For those who don't believe?

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

That is that we can't experience real joy unless we have also experienced pain; to understand warmth, we must once have been cold, etc.

But that is an unfounded assumption. And to be honest it is a very weak one at that. Sure it sounds nice if someone is trying to explain away all the bad things in the world (we really need them so we can feel really happy) but really it is nonsense.

Hot and cold exists. There is no universe where you cannot be cold. So how would you know if you cannot be warm without knowing what cold is

For the "real joy" argument again that only holds because pain exists. So part of the joy we feel is being thankful that we are not in pain. But if pain didn't exist this wouldn't be a option. Are you saying we would be less joyful because we were not thankful we weren't in horrific pain? How would you know?

Thankfully, from a Christian perspective, you don't need to answer because the Bible answers for us. Adam and Eve didn't experience death or pain like normal humans. And they still experienced joy. In fact more joy than us

So from a Christian perspective its a nonsense point. We fell from the perfect state of Adam and Eve. The idea that we can be more happy than them because we feel pain and fear death doesn't make much sense

Also in heaven there is no pain and suffering, yet people in heaven are supposed to experience perfect happiness. Again from a Christian perspective it clearly isn't necessary for such pain and suffering to exist for people to experience happiness.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

Come on Brain, that was a bit weak. You are leaving out large parts

Firstly God created Satan, knowing that Satan would rebel and create Hell and tempt man kind.

Simple answer? Don't create Satan. Is there a reason why God had to create Satan?

Secondly God created Adam knowing that Satan would tempt him (through Eve and the Snake) and that God would then punish Adam's children

Simple answer? Well spoiled for choice. You know this is going to happen, so simply don't let it happen. As mentioned above, don't create Satan. Or once Satan has rebelled simply destroy Satan. Or don't put Satan in Eden in the form of a snake (that would seem the most blindingly obvious one). Or don't put the tree of knowledge in Eden (again pretty obvious). Or heck put the tree of knowledge out of reach of Adam.

Thirdly God decide the punishment for Adam and Eve for disobeying him.

Simple answer? Don't condemn your most prized creations (humans) to a life of suffering and death just because you want to. Was there a reason this had to be the punishment for humans based on what Adam did?

Fourth Satan has access to humans to tempt them and lead them astray.

Simple answer? Don't let Satan have access to humans

I mean I could go on and on and on about all the things God could do if he didn't like what was happening.

Its funny that Christians go on about God being all knowing and all powerful, but when it actually comes down to it God seems a bit of a nut case. He creates things that he knows are going to cause trouble. Why create Satan? Why place the tree in Eden. Why punish humanity with death?

Theists often use free will as a justification for all this, as if we have to have the choice between good and evil to have free will, but that is a very weak argument. Our free will is not dependent on Satan existing. Our free will was not dependent on the tree of knowledge being in Eden. None of this was necessary.



- You set up a soccer team = Creation

- One of the players tell you that he is going to throw the game next Saturday but you let him onto the team anyway = Creation of Satan

- Saturday comes along and you put the fake player who says he is going to throw the game in the starting line up = Satan in the garden of Eden

- You tell the players not to pass to the fake player despite the fact that he is a player on the pitch = Tree of knowledge and Gods instructions to Adam and Eve

- The fake player shouts to have the ball passed to him. One of the other players passes the ball to him. The fake player takes the ball and scores an own goal in your team's net. You lose the game = The eating of the fruit of knowledge

- You get really mad not just the player who passed the ball to the fake player, but the whole team as well. You disband the team = The Fall

You say that you are putting the team back together but you will only let a player on the team if they apologize to you for what the player who passed the ball did on Saturday = Redemption for the Fall

Does that seem fair?

Well you can say that you told the players not to pass the ball to the fake player. One of them didn't listen to you, therefore it is all his fault that you lost the game and you are right to demand an apology from him.

But think about that for a minute

The coach knew the fake player was going to throw the game. Despite this he let him on the team and decided to play him in the game. Why let him on the team, and why let him play on Saturday

(btw if the coach is God the coach also knew that the player would pass to the fake player and they would lose the game, yet he still played him and still got mad at the player when this happened)

The coach told all players not to pass to the fake player (who should never have been on the team in the first place) and 9 of them didn't. Only 1 did. Yet the entire team is disbanded. Why not just punish the 1 player who didn't listen, but also why give that player the option to pass to a fake player in the first place when you know he will. Why put the fake player on the field?

The coach took no responsibility for the fake player being on the pitch, despite the fact that he knew he wanted to throw the game and knew that he was going succeed in throwing the game.

And he demanded that the players, who didn't know what was going on and who had no control over the team roster, accept that it was all their fault this happened and apologize to him if they want to get back on the team.

Its nonsense. Total nonsense. Do you need more explanation as to why people don't believe this stuff?

To be honest you are missing a huge part of this to even believe that there was a garden of eden let alone all the other nonsense you would have to believe in creationism which even most sane christians except was just a story to explain to people where they had come from of course when they were making up this story they did not take into account a Mr Darwin would blow a huge hole in the story later on. Of course once you except that the garden of eden was a made up story it makes you wonder how they can stand over any of it.
Having said that Christianity is no worse than jewish muslim hindu or any of the rest they are all based on nonsense.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Oh yes, I forgot. God's plan is not for us to second guess :rolleyes:

What was God's plan in creating Satan?

What was God's plan in allow Satan in to Eden?

What was God's plan in putting the Tree of Knowledge in Eden?

What was God's plan in punishing all of humanity for Adam's disobediences?

The whole God knows what he is doing argument is very weak. Are you honestly claiming that all this had to happen or otherwise things would be worse than they are? Utter nonsense.

If Satan was not allowed in Eden what would have happened? If God had not placed the tree of knowledge in Eden what would have happened?



No actually he didn't, because he knew that Satan would turn away from him.

If he knew this would happen then it not happening isn't a possible outcome. It was always going to happen because God cannot be wrong and God already knows what will happen.

Satan was always going to turn evil (or create evil or what ever he is supposed to have done). Yet God made him anyway. And he put him in Eden. And let him talk to Eve. Why?



How exactly did they secure this?

Are you saying God could not love us if he didn't first create Satan, place him in Eden, place the tree of knowledge in Eden, and then punish Adam by damning all of humanity?


Nonsense

You assume humans must be like we are now. Why?

Humans can be anything God wants them to be.



Again, why? Do you actually understand what you are talking about?

If Satan didn't exist why could we not love each other?

If Adam had not fallen in Eden why could we not love each other?

I have heard this line of argument so many times but I've never heard an explanation for why this is supposed to be true.

It simply falls back to "Don't second guess God" argument, the blind faith argument that theists seem so good at.

Adam and Eve could love before the fall, the fall wasn't necessary for them to love. So why is it necessary for us?

Come on Brian its nonsense

i guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, becasue through how, many posts on free will, you just fail to grasp and understand it. I don't get it because I find the whole concept to be quite simple.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

If Adam had not fallen in Eden why could we not love each other?

This misrepresents the Christian position. The free-will argument does not state that it was necessary for Adam to fall in order for us to be able to love. Rather, it was necessary for Adam to have the choice to fall or not.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

i guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree, becasue through how, many posts on free will, you just fail to grasp and understand it.

Groan :rolleyes:

Why when ever you back a theists into a corner where they cannot explain the why they simply resort to the old "oh you will never understand" statement and storm off?

BrianCalgary wrote:

I don't get it because I find the whole concept to be quite simple.

No offense BC but I imagine you have actually no clue to the logic behind any of this and simple accept it because you want to accept it.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

Just thinking that possibly what BC is getting at is the notion adhered to by Herman Melville in my sig.

That is that we can't experience real joy unless we have also experienced pain; to understand warmth, we must once have been cold, etc.

I agree with this idea - I just take exception with the amount of pain and suffering allowed for us to experience joy, and the unequal manner that suffering has proliferated itself geographically and otherwise in our world.

For once I agree with Wicknight. The argument that we need pain and suffering in order to appreciate joy makes no sense to me. It makes me cringe every time I hear well-meaning Christians utter it.

It would be like ... (shut your ears, Tim Robbins, there's another analogy coming) like me beating up my daughter and saying, "This is so you'll appreciate it more when I'm nice to you."

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

This misrepresents the Christian position. The free-will argument does not state that it was necessary for Adam to fall in order for us to be able to love. Rather, it was necessary for Adam to have the choice to fall or not.

Why?

All humans have only ever had free will to select between the options that God presents before us. There are plenty of things we cannot do because God has not given us the option to do them (you can't fly for example, no matter how much you want to)

So, bearing this in mind ...

Why did Satan have to be Eden for us to be able to love each other?

Why did the Tree of Knowledge have to be in Eden for us to be able to love each other?

Adam and Eve had free will, this was not dependent on the tree of knowledge being in the Eden. Nor was it dependent on Satan being in Eden.

*Wicknight awaits another "Oh you just don't understand" comment*

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Why?

Why did Satan have to be Eden for us to be able to love each other?

Why did the Tree of Knowledge have to be in Eden for us to be able to love each other?

*Wicknight awaits another "Oh you just don't understand" comment*

Love is a choice. In order to choose to love someone there must also be an alternative available, a choice not to love. You cannot, for example, programme a computer to love you.

Satan and the Tree of Knowledge were the particular circumstances by which a choice was presented. I don't see that it had to be those particular circumstances. It could conceivably have been Puff the Magic Dragon and a command not to eat the magic mushrooms.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

For once I agree with Wicknight. The argument that we need pain and suffering in order to appreciate joy makes no sense to me. It makes me cringe every time I hear well-meaning Christians utter it.

Nietzche wrote quite well on this, his view is opposite to yours, of course doesn't mean his are right and yours are wrong. But I can confirm he can argue his
'that which does not kill me makes me stronger.' better than I could.

It would be like ... (shut your ears, Tim Robbins, there's another analogy coming)

Again, please leave the personal jibes out please, let's stick to the advice of the mods.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Love is a choice. In order to choose to love someone there must also be an alternative available, a choice not to love. You cannot, for example, programme a computer to love you.

Satan and the Tree of Knowledge were the particular circumstances by which a choice was presented. I don't see that it had to be those particular circumstances. It could conceivably have been Puff the Magic Dragon and a command not to eat the magic mushrooms.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Are you claiming that Adam could not love God unless a test of said love existed in the world?

Say Satan didn't exist.

Adam would still have had the choice to love God or not, because such a choice is part of his nature. it is independent of trees or snakes or gardens.

Certain the tree is chance to test this love. But a test is not a requirement for the choice to exist in the first place.

Adam would have continued to have the ability to love God or not love God even if the Tree of Knowledge was not there.

And God certainly doesn't need a test to see if Adam loves him

Its like claiming that a person only loves his wife in the instant when he is presented with the option to cheat on her and doesn't.

That is certain a test of said love, but it is not the love itself. The love exists even if such an option to cheat doesn't exist. The choice to love the wife or not exists independent of any thing else.

For love between God and Adam to exist all you need is God and Adam. If the Tree of knowledge never existed Adam would still have to the choice to love God or not love God simply by existing

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

Again, please leave the personal jibes out please, let's stick to the advice of the mods.

Lighten up, it was a friendly comment, knowing how you feel about analogies. Genuinely no offence or dig intended.

Cardinal

PDN is right on this one. For love to exist the possibilty of not-love has to exist. Imagine a world where everyone loved everyone. The word love would never be invented because no alternative would exist. How can you identify something if there is no alternative.

Scofflaw

Cardinal wrote:

PDN is right on this one. For love to exist the possibilty of not-love has to exist. Imagine a world where everyone loved everyone. The word love would never be invented because no alternative would exist. How can you identify something if there is no alternative.

That there wouldn't be a word for it is not the same as it not existing. Imagine, for a moment, that there is some way all humans automatically act towards each other, that we don't even notice. We wouldn't have a word for it, but it would still be a real phenomenon.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Groan :rolleyes:

Why when ever you back a theists into a corner where they cannot explain the why they simply resort to the old "oh you will never understand" statement and storm off?.

You have not backed me into a corner at all. Believe what you will. You just don't want to understand. It's like the creation thread, where you would see JC and wolfsbane just not understanding science.

Groan all you want, you just don't want to see.:eek:

Wicknight wrote:

No offense BC but I imagine you have actually no clue to the logic behind any of this and simple accept it because you want to accept it.

No offense taken. It makes pefectly good sense to me and millions of others. We have faith that god has His reasons for doing things. Just as you have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing. Which to me is just a ridiculous notion and an almost comical one at that.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just as you have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing. Which to me is just a ridiculous notion and an almost comical one at that.

Brian, seriously we've been over this. A lot. No theory says that.
I mean, this coming right after a comment about understanding science.

DublinWriter

BrianCalgary wrote:

No offense taken. It makes pefectly good sense to me and millions of others. We have faith that god has His reasons for doing things. Just as you have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing. Which to me is just a ridiculous notion and an almost comical one at that.

As a Buddhist, I could never openly ridicule someone else's belief system so openly. Sure, I'll argue and gently prod, but respect for others is a central pillar of my basic beliefs.

It seems to me that every Christian theological argument ends with jumping off a cliff called 'faith'.

Once an Christian theological argument distills and dervies itself into it's basic core central paradox, then the 'faith' card is freely played. It's the great get-out-of-jail wildcard that cannot be trumped by any logical arguement.

But we Buddhists seek to embrace that nothingness which you so freely ridicule as comical. Maybe it's the fact that Buddhists don't believe in a central, overarching monothesitic God that makes us so wantonly willing to peek under veil of 'faith' in order to be truely enlightened.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Lighten up, it was a friendly comment, knowing how you feel about analogies. Genuinely no offence or dig intended.

No worries Fatso, eh that's a joke too

Back to your argument don't agree love is a choice. I love logic, I don't choose to love logic I just love logic. Now excuse the anecdotal evidence which off course is not scientific or logical but I can't see any argument to infer one actually chooses to love.

You cannot, for example, programme a computer to love you.

Yes because computer is not sentient. Sentience would be a prerequisite to any love. You should also clarify what type of love you are talking about, Eros, Philos, Agape for example not that is necessary to rebute your computer argument but it clarifies your own point, for the purpose for debate.

CArdinal wrote:

PDN is right on this one. For love to exist the possibilty of not-love has to exist.

Yeah but what is not love? For not love to exist, love has to exist. sounds like a circular logic you have there Cardinal.

Imagine a world where everyone loved everyone. The word love would never be invented because no alternative would exist. How can you identify something if there is no alternative.

I can identify a dog, a glass and there is no opposite. I am not sure there is a concept of an alternative, sounds a bit wooly.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Why when ever you back a theists into a corner where they cannot explain the why they simply resort to the old "oh you will never understand" statement and storm off?.

Without faith one can never see the world the theist sees it. Faith is a sort of discontinuity - one can be entirely logical about non-faith matters, and entirely logical in the way one follows and considers one's faith, but the step of faith itself is something entirely different.

Since each side consider's the others axioms untenable, each sees the other as operating 'through the Looking-Glass' - but the step of faith aside, neither position is less logical than the other.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

BrianCalgary wrote:

Then why do you mention at least twice in your post 'my happiness', seems to be a priority in your life. Just curious and observant.

Haha, you tried to dodge the question again! Really, you must start to doubt your own position when you constantly avoid defending it.

1 - God is omnipotent.
2 - God is all-loving.
3 - Therefore, God could and must arrange a blissful alternative to Hell for everyone, including those who do not believe in Him.
4 - God does not do this, therefore either 1 or 2, or both 1 and 2 are false.

Please refute this argument if you wish to maintain that your God is both omnipotent and all loving.

Yep, Because He gave Satan free choice as well. No robots in God's creation of Angels or Humans.

Uh yeah, but as Wicknight has already annihilated you on, God was in control of all this from long before Satan existed.

Ahh, the good all cop out, I dont have to prove anything. I think it beats the God did it one.

Hahaha. I find that extremely ironic considering that the first point is the basis of human rationality, while the second one is the most common failing of said.

Allow me to explain the nature of human rationality to you. I shouldn't have to but it might help you understand the atheistic position.

Ok, first of all, the logic that I use to conclude there is no God is the exact same logic you apply everyday in your life, just not in regard to your religious beliefs. This is the tragedy of faith. I'm talking about scepticism, which essentially requires a couple of steps.

- There are an infinite number of possible claims.
- How likely to be a true any given claim is, is directly related to how much evidence is provided with the claim.
- Claims with no evidence are assumed to be untrue until sufficient evidence is provided.
- The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim.

Now, imagine some scenarios where the onus of providing evidence was not on the one making the claim:

- "Brian, your wife is smuggling cocaine."
- "Officer, officer, that man just tried to kill me!"
- "I AM GOD INCARNATE!"
- "Theres a flying unicorn in my attic."
- "I've discovered a new species of beetle."
- "Gravity goes down!"

Seeing a pattern here? If we don't demand evidence from the claiment then our perception of reality breaks down to rammbling nonesense.

So why Brian, why? Why are you so rational every day of your life except in this regard? Take a look at these claims:
- "I am Budda reborn".
- "Life was begun on Earth by aliens!"
- "God was made flesh to redeem our sins from the dawn of time!"
- "I am the son of Zeus and shall rule from my moon base!"
- "The world is actually carried on the shoulders of a gigantic man!"

They're all absolutely ridiculous claims. And I'm sure you're probably as dubious of most of those claims as I am. So why, why is the "God made flesh" claim free from the burden of proof, while you're happy to dismiss the notion of Zeus-Spawn ruling from a moon base?

And thats the thing Brian. Although you can't prove that Zeus-Spawn won't rule the world from a moon base, you are entirely correct to reject it. Its ridiculous and any supposed evidence turns out to be lies and ignorance.

Just as I am perfectly correct to reject the creation myths of the ancient tribes of Israel, there's virtually nothing to support its laughable claims.

Brian Calgary wrote:

Just as you have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing.

The only reply science has as to the origin of the universe is to say that we don't know yet, nor are we likely to ever know because models suggest that the laws of physics weren't established for the first few millionths of a second after the big bang.

It has nothing to do with faith: All the evidence points towards there being a gigantic explosion in space time as far back as we can see. Whether we like that idea or not is irrelevant. Whether we can integrate that idea into our worldview without getting upset is irrelevant. All the evidence supports it, so its probably true.

And just to firmly nail you into your coffin, God is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. Where did God come from? If God has always existed then you've already shown that you believe something can exist outside time thereby rendering the "origin" question irrelevant.

Zombrex

Cardinal wrote:

PDN is right on this one. For love to exist the possibilty of not-love has to exist.

The possibility of love not existing is independent on God created the Tree of Knowledge and placing it in the Garden of Eden

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

You have not backed me into a corner at all. Believe what you will. You just don't want to understand.

I have no problem understanding. I understand plenty of things I don't agree with

The issue is that no one here is actually able to explain it, without using the "God knows what he is doing, it is not for us to judge or understand" explanation, which isn't an explanation at all it is just giving up.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It's like the creation thread, where you would see JC and wolfsbane just not understanding science.

That doesn't stop the rest of us being able to explain to them what science is.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Groan all you want, you just don't want to see.:eek:

If you explain what I'm supposed to be seeing I would be quite great full BC

BrianCalgary wrote:

No offense taken. It makes pefectly good sense to me and millions of others.

Well again I don't believe that is true. I think you simply ignore the fact that it doesn't make sense.

BrianCalgary wrote:

We have faith that god has His reasons for doing things.

Again that isn't understanding, that is faith. You don't know why God did these things, you don't understand why God did these things. You simply believe (blindly) that he must have done them for a good reason, because your axiom of faith tells you that anything else is not possible.

You cannot explain to me why these things make sense because you don't know why they make sense. You can tell me that to accept them I have to have faith that God knows what he is doing. But then I already knew that. If one accepts the axiom that God cannot ever to something wrong then naturally one rules out the possibility that anything God does is wrong, even if they do not understand themselves why it isn't wrong.

I have the advantage of being open to the possibility that it is not possible to explain this stuff simply because it doesn't actually make sense.

You are closed off to this possibility because of your religious beliefs. To you it must make sense, even if you do not understand it. Which is fair enough. But it doesn't exactly convince me of your argument.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just as you have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing.

I don't have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

I don't have faith that the whole universe came into being from nothing.

Interesting: provokes the question:
what is nothing? A human construct?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Interesting: provokes the question:
what is nothing? A human construct?

Well the simple fact of the matter is that we have no idea what was the state of anything before the Big Bang

I noticed in New Scientists this month they had an article about speculation of what the Big Bang was. While I only skimmed it in the news agents I didn't notice any of them suggesting that "nothing exploded" or anything like that

Asiaprod

DublinWriter wrote:

But we Buddhists seek to embrace that nothingness which you so freely ridicule as comical. Maybe it's the fact that Buddhists don't believe in a central, overarching monothesitic God that makes us so wantonly willing to peek under veil of 'faith' in order to be truely enlightened.

Very well put:)