No. The agnostic doesn't know whether or not the the world can be accounted for without God belief. It is not presupposing anything. 

Well, I was just using the agnostic as the example of what is unbiased.

I think God, or at least the God of Christianity, almost certainly does not exist, so I'm not an agnostic in the sense that I was using. However, I don't presume that world makes perfect sense without God; I've simply observed that everything already makes sense, without requiring any supernatural deity to explain it. 

I still don't see why he does this though. I mean, he seems to be getting discouraged or losing interest quite easily; if I knew people were going to hell, I would give them as much evidence as I possibly could to save them. The potential for "condescending" them would seem to be a completely insignificant consideration. I would continuously point out empirical evidence for everyone and show them what a great guy I am. The way he does things doesn't make sense to me.

If the exact situation was replicated, would a person ever make a different choice? If he actually always only makes one of the choices, then it doesn't seem any different from not having free will at all. In that case, it doesn't seem like free will has any practical value, even if you may argue that it has intrinsic value. 

Then, how does everything in the world progress according to his plan if he doesn't control it?

When I say, "intentionally producing," I do mean that the creator of the stock market intentionally caused the activity of the stock market. 

Is everything that happens what God wanted to happen? Does anything ever happen that God didn't want to happen?

I don't see how that contradicts what I said. If God has the ability to make choices, and he created us in his likeness, then he created our ability to make choices. He just made sure that our ability to make choices was like his.

Okay. So, you're using a more rigorous definition of necessary than me. What is necessary is what is true regardless of what values you assign to the premises. If I stand on the Earth and drop a ball, I should say that the ball falling towards the Earth is contingent on me dropping it while standing on Earth. I should not say that the ball necessarily falls towards the Earth because this is an improper use of the term "necessary?" If it was necessary for the ball to fall towards the Earth, then it would travel in the direction of the Earth regardless of where I dropped it and whether I dropped it or not. 

I would like you to start a new thread proving that the Christian God is false.

God only reveals himself to those who seek him with an open heart, rather than people who are going to patronize and mock him if he does not adhere to their arbitrary standards of evidence.

First of all, you have to believe he exists.  If you do not, then you already have presuppositions about reality which will close yourself off from him.

Then you have to genuinely seek a personal relationship with him, which requires you to not so much rationalize what will have to happen in order for him to be made real, but to simply allow itself to occur in whatever way it should manifest.  I really cannot explain it.  It is something that has to be experienced. 

It's not an interpretation.  I'm going by exactly what scripture says.  

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

It's not an interpretation.  I'm going by exactly what scripture says.  

 

     That's a pretty weak statement as every Christian denomination that rejects  Calvinism / Reformed Theology also does so on the basis what scripture "says".

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

I only gravitate towards the truth and the truth is, Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago and was God in flesh. 

Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Confucius, Laozi, the various founders of Hinduism, Charles Taze Russell, Moses, etc. were all regular people.  This is not my opinion; Not a single one of these individuals are claimed to be God.  The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ isn't just a messenger of God, but is God himself.

Why would I follow regular people instead of God?

The passage you've cited actually reveals something really compelling:  God hates someone.  Most people believe that God loves everybody and he just hates sin.  This is actually not true.  He hates sinners.  It is not comforting, but think about how much you hate someone like Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson.  We base our hate on the gravity of an offense that someone commits, but to God, any sin is as offensive to him as the actions of Adolf Hitler are offensive to you.  You have offended God so much, that he has hatred towards you.  God's love is not unconditional.  Now you may be thinking that this contradicts the Sermon on the Mount, but it does not.  Notice that Jesus never uses the word "hate".  It uses the word anger.  Here is a good article on hatred in the Bible:  http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

This part of the passage illustrates predestination in action.  God, without any reference to Esau and Jacob's behavior, mentioned that one was among the elect while the other was not.  That's not to say that God makes this determination without any preconditions, as he knew he would eventually develop a personal relationship with Jacob and Esau would fall away from him.  But God's sovereign will included the free choices that he knew both of them would make and his plan included his love for Jacob and his hatred of Esau.  This says nothing about free will, nor does it say anything about the lack of free will.  It just attests to predestination, which I've already agreed is in the bible.  Throughout the course of this thread, I have been explaining how this is consistent with free will and your citation of this passage does nothing to refute anything I've said.  I've admitted that everything is preordained by God.

 

...How is this 'compelling'?  It should be patently obvious that Yahweh is brimming with hatred & malice; it's not exactly an act of love or kindness to annihilate whole cities with fire from the sky. 

It's strange to hear a Christian making this point, though. You don't find it a little warped to be in worship of a being who, by your own admission, has such tremendous flaws of character? Are you saying your worship is strictly based on the power you perceive your deity has, then? 

  Hello again FS,   I Googled using the search term "refuting calvinism" and found 966 hits.  I haven't examined all 966 but I will assume Christians ( not atheists ) are the vast bulk of the persons that are refuting predestination .  For example:

     http://www.youtube.com/user/RefutingCalvinism

     also, an anti-calvinist website that reveals what a sordid dictator that Calvin became while residing over Geneva.  To dissent meant a death sentence for the unfortunate victim.  Calvin really got into the practice of "burnt offerings"  and Michael Servetus was only one of many victims.   

     http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

:

 

 

  Therefore, it is important for you to cite to me what biblical support these other denominations use in order to defend their position.

 

 

  I just gave you almost a thousand web-sites containing opposing viewpoint from Christians who do not accept your cherished doctrine of "predestination".   

   I even gave you two links that you could have immediately accessed that you obviously have ignored and as you have failed to even address a single point regarding their publicly made arguments I suspect that you will never respond.  If you want to know what verses they use to counter your pov then go to the source and, as you like to say "DO YOUR HOMEWORK"   I'm not your freaking secretary.  Sheesh.

Obviously, it would be convenient for atheists if that was Christianity, as that could easily be refuted by a number of passages where God is hateful.  Unfortunately for atheists, there are Christians out there who actually do read the Bible, know what it says, and will have an answer for any Old Testament passage that you want to copy from your favorite atheist book or website.

Suddenly I apparently need to define what terms lime 'omnibenevolence', 'victim' and 'bias' mean. Here:

It's worth mentioning, of course, that omnibenevolence isn't a coherent concept (as you seem to understand, from the scenario you gave), so at least you're a step ahead by acknowledging that it's not something your deity possesses.

Your excuse for worship makes me quirk an eyebrow, though: according to North Korean law, citizens have no rights aside from the right to praise Kim Jong-Il - yet the most gracious Dear Chairman has still afforded many of them life, in spite of there being no law protecting it. Do you see the despot of North Korea as a worthy patron as well, then? 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Suddenly I apparently need to define what terms lime 'omnibenevolence', 'victim' and 'bias' mean. Here:

If you use fuzzy terms in fuzzy contexts, then I'm going to call you on it. 

Quote:

It's worth mentioning, of course, that omnibenevolence isn't a coherent concept (as you seem to understand, from the scenario you gave), so at least you're a step ahead by acknowledging that it's not something your deity possesses.

I've only heard atheists use the term "omnibenevolent".  Would you be able to cite any Christians who use the term and have clearly defined it? 

Quote:

Your excuse for worship makes me quirk an eyebrow, though: according to North Korean law, citizens have no rights aside from the right to praise Kim Jong-Il - yet the most gracious Dear Chairman has still afforded many of them life, in spite of there being no law protecting it. Do you see the despot of North Korea as a worthy patron as well, then? 

Kim Jong Il did not create the world ex nihilo.

Kim Jong Il is not the ultimate source of logic, morality, and existence.

Kim Jong Il did not create us in his image.

Kim Jong Il cannot offer us eternal life.

Kim Jong Il is only the arbiter of contingent man-made laws and not of eternal moral laws.

Kim Jong Il is going to die someday.

Kim Jong Il has never gratuitously paid a fine for all of humanity.

 

Please find a better analogy.

I know that God created us in his image because the Bible says so.  We are not created in Kim Jong Il's image, as this can be observed.

100percentAtheist wrote:

Is it possible to assume there is another god who created Kim Jong Il and people alike in his image?

Would it be possible to consider Kim Jong Il as a god's messiah to that group of people?

Thank you.

100%

"Created in God's image" means that our nature is fundamentally immaterial and that we are rational beings with a free will.  It means that we are similar but not greater than or equal to God.

There cannot be another God who created Kim Jong Il because (a) there can only be one God, and (b) Kim Jong Il is also in God's image.

There can only be one God because as Kurt Godel demonstrated, the "God" property necessitates that a being have all positive predicates.  If another being shared the same "God-likeness", then it would just be identical to God, since, as Leibniz demonstrated, any two things which have the same properties are actually one thing.  Therefore, there could not have been another God to create Kim Jong Il in his image because there could not have been another God to begin with.

Kim Jong Il is in God's image because he is substantially immaterial and capable of making choices.  However, God, as far as we know, created all other sentients with an imperfect will.  Even angels were capable of making bad choices.  In the case of original sin, the first humans violated God's law and, as a result, our universe became tainted with sin.  As a result, the sin virus is passed through the generations and we all inherit it so long as we are the result of the fusion of sperm and egg.  Therefore, evil dictators such as Kim Jong Il come into being.

 

100percentAtheist wrote:

How do you explain the existence of multiple religions in the world?  Many of them are older then Christianity.  If I understand you right, if I pray to other gods, then I am a sinner in the eyes of the God.  But how could people know the God before Jesus?  Where they sinners or not?

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.  Religion can be loosely characterized characterized as a body of doctrines and practices based upon a set of beliefs regarding the ultimate meaning of our existence.  It all starts with the presumption that things ought to be better than they are.  We recognize that we exist in an imperfect world, so we constantly find ways to make it more tolerable.  Religion is the attempt to find an absolute answer to that very question; How can we ascend to a mode of existence where everything is as it should be and things could not possibly be better?  As such, the goal is to build your existence in the here and now around the answer to that question.  Buddhists believe the answer is to relinquish the self... Taoists believe the answer is to reconcile humanity with nature.... Hindus believe the answer is to become one with Brahman... Jews and Muslims believe the answer is in performing certain works... atheists believe the answer is to live in the here and now and just enjoy an imperfect existence as best as you can, etc.  Since this is a difficult question, it can be easy to understand why so many people would make mistakes.  Yet today, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison.  Evidently, there is some force behind the idea that only through the power of God can we attain that mode of being, where everything is as it should be.  Beyond that, Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of. 

God revealed himself in the Bible long before Jesus was born.  Most scholars agree that God allowed people into Heaven based on the revelation he had given up to that point, since the death of Jesus redeemed mankind for all of eternity, not just for the time that followed.

Fortunate_S wrote:

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.   

Should I burn in Hell for all eternity just for making a mistake?

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.  Religion can be loosely characterized characterized as a body of doctrines and practices based upon a set of beliefs regarding the ultimate meaning of our existence.  It all starts with the presumption that things ought to be better than they are.  We recognize that we exist in an imperfect world, so we constantly find ways to make it more tolerable.  Religion is the attempt to find an absolute answer to that very question; How can we ascend to a mode of existence where everything is as it should be and things could not possibly be better?  As such, the goal is to build your existence in the here and now around the answer to that question.  Buddhists believe the answer is to relinquish the self... Taoists believe the answer is to reconcile humanity with nature.... Hindus believe the answer is to become one with Brahman... Jews and Muslims believe the answer is in performing certain works... atheists believe the answer is to live in the here and now and just enjoy an imperfect existence as best as you can, etc.  Since this is a difficult question, it can be easy to understand why so many people would make mistakes.  Yet today, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison.  Evidently, there is some force behind the idea that only through the power of God can we attain that mode of being, where everything is as it should be.  Beyond that, Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of. 

God revealed himself in the Bible long before Jesus was born.  Most scholars agree that God allowed people into Heaven based on the revelation he had given up to that point, since the death of Jesus redeemed mankind for all of eternity, not just for the time that followed. 

I am not sure however that the believers representing other religions will immediately admit that they have made a mistake by choosing a false religion solely on your argument that "Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison."  I think you may admit two facts: 1) Islam has almost the same number of followers as Christianity, and together with Hinduism these two religions have many more followers than Christian believers. 2) Except Islam, most of major religions have been founded thousands years prior to Christianity.  

Also, would you admit that "Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of " applies only to those who grew up in Christian culture.

Remember that there are no absolute moral principles especially based on religious beliefs.

That said, do you have any better arguments that the God is the only existing (or ever existed God)?

 Not all other gods need to have the same powers as the God, and I agree with you that the God should be the most powerful one.

But was this always the case?  Could there be other gods, sons, angels, etc. who at some time (before Christ) might have more power than they have now?  

Fortunate_S wrote:

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Then why the hell are you on the internet, using a computer, and electricity, and I'll bet you are cooking a dinner you bought from a store and didn't raise yourself.  And if you did raise it yourself, you used shovels and trowels and rakes and other equipment you also bought at a store.  ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR LIFE IS BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF SCIENCE.  Without science, you'd be sitting on your butt around a campfire freezing half to death while you seared a root you grubbed out of the ground with your hands.  You must be getting desperate in your arguments if you are going this route.

Fortunate_S wrote:

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Then why the hell are you on the internet, using a computer, and electricity, and I'll bet you are cooking a dinner you bought from a store and didn't raise yourself.  And if you did raise it yourself, you used shovels and trowels and rakes and other equipment you also bought at a store.  ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR LIFE IS BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF SCIENCE.  Without science, you'd be sitting on your butt around a campfire freezing half to death while you seared a root you grubbed out of the ground with your hands.  You must be getting desperate in your arguments if you are going this route.