Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it? (II)

[IAHM-COL]

PS: I think I saw that origin story with Adam and Even and how their children then multiplied and populated the earth.... I think the film was called Taboo.... Kinky stuff....

In Biology, these kind of "now what we gonna do?" situations is called The bottleneck effect.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/bottlenecks_01

[OPFOR77]

See? He knows the future. And why wouldn't he, he's omnipotent. Therefore, the notion of "choice" is a contradiction to the notion of both the omnipotence that lead to the initial creation as well as the supposed latter choices.

God can't create me AND know if I will believe in Christ yet not force me. He created me. He has this knowledge.

This is a false dilemna. And doesn't really follow logically. Just because an all-powerful being exists doesn't negate that you have a choice. Being omnipotent doesn't mean being in control all the time. Also, knowing that someone is going to choose something doesn't deny that something the choice.

Further more, if you see a child running towards an intersection in a city, it won't be your fault that the child ran out there, would it? It's the child that's running, not you. And if you're not a driver, it won't be you hitting the child either, correct? But what if it would be easy for you to stop the child from running into that intersection, and you know that if you don't the child will run into it and get hit and killed by a car - and you choose not to stop the child... are you to blame for that?

This isn't an excellent metaphor. God has given laws, etc, and has told us to follow him, and we have the option over a period of time to consider whether these are worth following. In other words, he's warned us what not to do, and what actions are good.

We aren't bumbling about, getting blindsided by a car without anyone telling us to stop.

[jwocky]

Okay, I am sometimes annoyed. And I have delete buttons and ban buttons and all this fancy stuff. And not using means, I will be occasionally annoyed again. Let me use this as example, even I am far from being god, obviously:

The believer
"Jabberwocky exists, he only didn't ban my ass because he hangs on to the rules he made"

The atheist
"Jabberwocky didn't ban my ass ... so that is prove, Jabberwocky doesn't exist"

The mathematician
"I can't prove Jabberwocky exists ... I can't prove he doesn't"

The bad mathematician
"I failed to prove Jabberwocky's existence, so I simply say he doesn't"

Food for thought?

[OPFOR77]

@Jabberwocky, that's only looking at one side of the equation. If we accept the Christian God is omnipotent as described in the bible, we must also subscribe to the fact that he is loving. (Which will open up the whole can of worms of theodicy, which is beyond the scope of this post. The problem of evil has been argued ad nauseum.)

If we accept that God is loving, then he has a vested interest in not only not "banning" us, but ensuring that we succeed. He wouldn't force us to love him, because love is not something that can be forced - this is the crux of much of theodicy, and one of the possible explanations of why there were trees placed in the Garden of Eden that Adam and Eve were told not to eat of. Instead, however, God tells us that in order to live the best possible life, and indeed to have life eternally, that loving God and following his commandments is the best (if not the only) route. He doesn't actively condemn (read: ban) people; in fact, there's only two ways to get perma-banned per the bible, and that is blaspheming the holy spirit (and what exactly that entails is hotly debated amongst Christian circles) - or to have died without choosing to follow Christ.

Addendum: should clarify I'm talking specifically about the Christian God, and I am a subscriber to sola scriptura.

[Lydiot]

See? He knows the future. And why wouldn't he, he's omnipotent. Therefore, the notion of "choice" is a contradiction to the notion of both the omnipotence that lead to the initial creation as well as the supposed latter choices.

God can't create me AND know if I will believe in Christ yet not force me. He created me. He has this knowledge.

This is a false dilemna. And doesn't really follow logically. Just because an all-powerful being exists doesn't negate that you have a choice. Being omnipotent doesn't mean being in control all the time. Also, knowing that someone is going to choose something doesn't deny that something the choice.

But if you create someone with a choice, and you know what choice they'll make, and you then tell them to choose wisely or they'll burn in hell for an eternity, then you're not "nice". There's is absolutely nothing moral about that.

And I absolutely maintain that if a person has foreknowledge about the choices that will be made then the distinction between "free will" or "control" is practically speaking moot. I may think I have a choice, that I have "free will", but if god created me with this free will yet knows what I will choose, how can I choose different from what he already can foresee?

Further more, if you see a child running towards an intersection in a city, it won't be your fault that the child ran out there, would it? It's the child that's running, not you. And if you're not a driver, it won't be you hitting the child either, correct? But what if it would be easy for you to stop the child from running into that intersection, and you know that if you don't the child will run into it and get hit and killed by a car - and you choose not to stop the child... are you to blame for that?

This isn't an excellent metaphor. God has given laws, etc, and has told us to follow him, and we have the option over a period of time to consider whether these are worth following. In other words, he's warned us what not to do, and what actions are good.

We aren't bumbling about, getting blindsided by a car without anyone telling us to stop.

You took the analogy the wrong way. If this was a very small child it might not perceive us yelling "stop!", and/or it might just choose to run anyway. It doesn't matter: We have the ability to stop the child from suffering and we choose not to.

That is simply not moral.

The truth is that morality is something a lot of religious people say god gave us only to then make every single excuse possible for the immorality of god himself.

[legoboyvdlp]

See? He knows the future. And why wouldn't he, he's omnipotent. Therefore, the notion of "choice" is a contradiction to the notion of both the omnipotence that lead to the initial creation as well as the supposed latter choices.

God can't create me AND know if I will believe in Christ yet not force me. He created me. He has this knowledge.

This is a false dilemna. And doesn't really follow logically. Just because an all-powerful being exists doesn't negate that you have a choice. Being omnipotent doesn't mean being in control all the time. Also, knowing that someone is going to choose something doesn't deny that something the choice.

Further more, if you see a child running towards an intersection in a city, it won't be your fault that the child ran out there, would it? It's the child that's running, not you. And if you're not a driver, it won't be you hitting the child either, correct? But what if it would be easy for you to stop the child from running into that intersection, and you know that if you don't the child will run into it and get hit and killed by a car - and you choose not to stop the child... are you to blame for that?

This isn't an excellent metaphor. God has given laws, etc, and has told us to follow him, and we have the option over a period of time to consider whether these are worth following. In other words, he's warned us what not to do, and what actions are good.

We aren't bumbling about, getting blindsided by a car without anyone telling us to stop.

You can tell your son to be good, but you can't force him.
God can, but he chooses not to. Force vs choice. The doll.

[OPFOR77]

But if you create someone with a choice, and you know what choice they'll make, and you then tell them to choose wisely or they'll burn in hell for an eternity, then you're not "nice". There's is absolutely nothing moral about that.

This is oversimplifying it greatly.

If I gave you a choice between water and poison, and told you that you need to drink the water or you'll die, I can safely assume that you'll choose the water. But, per you, I'm now not "nice" and am completely immoral?

And I absolutely maintain that if a person has foreknowledge about the choices that will be made then the distinction between "free will" or "control" is practically speaking moot. I may think I have a choice, that I have "free will", but if god created me with this free will yet knows what I will choose, how can I choose different from what he already can foresee?

False dilemna bro. Google it.

Plus, what if it's possible that he can see all possible outcomes, and knows all possible contingencies, and has planned for that? It's like chess; I make this move, you make that move, and I can see an infinite number of moves ahead of you and have planned for every possible move you make.

You took the analogy the wrong way. If this was a very small child it might not perceive us yelling "stop!", and/or it might just choose to run anyway. It doesn't matter: We have the ability to stop the child from suffering and we choose not to.

That is simply not moral.

Yeah, but then by not allowing sin and making people exist in a perfect world, you've removed love from the equation. That'd be forcing people to "love" God, and that just can't happen. And if love is the ultimate end goal of morality, then that can't be the best solution.

The truth is that morality is something a lot of religious people say god gave us only to then make every single excuse possible for the immorality of god himself.

This is the foundation of the Euthyphro dilemma. Saying God is immoral based on the framework of God is a self defeating statement. But, provide an example of God being immoral.

[Lydiot]

@Jabberwocky, that's only looking at one side of the equation. If we accept the Christian God is omnipotent as described in the bible, we must also subscribe to the fact that he is loving. (Which will open up the whole can of worms of theodicy, which is beyond the scope of this post. The problem of evil has been argued ad nauseum.)

If we accept that God is loving, then he has a vested interest in not only not "banning" us, but ensuring that we succeed. He wouldn't force us to love him, because love is not something that can be forced

Sorry, but it's just the same illogical inconsistency in a different form. God is omnipotent but love can't be forced? Of course it can, god can force that because he is omnipotent. That's what that word means.

Addendum: should clarify I'm talking specifically about the Christian God, and I am a subscriber to sola scriptura.

Now there's a consistent source that makes sense....

[OPFOR77]

Now there's a consistent source that makes sense....

Yeah, if your just gonna be insulting, then go away. Or, better yet, I will. If you need to insult people to prove your point, then your just a troll and not worth debating.

Good job "winning" this.

[Lydiot]

But if you create someone with a choice, and you know what choice they'll make, and you then tell them to choose wisely or they'll burn in hell for an eternity, then you're not "nice". There's is absolutely nothing moral about that.

This is oversimplifying it greatly.

If I gave you a choice between water and poison, and told you that you need to drink the water or you'll die, I can safely assume that you'll choose the water. But, per you, I'm now not "nice" and am completely immoral?

You're not creating a correct analogy. In your analogy I exist and you give me a choice. There is no mention of where I came from. Your analogy would correct if it read:

"If I was omnipotent and chose to create you the way you are, and then gave you a choice knowing which one you'd make, and that choice would be poison...." etc.

And I absolutely maintain that if a person has foreknowledge about the choices that will be made then the distinction between "free will" or "control" is practically speaking moot. I may think I have a choice, that I have "free will", but if god created me with this free will yet knows what I will choose, how can I choose different from what he already can foresee?

False dilemna bro. Google it.

No "bro", it ain't. Google it.

Plus, what if it's possible that he can see all possible outcomes, and knows all possible contingencies, and has planned for that? It's like chess; I make this move, you make that move, and I can see an infinite number of moves ahead of you and have planned for every possible move you make.

Again an analogy that doesn't work. I either have a choice or I don't. If you were the creator of me and were omnipotent you wouldn't only see all possible moves I could make, you'd know them in advance - i.e. not just the possible ones but the ones I'd eventually make. That's the difference.

The truth is that morality is something a lot of religious people say god gave us only to then make every single excuse possible for the immorality of god himself.

This is the foundation of the Euthyphro dilemma. Saying God is immoral based on the framework of God is a self defeating statement. But, provide an example of God being immoral.

Why is it self-defeating?

Look, the fundamental problem here is that logic is never ever going to convince a person set in his faith. Not gonna happen. If god gave man morality you would think that the morality is objective. You'd think that this morality is universal. Yet I bet that if we discuss what is moral and come to the conclusion that, oh, say genocide is immoral, and it is pointed out that god commanded it, then you'll have an exception for it. Such an exception won't be acceptable for people, which means that this morality was never objective in the first place. It's highly subjective. It's subject to god's opinion on any given topic on any given day.

Only god can judge god. Or something similar.

And since god is omnipotent it's entirely possible. But so is everything else. Including creating us purely good and living in eternity in happiness without the need to love him....