all the information they might like to have/ need (like any good parent would do for their children).
7. What happen could have been protected by anyone, since it fits the actions of humans that are given free will.
8. The message of why the Garden does not work for humans would best be taught with the example using the best humans possible (Christ is both human and God).

I appreciate the response. I understand you're saying they were the original perfect model. My problem is seeing the "perfect model" fail so soon after creation. I also don't see how if they had the best training possible,ie God, that the product would fail so miserably so soon. First time they were tempted the succombed. Could they have been tempted as easily to kill? We see that at least one of their children had little problem with murder.

 

[Metro State Atheists]

This comes up all the time and I am in agreement with you that Christians give poor answers most of the time. I reason from the point of the objective: Man’s objective in life is to obtain Godly type Love so he can Love God and others.

How do you justify this conclusion, that our objective is to obtain God like love?

This “Love” is defined by Jesus and His words, but can also be found in 1 Cor. 13 and in John’s writings.

The Bible should not typically be used as evidence for its own assumptions.

God created humans in the first place as a result of His Love, God’s Love would have compelled Him to create agents that could obtain Godly type Love for the sake of those that would obtain Godly type Love.

How do you know?

God objective with man is to do all He can to help willing humans fulfill their object. (God being Love means He is totally unselfish which is demonstrated in all that He does.)

Such as holding belief and worship as a perquisite for entry into heaven.

You like many do not understand why a Loving God would not put all humans in a Garden of Eden situation?

I understand completely. I also understand why an elf would flee to the forbidden lands when faced with the annihilation of middle earth. Consistency does not imply fact.

God has to quench His desire for us to be in a heaven type home, so we can have the honor and privilege of obtaining Godly type Love. This world is ideally suited for willing individuals to obtain Godly type Love and grow Godly type Love.

Again, how do you know. Establishing the logical consistency of your god only implys that your conclusions follows from your premises. And your premise, that our objective is to achieve God like love, was not supported by evidence in this post.
- Chalmer