God didn't create his free will, so his free will is not his, so he has no free will.
ElectroSpecter wrote:
Since this includes your own thoughts and actions, I find that this is a type of paradox anyway, since "knowing" your own thoughts creates more thoughts, which you would have to have thoughts of, and these thoughts need thoughts, etc. forever. I just don't see how this is possible.
If God is omniscient, it seems that he would have no free will because he would know his future actions, but he can't know his future actions, because if he did, he could choose not to do them.
Like always, it boils down to Nothing. Only if God is Nothing, can he know everything and create something.
God(1) didn't create his(2) free will, so his(3) free will is not his, so he(4) has no free will.
ElectroSpecter wrote:
Since this includes your own thoughts and actions, I find that this is a type of paradox anyway, since "knowing" your own thoughts creates more thoughts, which you would have to have thoughts of, and these thoughts need thoughts, etc. forever. I just don't see how this is possible.
If God(5) is omniscient, it seems that he(6) would have no free will because he(7) would know his(8) future actions, but he(9) can't know his(10) future actions, because if he(11) did, he(12) could choose not to do them.
Like always, it boils down to Nothing. Only if God(13) is Nothing, can he(14) know everything and create something.
Just something I noticed... in both of ElectroSpecter's post, he doesn't mention God once. In your short reply to him, you manage to refer to him a whopping 14 times. Did you consider ElectroSpecter was making a general statement, and not talking about God?
while there were some interesting arguments here, this discussion somewhat reminds me of the old joke that god can't make a rock so heavy he can't lift it (or can he?).
Maybe we should go back a couple of steps and verify our premises before logically deducing stupid things. We should ask what godly powers he's really supposed to possess. Can anyone back up both 'omniscient' and 'omnipotent' with bible quotes? Especially the part where he's supposed to know about the future?
There's a part right at the beginning of the bible strongly suggesting that god utterly failed to look into the future when he forgot to draw a fence around an apple tree.
My interpretation of the story is that god may know everything about current and past events, but in this universe he is bound to time just like everything else. He gave humans a free will - he may threaten them, show them the path, but he can't make them choose. Sure he can strike them down, ban them from paradise or make them burn in hell when they pick the wrong choice, but nowhere in the bible have I seen any reference to god touching a human's free will.
(But of course I haven't read much of the bible outside of school, so feel free to prove me wrong.)
Of course it's quite possible to limit god's powers without denying his omnipotence, and everything falls right back into place, but unless someone can actually establish what kind of powers god is supposed to possess that explanation would be a waste of good bits. :)
If we're going to have multiple people discussing theology can we just make a topic about it and discuss it there so actual questions to Bisqwit don't get buried / those who don't care about theology don't have to read it? I'd like to respond ot a lot of these points but I don't want to derail the topic.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster.
I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
There's a part right at the beginning of the bible strongly suggesting that god utterly failed to look into the future when he forgot to draw a fence around an apple tree.
In addition to that, it's pretty weird how the Bible says that at one point, God was disappointed in humans when he saw that their hearts were filled with evil and decided to destroy everyone with a huge flood. You'd think he could avoid stuff like that..
Actually I've been reading the Bible (like the devil, I guess you could say) for the first time now and I think it's inredible how many people take it as absolute truth, even though there is stuff about humans living to be over 900 years old, giants walking the earth etc. Also, the amount of animals slaughtered is amazing. For everything they do they have to kill a sacrifical lamb, goat, ox or all of the above and splash their blood on altars and themselves. Some of the laws that God sets in the beginning are also pretty weird. Like that if someone catches a burglar in the night and kills him, he doesn't get punished, but if the burglar is killed after the sun has risen, the one who kills the burglar must be stoned to death.
It's amazing how folklore and random stuff written thousands of years ago has been preserved to this day so that people still believe in them. As a human phenomenon it's very exceptional. I guess most people still need something to cling to to make their daily life not suck ass. No offence meant to anyone, just my opinion.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I think its funny that they put to death a man for "gathering sticks" on the sabbath.
One book before that is where people get the whole anti-gay thing. People only read what they want to hear.
Yeah, this annoys me a lot too. If the Bible is the word of God and must be obeyded, why don't I see slaughtered goats at churches etc.? If you're going to say that the Bible is the absolute truth, you should then really obey it entirely, not just the fun and shiny parts. If God knew that society would develop beyond slaughtering animals and wanted the salughtering to stop when human socities evolved, don't you think he would have mentioned it in the Bible? So, my point is: if it's God's will, why don't people slaughter animals anymore? Isn't that sinning and doesn't that warrant a place in damnation? What makes some aspects of the Bible ignorable and others not?
Joined: 5/23/2006
Posts: 361
Location: Washington, United States
Kyrsimys wrote:
So, my point is: if it's God's will, why don't people slaughter animals anymore? Isn't that sinning and doesn't that warrant a place in damnation? What makes some aspects of the Bible ignorable and others not?
The short answer is that the latter part of the Bible (namely the New Testament) explains why these practices are no longer needed. It's the wrong approach to take sections of the Old Testament and compare them to the way people should live their lives now - the New Testament outlines the new way of life needed for salvation (accepting Jesus as Lord) as a replacement for the "old" way.
I could add more, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to fuel this discussion further.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Kyrsimys wrote:
Twelvepack wrote:
People only read what they want to hear.
Yeah, this annoys me a lot too. If the Bible is the word of God and must be obeyded, why don't I see slaughtered goats at churches etc.? If you're going to say that the Bible is the absolute truth, you should then really obey it entirely, not just the fun and shiny parts. If God knew that society would develop beyond slaughtering animals and wanted the salughtering to stop when human socities evolved, don't you think he would have mentioned it in the Bible? So, my point is: if it's God's will, why don't people slaughter animals anymore? Isn't that sinning and doesn't that warrant a place in damnation? What makes some aspects of the Bible ignorable and others not?
I believe most modern Christianity believes that the reason Jesus came and died/ rose again was so save us from having to try and all those weird old testament laws. But I'm not theologian, so that's just what I remember from Lutheran school and church when my mom made me go as a kid.
If the Bible is the word of God and must be obeyded, why don't I see slaughtered goats at churches etc.?
Orthodox jews obey the laws of Moses to the letter, yet they don't sacrifice animals. Why do you think that is?
Jews don't read selectively like atheists do. They read the *entire* law. For instance, the law says that only levite priests assigned to the temple can perform the sacrifices, and that these sacrifices can only be performed in the temple of Jerusalem. There's no such temple currently and there cannot be (because there's a mosque at its place and they cannot destroy it for political reasons).
If christians started to sacrifice animals they would be breaking God's law. Only members of the tribe of Levi can do so (and from those, only the selected priests), and it can only be done in the original temple of God, which doesn't exist. Additionally, the New Testament reveals that animal sacrifices are actually no longer necessary because the ultimate sacrifice has been performed.
So, you see, christians are actually obeying the Bible when they don't sacrifice animals. The atheist anti-bible argument is completely flawed.
If you're going to say that the Bible is the absolute truth, you should then really obey it entirely, not just the fun and shiny parts.
Not performing animal sacrifices is obeying the Bible.
If God knew that society would develop beyond slaughtering animals and wanted the salughtering to stop when human socities evolved, don't you think he would have mentioned it in the Bible?
It is actually mentioned there. Animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore because the ultimate sacrifice has been made.
What makes some aspects of the Bible ignorable and others not?
That's a good question to ask atheists. They only read what they want to read (those parts which seem to contradict current customs).
The short answer is that the latter part of the Bible (namely the New Testament) explains why these practices are no longer needed. It's the wrong approach to take sections of the Old Testament and compare them to the way people should live their lives now - the New Testament outlines the new way of life needed for salvation (accepting Jesus as Lord) as a replacement for the "old" way.
I know I'm not contributing anything useful to this discussion, but honestly, you would have had a million cool points in my book if you had answered Kyrsimys's question with "This testament has been obsoleted! Click here to see the new testament".
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
it's inredible how many people take it as absolute truth, even though there is stuff about humans living to be over 900 years old, giants walking the earth etc.
Much of the Bible is metaphorical, but not the giants part. What's so weird about giants?
Kyrsimys wrote:
If the Bible is the word of God and must be obeyded, why don't I see slaughtered goats at churches etc.?
Because the lord said "Bring no more vain offerings. Incense is an abomination to me". Also, the Bible says that God originally wanted to write the law in our hearts, because the law is alive and living things constantly change. Everybody can today know that it makes no sense to slaughter a goat, but it made sense back then. So who needs book when we have our heart that tells right from wrong?
Well I certainly am no expert in this area so I won't bother trying to address most of the stuff said, I'm sure you all know your stuff. But as for the New Testament "obsoleting" stuff from the Old Testament: isn't the Old Testament supposed to be God's direct words and thus more holy than the New Testament? If so, how can something in the New Testament override something from the Old Testament? Or don't Christians believe that the OT is God's words, is it just the Jews?
As for this point
Warp wrote:
atheists...only read what they want to read (those parts which seem to contradict current customs).
Isn't that pretty obvious? The whole point is to point out those contradictions. If giants really had existed, why would I want to criticize the Bible for saying that they did? Believers, on the other hand, can't read only certain parts and not care about the rest without crapping on the whole thing.
Joined: 5/23/2006
Posts: 361
Location: Washington, United States
Kyrsimys wrote:
isn't the Old Testament supposed to be God's direct words and thus more holy than the New Testament?
I've never really heard this point brought up before, but thinking about it, many books in the New Testament do have direct words from God (the gospels, through Jesus, and Revelation). The rest is theoretically debatable, but most Christians believe that they were divinely inspired by God. Not to say that the words themselves are holy, but that the teachings are wise and are the model for how Christians should live.
Kyrsimys wrote:
If so, how can something in the New Testament override something from the Old Testament?
Since I answered "no" to your previous question, the question/answer here won't exactly be in context ;)
It's rather like a design project - the first "stage" of the plan is carried out for some length of time, then the second stage begins later. The employment of both stages will result in the best possible design/implementation. I believe that this is what God is doing as part of his overall plan for the world. Out of context, one part is not any more valid or important than the other; you have to look at the whole to understand the big picture and which would currently apply.
Kyrsimys wrote:
Or don't Christians believe that the OT is God's words, is it just the Jews?
The Old Testament is part of God's word, but the new plan for our lives has begun (you might say that it's been "updated"). I don't think most Christians believe that the Old Testament is for (or applies only to) the Jews, but it is the Jews' choice to follow the Old Testament law. I don't believe that the Law is "good enough" for the Jews - they themselves just choose to believe that it is.
But as for the New Testament "obsoleting" stuff from the Old Testament: isn't the Old Testament supposed to be God's direct words and thus more holy than the New Testament? If so, how can something in the New Testament override something from the Old Testament? Or don't Christians believe that the OT is God's words, is it just the Jews?
If someone says "for now do this" and later "ok, that's enough, the purpose has been fulfilled, so you don't have to do it anymore" does that mean that the first command was somehow invalid? Does that mean that the first command was flawed? No, it just means that the first command was temporary, until the symbolical last fulfillment of that command happened.
If God had said "do this for 100 years and then stop", then nobody would complain. But if God says "do this" and then 100 years later he says "ok, now stop doing it", atheists immediately want to see some kind of inexistent contradiction there.
Warp wrote:
atheists...only read what they want to read (those parts which seem to contradict current customs).
Isn't that pretty obvious? The whole point is to point out those contradictions.
*SEEM TO* contradict. When read alone, without the whole context, without all the facts. There's no actual contradiction, just an apparent one, when the text is taken completely out of context. That's exactly what atheists like to do. Take one little thing out of context and ignore the rest.
Moreover, these atheists are childishly stubborn. When you point out, using the Bible itself, for example why no animal sacrifices are made, atheists will still repeat the same mantra "but it commands to do animal sacrifices here" like a broken record. No amount of explanation or reasoning will convince them. They don't *want* to be convinced. They don't *want* to listen. They just want to argue, and for that they need all those out-of-context quotes and they need to ignore the rest.
This kind of discussion is stupid and useless. Nobody will be convinced of anything else they weren't convinced already before the discussion.
I moved a bible into the fiction/fantasy section at a Chapters (bookstore) today, and I haven't been smited yet!
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs? Is respecting other people really so hard to do? What does that tell of atheism? At least it seems that atheism is *not* about respecting other people but about making fun of and insulting them just because they happen to believe differently.
Joined: 3/17/2007
Posts: 97
Location: Berkeley, CA
Warp wrote:
Why are so many atheists so obsessed in insulting and making fun of other people's beliefs? Is respecting other people really so hard to do? What does that tell of atheism? At least it seems that atheism is *not* about respecting other people but about making fun of and insulting them just because they happen to believe differently.
I don't appreciate this generalization. As an atheist who hasn't been insulting the religious members here (thus probably passing under your radar), I feel a little insulted myself. Of course it's valid to ask whether atheists form a group that makes fun of "outsiders" more than other groups. But a few responses to your exact words: First, making fun of "outsiders" can lead to feelings of amusement and closeness among members of any group; even several isolated instances of this behavior needn't indict a particular group. Second, it's unfair to transfer the argument to the idea of atheism, which is rarely the only thing which unites atheists. Third, how can you conclude atheism is defined by disrespect if not by respect? By definition, it's defined by a belief in a world without God--nothing more.
