Originally posted by kingdanwaI mean interfered as in helped or hindered or otherwise meddeling in the affairs of people. As in killing the first born son etc (which seems a really nice thing for a supposedly benevolent, peacful, and loving god to do).
Does "interfer" mean to take away your free will? Or are you referring to how God walked with Adam in the garden?
Originally posted by dagsI'd say that God is still active in the world. After all, it is His, He did make it.
I mean interfered as in helped or hindered or otherwise meddeling in the affairs of people. As in killing the first born son etc (which seems a really nice thing for a supposedly benevolent, peacful, and loving god to do).
And the Bible would suggest that you add Just to your list of characteristics.
Originally posted by dags1.) I did not say my god. I said, the benevolent god you speak of, in reference to premise of this thread.
Ok so your god gave everyone free will? At what point did this happen? At what point did your god stop interfering in the affairs or choices of people?
2.) Humans were created with free will, according to many different church teachings. This is how Christianity easily distinguishes human from animal (animals were not given free will), and also what allowed the original sin and led to the banishment from the garden of Eden.
3.) While we have free will, that does not prevent that same god from interacting or interfering with our lives. What it means is that we have the choice to do good or evil, to worship the creator or to disbelieve in any creator.
4.) What purpose would it serve for a god to give us free will and then dominate our lives by immediately punishing any wrongdoing? Instead, with the New Testament, teachings change to essentially a more hands-off approach. "You will do what you will do. If in the end it is not satisfactory, you will not reap the glories of having chosen a good life."
5.) This is not to say that no interaction occurs or that there is any specific guarantees of action or inaction. What it does mean is that punishment may not be immediate and swift. We are allowed to do bad things. When you think of Revelations, you must realize that horrible things must be allowed humans. Otherwise, the horrors and glories of that chapter would not be possible.
Originally posted by kingdanwaSo killing innocent people is "just" if it's done in a religious cause regardless of who or what does the killing? Christians have been killing innocents since the day dot and claiming it to be just.
I'd say that God is still active in the world. After all, it is His, He did make it.
And the Bible would suggest that you add Just to your list of characteristics.
And the instance she/he touches anything in this world then she/he take away free will (i.e the ability to self determine ones future).
Originally posted by dagsBy what standard do you consider the Egyptians "innocent?" They were certainly not just and innocent by God's standard.
So killing innocent people is "just" if it's done in a religious cause regardless of who or what does the killing? Christians have been killing innocents since the day dot and claiming it to be just.
And the instance she/he touches anything in this world then she/he take away free will (i.e the ability to self determine ones future).
I think you mean "instant." I find your definition of "free-will" to be entertaining. I would like the rest of my future to be in the air. I "will" for gravity to no longer influence me. Where is my free will? Does gravity negate my free will?
Originally posted by kingdanwaSo it's OK to kill people if they are not innocent by god's standard?
By what standard do you consider the Egyptians "innocent?" They were certainly not just and innocent by God's standard.
I think you mean "instant." I find your definition of "free-will" to be entertaining. I would like the rest of my future to be in the air. I "will" for gravity to no longer influence me. Where is my free will? Does gravity negate my free will?
Entertaining? how? “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. (plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill) Therefore if she/he interfers, the alternatives available to be chosen are changed, and there is then no free will.
The laws of physics can negate free will, more so than any christian god.
Originally posted by dagsIf someone has the authority to execute someone, then yes.
So it's OK to kill people if they are not innocent by god's standard?
Entertaining? how? “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. (plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill) Therefore if she/he interfers, the alternatives available to be chosen ...[text shortened]... then no free will.
The laws of physics can negate free will, more so than any christian god.
If you'd like a less divine example, go on a killing spree in Texas.
And I apologize for smiling at your position, I was not aware that Plato had spoken to our topic.
Why do the laws of physics have more authority than the God who made said laws?
Maybe I'm missing your point. If I'm not responding to what you're getting at, please repeat your position is simple words and clauses so that I may try to follow it better.
Originally posted by kingdanwaI'll try.
If someone has the authority to execute someone, then yes.
If you'd like a less divine example, go on a killing spree in Texas.
And I apologize for smiling at your position, I was not aware that Plato had spoken to our topic.
Why do the laws of physics have more authority than the God who made said laws?
Maybe I'm missing your point. If I ...[text shortened]... , please repeat your position is simple words and clauses so that I may try to follow it better.
Plenty of people kill other people and say god told them to do it. There is no proof that she/he (god) didn't tell them to do it. Does god tell them to do it as a test of their following of the 10 commandments? Do they go to hell when they follow the divine order?
The laws of physics have more authority because one can test and quantify them. You can't design a repeatable, quantifying test of god.
My position was that throughout the bible god does things to help or hinder people. If god gave us free will then does anything to remove or reduce the options available, we no longer have free will. So either we had free will all along (there is no god), or, god lied to us when she/he said we had free will (breaking one of her/his own commandments)
Also, if we had free will from the time of eden then all the horrible things god did to people thoughout history hardly qualify her/him as a just, loving, benevolent god.
Originally posted by dagsI found the referenced article rather interesting. However, the definition of "free will" that I was using is a much less complicated matter (and appears to be part of the author's debate over the differences between freedom of action and freedom of will, as well as the far more dubious conversation concerning compatabilist and ultimate free will): the ability to make choices, or as Dictionary.com would say:
Entertaining? how? “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. (plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill) Therefore if she/he interfers ...[text shortened]... s of physics can negate free will, more so than any christian god.[/b]
From http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20will
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
And to more directly address your comment, if free will is the "capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives" then what difference does it make if the available alternatives are constrained to some degree? So long as there are alternatives to choose from, it seems that "rational agents" will need a "capacity...to choose a course of action" from amongst those choices.
There is a significant difference between being able to do whatever one wants (freedom of action) and being able to decide what you want to do (freedom of will).
what difference does it make if the available alternatives are constrained to some degree? So long as there are alternatives to choose from, it seems that "rational agents" will need a "capacity...to choose a course of action" from amongst those choices.However, then why didn't God just limit our initial options to only good choices?
Originally posted by kingdanwa
According to the biblical picture of God, on what basis do we assert that his over all plan is to optimize the greatest good? And by what criteria do we evaluate this good? Couldn't we say that the greatest good in history was the sacrificial death of Jesus? God giving himself over to death for sinful, worthless people. This is the greatest good in history.
To answer 1 and 2 (within a Christian context, of course), we can turn
to the Bible -- murder is not good, feeding the poor is good, say. So,
we can say that, when innocents were killed for having a faith different
than the Inquisitors, we must either conclude that this was 'good' (i.e.,
without every single death, the world would be 'less good'😉 or it was
'not good' (i.e., God permitted the existence of 'less good' or 'bad'
situations and is thus callous to the 'not goodness' within His creation).
So, given God's presumed omnipotence (which I take for granted that
you believe), He had within his capacity to increase the goodness in
the world (by, say, giving the head-Inquisitor a revelation that his
actions were evil) but demured. This runs contrary to any notion of
benevolence I've ever heard.
As for asserting that Jesus's Death and Resurrection as the single
greatest good in history, we must view these events (accepted as literal
fact for the sake of argument) in their historical context: did these
events lead to the greatest good? Did suffering increase or decrease
as a result of these events? Did poverty end and more starving people
get fed? Was slavery and sexual discrimination disappear?
If you consider the minimization of suffering, starvation, and
discrimination as a 'good,' and if you believe that God has it within His
omnipotent capacity to minimize (or end!) these things, then can you
conclude that the Death and Resurrection were, in fact, the greatest
good in all of history -- that no other events led to the minimization of
these things?
I can hear the wise Christian saying: 'But, Nemesio, you are concerning
yourself with 'worldly things.' The Death and Resurrection were not
concerned with things of this earth, but of the hereafter (cf St Paul, &c
&c).'
Well, let's ignore the various admonitions of Jesus to attend to the
poor and needy (especially my favorite passage in St Matthew 25) for
the time being. If we accept that the purpose of the Death and
Resurrection was to aid in the salvation of souls to the hereafter, we
can ask very similar questions: Did the way in which Jesus die optimize
the 'coming to God' of the people around Him? It would seem to me
that, if God wanted people to be saved, He could do a variety of other
things which would increase people's faith.
The various atheists on this site have said that if they saw even one
unequivocal proof of God's existence, they would believe. Some even
wish that they could believe in a great and benevolent God but for what
they consider to be a dearth of evidence! Surely, if God were
interested in the salvation of all humankind, He could do a magic trick
every 10 years to remind people that He exists and that people should
follow His Commandments. Even such a trivial and silly idea would
have greater impact than intercontradictory Biblical stories about Jesus
or even less historically credible stories in, say, Genesis.
As far as God being indifferent to suffering, according to the biblical picture, God is the only one doing anything of value to stop suffering. He's promised an end when all evil will be squelched, and his mercy is the only thing extending the time between now and that end.
I don't see how such a claim can be rationally supported. If we accept
the above as true, we would have to conclude that, if it weren't for
God, more people would have died in the Holocaust. In fact, we have
to conclude that God couldn't prevent any fewer deaths from occurring,
because then He wouldn't have been doing His utmost to prevent
suffering (but then, is He omnipotent?).
Such a claim does not sit well with what I understand to be Orthodox
belief about God.
Nemesio
Originally posted by kingdanwaTo answer that question would require an understanding of why God created us. For what purpose do we exist?
However, then why didn't God just limit our initial options to only good choices?
Did He seek admirers? If so, which do you think would be more valuable: people who admire you because they know of no other options, or people who admire you because they have chosen to after considering numerous other options?
Did He seek entertainment? If so, what would be more entertaining: a bunch of people who never fail to help one another and be nice, or a group of people who must struggle to discover what is right and then work to help others see it as well, always fighting against the clock?
Good has no useful meaning without evil; the least good is always going to be the most evil. Perhaps we are unable to do evil even now. Without an outside observer to tell us, there is no way for us to know.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio,
[Nemesio[/b]
I'm intrigued by the points you raise. I try not to allow myself to make knee-jerk reactions, so please accept my delay in responding as a compliment (and as a demonstration of my limited Internet access) as opposed to neglect.
Originally posted by kingdanwaUnlike some, I do not claim timeouts on posts.
Nemesio,
I'm intrigued by the points you raise. I try not to allow myself to make knee-jerk reactions, so please accept my delay in responding as a compliment (and as a demonstration of my limited Internet access) as opposed to neglect.
Nemesio