|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Theists, if your god exists and is omniscient and omnipotent...
Posted on: January 9, 2007 - 11:56pm
   Offline
Theists, if your god exists and is omniscient and omnipotent...
...why the hell does he need YOU to defend him?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
I'd like an answer to that too
Epicurus once said:
- Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Now we say:- Is he busy? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he somewhere else? Then he is not omnipresent.
- Is he ignorant that I made the request? Then he is not omniscient.
The problem is that all such excuses implies that a supposedly limitless God has limitations.God had no time to create time.
Indeed.
Damn good point. And I can hear the crickets chirping...
Anyone...anyone...Beuller? Beuller?
Quiet as a mouse pissing on cotton.
God had no time to create time.
Thanks Pikachu, I feel special.
Pokemon sucked, btw.
Who said he needed us to defend him?
Theists, who imply that very sentiment every time they spout off as God's mouthpiece.
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
God had no time to create time.
Think about this, If God intervened and proved us all wrong, we would end up like robots (no free will what so ever)
don't even talk to me about the whole (God knows all of our decisions) as you yourself don't understand it completley nor do I; its humanly unfathomable for our peasized brains
Has anyone ever actually said that or is this post just to vent?
God had no time to create time.
defend what?
God had no time to create time.
no, I'm currently Catholic
What I know about it so far makes sense to me. (No I am not done looking at everything yet)
You don't have to come right out and say an implication. That is what the word means, after all. That said, I've been on atheist forums and read atheist websites and read reviews of atheist books, and, uh, wouldn't you know it, God doesn't seem to have much to say on the matter! It just looks like a bunch of theists stepping up to the plate. I don't see God defending himself, just a bunch of people. If God doesn't need you to defend him, then... uh... why are you defending him? Does it make you feel all wuzzly inside? Do you think maybe God needs some backup? Did God actually reply to any atheists and I just missed it? Does he post at PZ Myers' blog? Did he write any reviews of Richard Dawkins' books? Does he post on atheist forums? Is God just resting?
1) What's wrong with being robots?
2) Supposedly God intervenes at Judgement Day -- every knee will bow, and all. So it's okay for everyone to be robots in the afterlife?
3) I'm all over this on this page. I await the same tired refutations I've heard a dozen times before!
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
Whadda mean whats wrong, there's everything wrong with having no free will to say yes or no; just like how we Americans say that 2 bucks is chump change, we say that cause we haven't experienced it yet in our own lives, but if you check 3rd world countries, 2 bucks can buy food for a while.You assume that theists are defending God? That doesn’t even make sense. If you are asking why we are here, I can only speak for myself. I am here to try to further my knowledge about the world, God, Atheism, science, ect. Just because, as a theist, I may disagree with you on what you believe about God doesn’t mean we are “trying defending God.”
God is fake.
I contend that theists are no better than robots now. (See my obnoxious post here: http://tinyurl.com/ya7ee6 ) After all, you're kissing god's ass now in preparation for kissing it for all eternity. What makes it even sadder is that god doesn't even exist. You're wasting your life on a lie.
You say god is staying out of the picture to give us free will. If that's the case, what happens in heaven? Do you stop having free will? Supposedly you'll be perfect in heaven, but you also claim Adam was created perfect and still sinned (an impossibility, by the way). Heaven will be full of little Adams and Eves running around, ready to fuck things up so god has to make yet a THIRD covenant. Your entire world view is a huge logical fallacy.
Let's add conundrum to conundrum: why does he need YOU to defend him for not defending himself by saying, "Think about this, If [sic] God intervened and proved us all wrong, we would end up like robots (no free will what so ever [sic])."
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I am as Libertarian as it gets, but why exactly is Free Will an issue? Isn't it the illusion of free will that matters? Also, getting informed does not remove Free Choice, whether you are informed by God or men in fancy Lab coats.
But I could be wrong.
I think those who are arguing "free will" think that if their god descended in a blaze of glory, forcing us to believe in his existence, we would all bow down and serve him. After studying the Old Testament during my formative years I would be disinclined to worship such a deity, so yes, free will would still exist. Sort of.
In my opinion, being asked to choose between two bad choices is not free will. Examples:
1. Kiss evil biblegod's ass or go to hell.
2. Eat dog shit or eat wolf shit.
3. Kiss Hitler's ass or go to a concentration camp.
I'm sure the Nazis were fond of saying, "Hey, don't blame me. You chose to go that concentration camp when you chose not to obey Hitler!" Today's American Christians are arrogant and irrational enough to claim non-Christians choose to go to hell. Of course, there is no god and no hell so the point is moot, but Christians believe in hell! That they would worship a god who created such a place says a lot about them, doesn't it?
And don't you dare invoke Godwin's law on me.
Biblegod is actually worse than Hitler because his punishment never ends. At least a poor dissident in Auschwitz would eventually die and be freed from torment.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
This relates to what I was thinking earlier today on Oedipus the King
First I'll assume that god exists and he isn't the Christian god (maybe instead he created the universe and left much of it alone...)
What if God intervened and in the process we learned that god has few limits with two of them being:
- He is tied to the universe's present
- He has limited computational power
Now if #2 is limited enough that he can't play the universe into the future faster (imagine it being a simulation) than time goes by in the universe. This means that god can't know the future (though he might know the past.) Even if there might not technically not be free will (from the fact that he can play the universe forward), would there be effectively free will?I believe that there would be. If no one can't know what the future will be for sure, then being concerned that you are a 'robot' is of little value because you wouldn't be able to know your fate and thus, it would be up to you to discover your fate (and thus avoid problems that you might find in Oedipus the King)
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
God does not "need" us to defend Him at all. He loses nothing intrinsically as a result of unbelief.
However, His love of humanity and desire for their eternal salvation, going to death on the Cross for their salvation, causes Him to desire to bring to conversion those who exist in sin - for example, the sin of unbelief. Thus, the answer is obvious from here.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Then why are you wasting your time?
Then why did he create humankind in the first place?
He loves humanity yet he'll send us to hell for not believing something as ridiculous as your world view. If that's love, I'm all for hate.
Yours in Reality, Eternal Truthseeking,
Iruka
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I ran across this at Richard Dawkins' website and thought it apropos:
A quick question: do you even bother to read our posts or do you just have a book-length list of baseless assertions that you flip through blindly and the one your finger lands on is the one you post? Considering your complete inability to address the illogic of your position, I have to wonder.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Out of free choice, God created man. Out of free choice, He loved them and wished their eternal salvation. He does not act with violence against that which He has created with freedom of choice. So, He "persuades," if that is a good word. My defense argues in such a manner to prove that the faith is not irrational, with the ultimate end in view being that of saving your souls.
God created humanity freely. He created them: "[To] show forth His goodness, and to share with us His eternal happiness in heaven." He created us freely and out of love.
God lets us choose hell freely by sin. To turn away from the Uncreated Good is the same as to choose hell. He does not properly "send us" to hell. Humans choose it and go there freely.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
StMichael,
You seem like such a nice guy. You seem kind and well-meaning. It's just hard to understand how you can really really believe all that.
However, I must take issue with your arguments that your god is showing goodness, sharing happiness and that he wished humans eternal salvation.
Your god asks/demands praise. That's a bit narcissistic, don't you think? (Not to mention, a very human quality.) When you do something nice for someone, you don't (or shouldn't) do it for the thanks you receive in return. I do plenty of volunteer work and, believe me, you don't do it for the few (if any) kudos. I do it because 1) it helps some that have not been as fortunate as I; 2) it helps proliferate well-being; and 3) it helps in areas about which I am passionate.
Showing goodness and sharing happiness? All I need to do is see a picture of all the displaced people from Katrina to dispell that. As I've mentioned in other threads, I'm sure there were plenty of good, god-fearing xians in New Orleans that lost literally everything (including family members) and still haven't recovered.
The reason I use that example is because you can't say that Katrina was caused by free will.
Please don't use the argument that your god is testing us. That makes humankind sound like a science experiment gone wrong. Kind of like "I"m going to have your sister murdered, give you cancer when you doh't have health insurance, have your car break down when your MasterCard is maxed out and then send a flood when you don't have homeowner's insurance. I'd like to test you to see if you will live through all that and you will still iike me."
If your god was so intent on having souls spend eternity with him, there would be no reason to send them to earth in the first place with the free will to foul up and lose that spot in heaven that they had in the first place?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
God does not demand praise from human beings in the sense you mean. God does not desire praise for His own sake. God desires praise for our sakes. It is in rejoicing in God that our happiness results. By sharing God's life with Him and by living in His grace, we are happy with Him for all eternity. He loves us and wants us to be happy, and that is the reason we praise Him. God Himself cares if we praise Him only out of love for us, not from something He gains from it. One needs only to look at Christ on the cross to see that God as given Himself wholly to us. Let us do the same, out of love.
It has nothing to do with a reward in the sense you mean it. Imperfect charity does a good work for the love of the reward. Perfect charity does a good work out of pure love of God. There is a famous story about Saint Thomas Aquinas, who was a wonderful theologian and philosopher. One day, he had completed his great treatise on the Eucharist and the manner in which Christ is present therein. He was in the church praying when his secretary came by. His secretary peeked in and saw Aquinas levitating in front of the cross on the altar. Aquinas held out his treatise in his hands, saying, "Have I spoken well of thee, Lord?" Christ on the cross, to the secretary's further surprise, looked at Aquinas and said, "You have spoken well of me [Bene scripsit me]. What reward would you have?" Aquinas responded, "Only Yourself, Lord; this is all the reward I could want." The perfect reward of the true lover of God is God Himself. No good can surpass Goodness Himself; this is the reward of heaven - to possess God eternally.
Christians are not spared from natural suffering. In fact, there is a famous quote by Saint Louis de Montfort that Our Lady "sends pieces of Christ's cross to her dear sons and daughters." Suffering is the central problem addressed by Christ on the Cross. It solves the problem of evil in the most loving way possible. Christ redeemed suffering and death by His Passion and Cross, and doing so made our suffering and death redemptive. Poverty, chastity, and the giving up of one's own will in obedience forms the three cruxes of religious life (as a monk, nun, friar, sister, ect.). One denies oneself here to attain to the hereafter. This is how God redeemed suffering and death. I quote Saint Francis:
"O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled
As to console;
To be understood,as to understand;
To be loved, as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life."
Katrina is an effect of original sin, because it brought suffering and death into the world. Individual humans today did not bring it about by sin. Christ destroyed the power of death and suffering by His Cross and that is why we can be confident in the way of these things.
God is not "testing" us. God might send what is necessary for each's salvation by His Providence, but I would be quite hesitant to call it "testing." God's love for us determines how things happen. While we cannot be sure what causes a specific event or even how it might be good for us, we can trust in God's wisdom and love.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
don't be frontin' son and no seeds on the bun
we be up in this drive thru
order for two
I got the craving for the number nine like my shoe
we need some chicken up in here
in this hizzle
for rizzle my nizzle
extra salt on the frizzle
dr. pepper my brother
another for your mother
double double super size
and don't forget the fries."
People who are addicted to drugs do so often because those drugs immitates those hormons but in taking the drug instead you get too much of it and so it harms you. I think too much praying is just as harmful as taking drugs. It is not natural.
God had no time to create time.
The entire concept of original sin is idiotic and monstrous. Can you even imagine sending someone to prison after finding out their great-grandfather robbed a bank? Christianity is so stupid.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
First, you don't need to be rude.
Second, you have not offered a reason why prayer might be harmful. There is no evidence to support your assertion.
Third, drugs do not usually effect hormone surges; drugs lead to other substances existing in the brain. For example, ecstacy increases seratonin levels in the brain. Other drugs are different forms of stimulants or depressants which also do not operate using hormones. They might affect hormone production, but they (as far as I know) do not use hormones.
Fourth, if God exists (as I contend can be proven naturally), religion flows necessarily from the fact that God is the Supreme Good of the universe and thus necessitates our worship from justice.
Fifth, further, prayer is the uniting of the will to God. But this is the same thing that is required if we are to attain happiness (as perfect happiness lies in unity of the human mind with God). Hence, prayer is the way to attain perfect happiness.
Original sin is not sending us to prison in the way you see it. Original sin is defined by Saint Thomas as: "For it is an inordinate disposition, arising from the destruction of the harmony which was essential to original justice, even as bodily sickness is an inordinate disposition of the body, by reason of the destruction of that equilibrium which is essential to health."
Original sin is deleterious toward our eternal salvation because it destroys the original grace ("justice"
in which humanity was created. Naturally, we cannot of our own powers attain salvation (because God is above the power of our nature). God, when He created man, created Him in grace. However, original sin lost those graces. The effects of it are many: death, disease, an inclination to sin, ect. The effect on salvation is twofold: the lack of grace makes it naturally impossible for man to attain salvation and the disorder of human nature causes all men to be unable to avoid sin consistently by their own power (both because of an inclination and because of a weakening of our natural powers in resisting). This is original sin.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Again, you're saying that your god wants us to be happy, but you say that the only way to be happy is rejoicing (yes, that's another word for that praise I was talking about) in your god. This goes back to my argument of narcissisim.
How about volunteer work because something just plain needs doing? It's not necessary to do it for any reason other than that. It's kind of like doing the laundry. It just needs to be done.
Oh dear. I'm now concerned - you actually believe that someone was levitating? If you were right about everything and all the really righteous folks did that, there would be levitation on the 11:00 news.
It's obvious that no group is spared from suffering. If all that was fixed with the crucifixion, apparently everyone prior to that didn't have a chance. If any of that were true, your god didn't do a very good job of fixing things since there's still so much suffering around.
Please don't use that old "eternal" argument for that. Someone shouldn't have to be miserable while they're here to be rewarded later. Seems pretty unfair of your god and not very nice, either.
It sounds to me as if "giving up one's own will" and living by your god's rules is what your god wants. Yes, free will not to obey, but then your god will punish humans for eternity.
That's just a little bit of circular logic.
Hurricanes are caused from humans fouling up a kabillion years ago? Sorry, I can't help it. Do you hear my eyes rolling? (No, I was not raised Catholic and have always found the idea of original sin quite odd.)
If the Adam and Eve story were at all true (which I do not believe it is), your god knew perfectly well what was going to happen and yet allowed it to happen. Not very nice.
If your answer is "free will," that takes humans right back to being a science experiment and your god doing the testing.
Again, oh my. Your god must really love all those people in New Orleans. Or the parents of a child born with encephalitis. Or a child of abusive parents. etc etc etc
It's wisdom and love that causes encephalitis and adults drowning babies in bathtubs? I could never ever believe that.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
It has nothing to do with God needing or wanting the praise, which is narcissisim. God wants us to be happy because He loves us; the way for Him to do this is to unite ourselves to Him through such means as prayer, praise, ect. The motive of our praising Him is our love of Him and the motive He has for having us praise Him is His love for us (and wanting us to share in His eternally perfect happiness).
That's called social work. There's nothing wrong with that and in fact it is necessary. However, the Christian is motivated by a supernatural motive: love of God and love of neighbor in God. This motive ought to inspire everything we do, from the most trivial to the most important. Everything that "needs doing" becomes a means of supernatural grace. This, for example, would be the particular "charism" or emphasis of such saints as Saint Therese of Liseux or Saint Josemaria Escriva (Opus Dei's founder).
All people do not levitate, nor do all Catholics, nor do all saints. It is a special gift of grace. Otherwise, yes, it would be constantly on the news.
On the other hand, I do not find it either impossible or irrational to believe that Saint Thomas Aquinas was levitating.
The people before lived in a state of expectation. It would be a bit complex to explain succinctly, but they were saved because of Christ's coming.
In terms of after the Crucifixion, God did not eliminate suffering. He made it a means to holiness.
Eternal argument?
Free will is not a freedom not to obey. Freedom, true freedom, is a choice between goods. Original sin, our turning away from God, allowed the choice of evil. In heaven with the angels and saints, there is free will but it does not entail a choice of evil. Giving up our own will is essential to becoming happy, because only then can we unite our will to God's.
The reason people die from hurricanes is original sin. The hurricanes themselves probably would have happened anyway, in my estimation.
Love only exists if it is free. We can only be happy if we are free to choose a good. Further, God allowed it to happen for a greater good as a result: Christ's Incarnation and our being made adopted sons and daughters of God.
Free will is the explanation only in so far as our free will is a condition for our happiness.
Yes. He does. The cause of death and disease is sin. God did not will that. He created us in a state of original justice, to be happy forever. Human beings, tempted, turned to sin and abandoned those gifts of grace. Now, we die and get sick. God did not abandon us, and thus restored creation in His Son. This does not mean that those things disappeared; they just became a good in view of our eternal salvation - a means of holiness. God does not wish for us to die or get sick, but makes the best of our condition.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
Think about this: that has nothing at all to do, whatsoever, with "free will".
1) Free will does not involve believing whatever you want.
2) Beliefs are not a choice. We must accept them. Not choose them.
Think this over: Free will has to do with choice. Choice involves choosing between a set of options. To choose from a set of opotions, we must first know that theys options exist. Choices are therefore enhanced when we have more knowledge, not less. To actually 'choose' to follow 'god' it would be helpful to first believe that this 'god' exists.
Your 'god' supposedly punishes those who do not 'accept him' with eternal torture. It would then behoove this 'loving god' to make himself known to his own creation. You'd think that a 'god' that is necessarily perfectly responsible for every aspect of his creation, including their free will by the way, would be able to make himself known.
Also consider that this argument goes against the christian dogma that 'the devil and 1/3 of god's angels' knew god existed, and yet made a choice to not follow 'him'. This again helps support the obvious: that we are not free to believe or not believe whatever we wish. We can't believe what we don't believe.
This is a special plead fallacy - you're saying your 'god' is defined as 'unknowable'. If your 'god' is defined as unfathomable, then you are not able to say anything further about this god.
So you must remain silent on the matter of 'god' from now on.
By the way, have you ever had a problem convincing anyone that you exist?"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yet here you are. By 'choice' right?
Now, tell us why you've chosen to be here? Don't you feel a need?
Do you see how your responses simply move the problem one step back?
I noticed you tossed in the word 'intrinsically', which leads me to believe that you needed to put that in, otherwise, without it, the statement is false, even in your eyes.
According to your religion, those who do not believe suffer eternal torture. I'd say that a loving creator ought to be bothered by such an outcome.
But hey, if logic gets in the way, just discard it, right?
Problems abound:
Why sacrifice himself to himself, to get himself to change a rule he made himself?
Why create sin in the first place? Before you bleat out "free will": Why not create 'free will' without sin? Before you try 'so we could learn' explain why a god needs a contrivance. Before you say "its not for him, but for us" please recognize that your moving the problem one step back and that the problem eventually goes back to your 'god'
Why put people in peril in the first place, only to save some of them? Why create people he knows will suffer in hell, seeing as he is responsible for creating hell, the person, the person's character, and every aspect of existence that dictates that person's outcome, including the 'free will' of the person!
Better yet, why create the danger at all? In fact, why create the concepts of danger and harm? If the 'goal' is for us to live in paradise, why the need for any contrivance?
Why not simply make himself "known" axiomatically?
Please don't bother writing out a set of rationalizations that we've already seen 100 times. Just think it over. Nothing in your 'worldview' makes any sense if you walk away from your emotional attachments to it.
I've noticed that you are demonstratably wrong about many of your claims about the church. You were clearly in error about your claims about catholocism and negative theology as I demonstrated in another thread, I even cited Pope JP II using negative theology. And now you make this claim: that 'unbelief' is a sin.
Perhaps you need to take a look at this:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=albacete&topic=complete
Wright: So you believe that a Buddhist can be saved, can have salvation, the afterlife that a Christian has...
Lorenzo Albacete: Probably faster than I would.
Wright: And what about an atheist?
Lorenzo Albacete: Oh yes, faster than I would in all probability...
Wright: What would an atheist have to do to get into Heaven?
Lorenzo Albacete: Even St. Thomas Aquinas would say "Follow his or her conscience." Be honest to your heart.
Wright: But clear moral...
Lorenzo Albacete: Yes but it's not the morality that gains you heaven. It's not because an atheist does good things. It is the heart that gets you there. This is very important. Even for the Christian, a Christian can fulfill every damn moral law there is And end up in hell. This is a doctrine of the church. It's not what you do, it is your stand in respect to otherness. It is your conscience. I don't know a more beautiful expression in this than the work of Levinas, who is not a Christian. He talks about the moral challenge to you by the face of an other. It's your ability to see And respond to this otherness of the other in a way that gives yourself to them...
Wright: As a matter of fact, you've just expressed a very liberal salvation doctrine... inclusive And modern...
Lorenzo Albacete: I think you could look it up And read in Pope John Paul II, the redeemer of man, Second Vatican Council ... I can give you many references... the cataclysm of the church...
The idea that unbelief is a sin is without a doubt one of the most immoral concepts to come from catholicism.... turning doubt into a sin is morally repugnant because it devalues man's mind and his ability to think.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
You're notincing a pattern in his argument that I noticed: "Mike" tends to deal with the problems in his argument by either moving hte problem one step back, or by turning to a synonym. When I told him that 'faith' was merey unjustifed belief that begs the question of a god, he said that was untrue, but then went on to say "yes, we must assume there is a god"
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
No. I clarify the exact case later.
Logic is never to be discarded, and I take offense when you keep painting my position as a rejection of logic. Your whole position is one of a rejection of logic, not mine.
As to whether God is "bothered" by this, I would agree now, as I do later in the same post.
I don't know what you are referring to.
One cannot be a rational being without free will. One cannot share in God's happiness and the life of the Trinity without an soul. God never created sin, properly speaking, as sin is a nonexistent quality.
God never created hell; hell is the side effect of sin. God created the individual conditions surrounding the person, but He does not determine the outcome of the person's freedom. As to why God created humanity in the first place, because He thought the good outweighed the evil result. The evil result is not an effect of God, for even though God causes the person to exist, it is purely their own fault and of their own volition that sin occurs. God causes them to exist, but He does not cause the fault to exist in them. Hence, He is not "responsible" for their sin at all. His love dictated His actions in creation man and God wills no evil to any creature.
Again, these were not created by God. They are an effect of sin.
He did, initially. God cannot be known axiomatically because what He is is beyond human understanding. In original justice, God was known, not axiomatically, but by His grace in our souls. Human beings' choice of evil lost this, among other goods, proper initially to humanity.
I could easily say the same thing to you: "Nothing in your 'worldview' makes any sense if you walk away from your emotional attachments to it." It is not an argument.
Except that I cited specific evidence from Fides et Ratio refuting your nonsense, whereas you never responded.
Which it is.
I quote the Catechism, the official teaching of the Catholic Church:
"
Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11
2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.61 The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances...."
This is licit teaching, in a sense. I would tend to believe a Catholic would "get to heaven" faster than an atheist, but that is not always true. An atheist or a Buddhist can attain salvation, but only in very specific circumstances and exceptions.
I would point out that Msgr's teaching is not necessarily an accurate presentation of Catholic doctrine.
This is true, but not in the sense you construe it. The unbelieving can only be saved in limited circumstances and exceptions. This does not mean that unbelief is not a sin; only that the atheist has not properly committed the sin of unbelief.
It is true that Saint Thomas said that one ought to follow one's conscience, but he likewise said that in a specific context. He likewise taught that unbelief is a sin.
I think Msgr's language is rather confusing, as he presents more what he means later, saying that the Buddhist can acheive salvation only by believing in Christ through his belief elsewhere. The Buddhist is saved, but not without Christ. His discourse is not intended for an atheist, nor is it intended to be a clear presentation of Catholic doctrine.
I quote an official document, Dominus Jesu, which you ought to likewise read in order to clarify what the Msgr. means (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html): "
21. With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God — which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church — comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself”.83 Theologians are seeking to understand this question more fully. Their work is to be encouraged, since it is certainly useful for understanding better God's salvific plan and the ways in which it is accomplished. However, from what has been stated above about the mediation of Jesus Christ and the “unique and special relationship”84 which the Church has with the kingdom of God among men — which in substance is the universal kingdom of Christ the Saviour — it is clear that it would be contrary to the faith to consider the Church as one way of salvation alongside those constituted by the other religions, seen as complementary to the Church or substantially equivalent to her, even if these are said to be converging with the Church toward the eschatological kingdom of God.It is not immoral or repugnant. It does not devalue our ability to think. Unbelief is the acme of ignorance, looking at it from the point of view of faith. Thought is a pursuit of the truth, and turning away from the Truth itself is contrary to the proper exercise of the mind. I think it is also necessary, however, to make a clear distinction between doubt and difficulty in the sense given in the above Catechism quote, as they carry different moral weight: there is doubt which is voluntary, and there is involuntary doubt, which is also called a difficulty. Difficulty with faith is no sin; persistence in unbelief is.
If we want to define "religious faith" in a vacuum, we must assume that God exists for the term to make sense. Defining the term "faith" itself, however, does not properly beg the question as it is not an argument for the truth of a proposition.
But faith, even in colloquial usages, is not unjustified belief.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.
I've demonstrated why your position is a rejection of logic: because you must take it on a special plead. You argue that your 'god' is beyond comprehension, yet you continue to assert from a position of postive theology. You'll do so again in this very post. QED
On the other hand, you have not demonstrated that my 'position' is a rejection of logic. You have just asserted it is.
This is a naked assertion. You have not supported your claim that one cannot be rational without freewill.
Also, this point is moot: even if your claim is true, you can't argue to necessity - your creator could create a rational being without free will. So your claim fails for two reasons. Actually, probably more, but I'm pressed for time.
You've not defined what a soul is, you've not demonstrated that people have souls, you've not demonstrated that they are in fact 'required' for anything. More assertions, no demonstrations...
Oh, and again, you're arguing to necessity, but you can't do so in regards to an omnipotent creator.
This is the sort of nonsense I'd expect from a 14 year old. Are you trying to argue that 'sin' is an absence of good? Dear me, for your own sake, I hope not.
If so: Sin is a descriptor of an intention and an act. Both 'exist' as a behavior.
I should also add: You beg the question that 'sin' is required for free will, despite the fact that this claim contradicts the supposed omnipotent of your creator - i.e. you are arguing to necessity yet again. Furthermore, you never bother to explain why your god would need to allow for any 'sin' that brings harms to others... if sin is a necessary fallout of free will, this does not mean that sin against others is necessary. There is no need for the sin of rape or murder, if the 'purpose' of sin is to allow for people to freely 'choose to believe' in god or not.
And again, beliefs are not a choice, your position is so error riddled that it's hard to pick an error to focus on.
Finally, again and again you dodge the points before you: that a perfectly responsible creator is perfectly responsible for every parameter of existence, which makes this creator responsible for the possiblity of sin, and the actuality of sin, seeing as this god also controls every aspect of the human who 'makes sin.
You just keep ignoring this. Because it's fatal to your position.
Again, (notice how often I must preface my statements that way...) your 'god' created the concept of hell, the concept of 'sin', the concept of right and wrong and good and evil and men and women and human action. He could have created them all differently, or not at all.
This god created the game, the playing field, and the players.... every single solitary aspect of existence that influences the player: their persona, their wants and desires (do you think you choose your desires too?) their environment, and so on...
This 'god' creates every aspect of existence... whatever could potentially happen, is due to 'him.' So he's already at fault for the potential. Next, whatever outcomes occur must also be due to himm seeing as every aspect of existence is as it is due to his fiat.
Even if you want to insist 'free will, free will, free will!" , you need to grasp that this 'god' created free will, shaped its limits, and then decided to give it to you, along with your personality and character and desires... knowing with perfect clarity what the outcome would be!
There are three levels on which to respond to this point.
1) The abstract level, that considers the logical ramifications of a necessarily perfect creator and a created universe, with a full understanding of the contingent nature of such a universe
2) The concrete level which ignores all this, and acts as if the universe were a given, beyond the control of 'god'
Prediction: Your responses will remain on level 2, even given this prediction.
Why? Because if you stay on the proper level of discussion, you'll have to concede that every parameter of existence is contingent upon this creator, ergo this creator must be perfectly responsible for all outcomes, given that he is also omniscient.
Again and again you dodge the actual point before you.
Your 'god' created their possibility, and then he created his beings to be precisely as they are... knowing full well the outcome.... he bears perfect responsibility... he must.
You can't try to avoid this by placing the blame on his own creation, for he is perfectly responsible for his own creation.
But you'll have no choice but to ignore this, and just keep re-assserting the refuted..... won't you?
Fascinating! How can something be axiomatic one day, and not the next?!
If you can answer, please promise to share the nobel prize with me... or at least give me a shout out from the dias.
SPECIAL PLEAD FALLACY.
And if this is your actual position, then 'god' can't be known at all, and all your claims have no rational basis.
I'll sit back and watch as you ignore this point, yet again.
If your 'god' is beyond human understanding, then all you can say is 'I don't know".
Yet you NEVER say that in our exchanges.. you instead answer, as if your god were knowable.
Of course, because all it takes from you is an assertion.
But we differ in that I demonstrate my claim. My claim here is the conclusion of an argument.
No, you're just confused.Once one takes a position on faith, via negativa, of course they go on to make positive claims, but the original basis is a concession to via negativa. I've cited where JP II cites negative theology, and I've given you other fathers of the church who did likewise. The reality is that via negativa is one of the ways of the church. And that's that.
Oh... in bold too! Must be true!
Please get up to date:
From the interview:
Wright: As a matter of fact, you've just expressed a very liberal salvation doctrine... inclusive And modern...
Lorenzo Albacete: I think you could look it up And read in Pope John Paul II, the redeemer of man, Second Vatican Council ... I can give you many references... the cataclysm of the church...
So please, look it up. And while your at it, learn some more about negative theology.
No, it's just true. The idea of disbelief as a sin is childish and hateful. If a person doesn't believe, it may well be what his reason brings him to...
Yes, it is.
Yes, it does.
Only if there is a rational grounds for the belief that is being ignored.
You'd think if that unbelief were really the acme of ignorance that it would be quite easy to demonstrate your point.Wouldn't you say it was near the acme of ignorance to not know that your own hair was on fire? How hard would it be for me to stress this fact to you, if it occured? Pretty easy, I imagine.
Yet you hold that unbelief in god is the acme of ignorance..... so it should be easier still to prove your case....
Yet, here you are, in fact struggling (to be kind).... to demonstrate something that you hold to be the acme of ignorance to not believe....
Every sense. Perfectly responsible....
I want you to notice, for your own edification, how you just dodged my entire post. You ignored the actual argument before you.
Parents are NOT perfectly responsible for their children, because they are not OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT CREATORS OF THE UNIVERSERE.
Parents do not create existence, they don't shape the parameters of reality. They don't create the concepts of personality and character and choice and sin... they don't create the concept of personality or desire, nor do they create your personality or your desires... they do not create these things, nor can they even control them with perfect precision.
So bringing up parents in your analogy is a self serving rationalization.
Now, can you explain how an omnipotent, omniscient creator wouldn't be perfectly responsible for his own creation? And again, for the 10,000th time, the 'free will' argument does not work if this god himself is responsible for creating the free will and granting it to his creation.
You are just dodging the points before you... you don't even demonstrate that you've understood what has been said To you...
Please go walk into a wall and try to believe it's not there.
We are not free to believe what we don't believe. Beliefs are not a choice. People can't just choose to believe whatever they like or dislike. Many beliefs are thrown at us by reality...
One more time: if you ASSUME that god exists, then you're just begging the question that he exists... your faith is therefore an unjustified belief. You start out, without any grounds ,by holding that there is a god.
And you must believe based on this assumption, because as YOU YOURSELF say, your god is beyond comprehension. There is no way to start out 'knowing' god... you must take it on faith... you must believe without any rational grounds.
By the way, this process of taking 'god' on faith because he must be beyond human comprension has a name: negative theology.
You just said that you must 'assume' god exists... that's begging the question. To say "it does not properly beg the question" is just a denial... you don't even bother to give me an argument... again.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I'll respond to this in a few days.
Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael
I'm glad to see this. It means you're going to think about todangst's well-thought-out rebuttals to your position. Thinking is good. Thinking is hard. Accepting answers from authority is easy.
I encourage you to think it through on your own for a bit before asking for help from a fellow believer. Of course, it's fine to see what other believers are saying/thinking. The more thoughts that are brought to bear the better.
I am hoping you will find your way out of theism without too much pain. Since you've devoted your life to your brand of theism, rejecting it would be very hard. It was hard for me. Still, I felt it was my responsibility to follow the truth wherever it might lead. I still feel that way and sometimes it's so hard, I have to give myself a hiatus from thinking so I can address the problem at a later date with a clearer mind.
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
First of all, let me just say todangst you did a wonderful job
The nature of the so-called debates is obvious when you expose these arguments as clearly as you did yet the other person ignores them completely.
To say that StMichael has a lot to answer would be an understatement. But he fails to even address just one issue: the free will problem. Even if he was right in everything else (which he is definitely NOT, in my opinion) he fails to solve the free will problem.
There is no other possibility other than God being perfectly responsible for everything that happens in the world. Everything.
Taking the case of Adam and Eve. God created them. He gave them free will. God is omniscient. No matter what Adam and Eve choose to do, God knows it's going to happen as he is omniscient. Therefore, when creating them, he knew exactly what was going to happen if he indeed created them the way he did. The fact that he created them nonetheless, means that God is in 'acceptance' (so to speak) with the outcome, as he knew what was going to happen and decided to go ahead anyway (Making him a cruel bastard) When he placed the infamous tree, he -KNEW- (indisputable conclusion) that they would eat from that tree, whether it was their choice or not. To deny that would be to deny the fact that he is omniscient. That makes God directly responsible for whatever happens. He made things knowing the consequence of making things. If he didn't want something to happen, he would have changed 'things' when creating them, as he is omnipotent. The very fact that things are the way they are implicates God wanted all of this to happen. So much for an all-loving God.
I don't need to debunk the parents example as todangst did it already.
Another example then: Suppose you have a mouse and a labyrinth. You create both. You create the mouse's brain; taking a logical approach; if "X" happens, the mouse will do "Y". You create the labyrinth. You create "X". Are you, or are you not responsible for "Y"? If you create the mouse's brain to say 'When you meet a red wall, turn left'. Then create the red wall, and let the mouse walk around ("Free will" ). When he meets the red wall (supposing he does), he will turn left and fall into a pit of acid. Can you say that because he was left to walk around, it's his fault he fell into the pit? The very fact that he decided to walk around in a way and not another is completely due to the creator, as it's all in the brain, it all depends on the mouse which YOU created yourself. Who is responsible here? The mouse, for being the way YOU made him?