Some thoughts on God

[DoctorGordon]

How is it you know all this blahblahblah?

 

[blahblahblah]

Here's a question for you:

Does God have free will?

I don't have a definitive answer for that. However, since God cannot do bad things*, I would have to assume that he does not have free will.**

* - I know several people will start a debate on that particular phrase. Please don't go there. I've been through it too many times. If you don't know the answer to it, Google it.

** - That is my personal feeling. I haven't done research or heard anything to the contrary. Therefore I maybe drawing the wrong conclusions.

 

[qckbeam]

How is it you know all this blahblahblah?

Why the bible of course

 

[Neutrino]

God is perfect.

Humanity is not perfect, but has free will.

God created us perfect within his specific definition of humanity.

Ok, but see this is where I see a problem. You are saying God is perfect with no qualifiers. Then you say humans are perfect, but add the qualifier that they are perfect by the definition of God. This would lead me to believe that humans are not actually truly perfect as God is.

So how exactly can a truly perfect being create imperfection? To create imperfection would be to contradict the existence of its perfection.

 

[blahblahblah]

Ok, but see this is where I see a problem. You are saying God is perfect with no qualifiers. Then you say humans are perfect, but add the qualifier that they are perfect by the definition of God. This would lead me to believe that humans are not actually truly perfect as God is.

So how exactly can a truly perfect being create imperfection? To create imperfection would be to contradict the existence of its perfection.

I have it explained in my mind, but I can figure out how to write it down in a forum post.

The best thing I can do is to seperate the word "perfect" into three different contexts.

1) The context of God
2) The context of accomplishing something God set out to do.
3) The context of humanity

Numbers 1 and 2 were perfect. Number 3 isn't. That is the best I am going to do.

 

[Neutrino]

I have it explained in my mind, but I can figure out how to write it down in a forum post.

The best thing I can do is to seperate the word "perfect" into three different contexts.

1) The context of God
2) The context of accomplishing something God set out to do.
3) The context of humanity

Numbers 1 and 2 were perfect. Number 3 isn't. That is the best I am going to do.

Alrighty. I disagree that there can be levels of perfection. I think by the definition either something is perfect or it is not. However, I'll leave it alone for now. I'm more fascinated by this new line of discussion about God and free will right now.

I don't have a definitive answer for that. However, since God cannot do bad things*, I would have to assume that he does not have free will.**

* - I know several people will start a debate on that particular phrase. Please don't go there. I've been through it too many times. If you don't know the answer to it, Google it.

** - That is my personal feeling. I haven't done research or heard anything to the contrary. Therefore I maybe drawing the wrong conclusions.

I would actually agree with you on this. From my understanding of it God would not seem to have free will.

But what does that mean then? There would seem to be some rather interesting consequences to that statement. If God does not have free will then it would mean that things like morality are independent of God. But if they are independant of God then what are they dependant upon?

 

[DoctorGordon]

Why the bible of course

It's highly possible that Moses or whoever...wrote the bible himself, then said some being called God told him to do it, and everyone believed him.

 

[blahblahblah]

I would actually agree with you on this. From my understanding of it God would not seem to have free will.

But what does that mean then? There would seem to be some rather interesting consequences to that statement. If God does not have free will then it would mean that things like morality are independent of God. But if they are independant of God then what are they dependant upon?

God. If God can only do good, therefore, that is what we should base our morals off of.

 

[blahblahblah]

It's highly possible that Moses or whoever...wrote the bible himself, then said some being called God told him to do it, and everyone believed him.

There is also the possibility the sun is evil as well.

 

[qckbeam]

It's highly possible that Moses or whoever...wrote the bible himself, then said some being called God told him to do it, and everyone believed him.

I'll have you know, DoctorGordon, that the bible also says the sun is evil...

 

[DoctorGordon]

I'll have you know, DoctorGordon, that the bible also says the sun is evil...

Ahhh finally the reason comes out why you think that. Why did God create the sun if its evil?

 

[blahblahblah]

Ahhh finally the reason comes out why you think that. Why did God create the sun if its evil?

You realize I'm messing with you right?

 

[qckbeam]

Ahhh finally the reason comes out why you think that. Why did God create the sun if its evil?

God didn't create the sun. The sun is a child of Satan.

 

[Neutrino]

God. If God can only do good, therefore, that is what we should base our morals off of.

Ok, I can agree with the stance that if God can only do good then we should base our morals off of God. That makes sense from a religious standpoint.

But then what makes an action right or wrong? Yes, you can say because God is only capable of doing right then we can judge an action from that. However, that only tells us how to have morality, not why.

Why is an action right or wrong? If God does not have free will then he is forced to take the right action. But that doesn't answer the question of why that action is right. What forced God to make that action?

If God cannot choose between two options then it would follow that the essence of morality is not based on his action but on whatever forces him to take that action. But if that is true then there is a higher force than God. Right?

 

[DoctorGordon]

You realize I'm messing with you right?

No

I'm trying to have a semi-serious discussion (it will never be serious as the subject is religion), not comedy hour.

 

[Neutrino]

No

I'm trying to have a semi-serious discussion (it will never be serious as the subject is religion), not comedy hour.

Whoa, lighten up there a bit. No reason we can't joke around a little. Also, religion is very serious for some people.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

qckbeam.. are you feeling alright? you shouldn't rub another man's rhubarb.

anyway, i can't see a logical exploration of the nature of an irrational constructs like god and perfection going anywhere.. but i'll watch and see what you come up with neutrino.

 

[blahblahblah]

No

I'm trying to have a semi-serious discussion (it will never be serious as the subject is religion), not comedy hour.

It's a two drink minimum.

I think I've appropriately mixed humor with a serious subject. I feel I have made some very valid points on this subject.

I'm fairly close to adding you to my ignore list. You are completely rude and disrespectful.

 

[DoctorGordon]

It's a two drink minimum.

I think I've appropriately mixed humor with a serious subject. I feel I have made some very valid points on this subject.

I'm fairly close to adding you to my ignore list. You are completely rude and disrespectful.

Ignore me, so be it, you're not the only person on this forum. But remember, I'm only trying to help you. You will notice nearly all my thoughts are based on logic, not opinion also.

 

[qckbeam]

You know what this thread needs? Some disco music. Time to let go and get down with the funk!

 

[Tr0n]

Ignore me, so be it, you're not the only person on this forum. But remember, I'm only trying to help you. You will notice nearly all my thoughts are based on logic, not opinion also.

Logic...your not spock.Your human...and when it comes to logic are emotions overcome it.

 

[blahblahblah]

Ignore me, so be it, you're not the only person on this forum. But remember, I'm only trying to help you. You will notice nearly all my thoughts are based on logic, not opinion also.

You are basing your logic off of what you know. I am basing logic off of what I know. I haven't seen you exactly defend or argue your position succesfully.

Somebody is sounding a wee bit arrogant.

 

[blahblahblah]

You know what this thread needs? Some disco music. Time to let go and get down with the funk!

Sweet

*blahblahblah pulls out his Disco Stu Suit.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Logic...your not spock.Your human...and when it comes to logic are emotions overcome it.

i don't know.. are they??

*Lil' Timmy destroys blahblahblah's stupid suit, and laughs at the senselessness of it all

 

[Neutrino]

anyway, i can't see a logical exploration of the nature of an irrational constructs like god and perfection going anywhere.. but i'll watch and see what you come up with neutrino.

Well, it won't get anywhere now, as I can't hear anything over the disco music. Ah well...

Boogie down! :afro:

 

[Apos]

Simlpe, the answer is choice, well rather a position in wich God allows for us to choose.

This isn't an answer. It tells us nothing to say that God allows us to choose. He still made us, so he either made us so that we would be such people as would choose bad things.

Don't you at least see the problem with a story where God declares things good (note, he doesn't declare it perfect in the abstract philosophical sense you mean it now, because all that baggage was invented thousands of years later) and then almost right away all this bad stuff starts to happen?

You can not have willfull obedience with out the possibiity of disobedience.

That's nonsense. Either you are such a person that you will to be obedience or you are not.

Something can be someone's fault, or it can be undetermined. It can't be both. The concept of "Free Will" in the sense you are trying to use it (i.e., as a way to excuse God for creating imperfect beings) is incoherent.

 

[qckbeam]

Brace yourself, qckbeam is here, and he's got the disco fever!

 

[blahblahblah]

Brace yourself, qckbeam is here, and he's got the disco fever!

Not bad, qckbeam, not bad at all.

Looks like my arch-nemisis left. He must have gotten scared away when he couldn't disprove your cold fusion theory.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

no, i killed him.

 

[qckbeam]

Not bad, qckbeam, not bad at all.

Looks like my arch-nemisis left. He must have gotten scared away when he couldn't disprove your cold fusion theory.

Why thank you dear blah. It seems the Doctor has left the internet. Something tells me he'll be back; back to suck the humor out of these threads like I suck.......well, nevermind.

no, i killed him.

You squashed the fun out of that one Timmeh!

Oh well, back to the dance floor! :afro:

 

[blahblahblah]

no, i killed him.

meh, all the same.

 

[Apos]

To get this thread back on track, let me go over some key points of contention that I and others have raised.

In regards to morality, theists contend that good is determined by God's will. The problem is that if this were so, it would mean two pretty crazy things:
-First, it would become nonsensical to claim that God is good. Saying God was good wouldn't actually express anything meaningful anymore. Something can't both BE the standard AND be judged by the same standard.
-Second, that morality would essentially be ultimately arbitrary: merely the particular commands of a particular being. There would be none of the weight most people seem to think of when they speak of right and wrong.

That's pretty messed up: it makes God's goodness an empty idea, and it indeed makes morality itself empty. In essence, it effectively leaves us with moral nihilism: morality becomes essentially a following of arbitrary, amoral directives for no particular reason at all.

The alternative is that good and evil just ARE: that rape is everywhere and always and under all condidtions wrong. This situation seems to be much closer to our intuitions about morality. The problem for theists is that even the existence God is not necessary. It doesn't disprove the existence of God, but it undermines the claim that God has anything to do with morality. There might be a God that is perfectly good and is a good example of good behavior, but it isn't particularly necessary.

In regards to free will, I contend that the concept is incoherent, at least in the sense that a Creator can in some way be excused for the decisions its creations make. Ultimately, the choices we make have to come from somewhere: be determined by some underlying character (and, in fact, if they weren't then it wouldn't make any sense to hold us responsible for them), and this character had to have been determined either by God or simply left by God to happen randomly, in which case its still his roll of the dice.

 

[Neutrino]

The alternative is that good and evil just ARE: that rape is everywhere and always and under all condidtions wrong. This situation seems to be much closer to our intuitions about morality. The problem for theists is that even the existence God is not necessary. It doesn't disprove the existence of God, but it undermines the claim that God has anything to do with morality. There might be a God that is perfectly good and is a good example of good behavior, but it isn't particularly necessary.

There is another alternative as well. In my opinion there is no such thing as good and evil beyond a human perspective. I think these are purely human inventions that may only be applied to humans by humans. They lose all meaning when seperated from humanity and it's ideas.

They are concepts that may have come about as a natural reaction to being a social creature and living in groups. By the evolutionary instincts built into us we obviously consider things harmful to ourselves bad and things beneficial to ourselves good, just like any other animal. It seems reasonable that this idea was extended to include other members of our species as we developed more complex social structures. So in the end perhaps morality is just a naturally occuring survival tool of a social species.

Just thought I'd throw that in there to present another option.

 

[blahblahblah]

I belive I have answered most of those points. Clarify specific issues if you must.

Why do non-religious people like to start religious debates?

 

[qckbeam]

Why do non-religious people like to start religious debates?

We're into pain

 

[Lil' Timmy]

There is another alternative as well. In my opinion there is no such thing as good and evil beyond a human perspective. I think these are purely human inventions that may only be applied to humans by humans. They lose all meaning when seperated from humanity and it's ideas.

They are concepts that may have come about as a natural reaction to being a social creature and living in groups. By the evolutionary instincts built into us we obviously consider things harmful to ourselves bad and things beneficial to ourselves good, just like any other animal. It seems reasonable that this idea was extended to include other members of our species as we developed more complex social structures. So in the end perhaps morality is just a naturally occuring survival tool of a social species.

Just thought I'd throw that in there to present another option.

well, that is the modern sociological view. the biological roots of human nature are being better fleshed out as genetics and evolutionary biology interdigitate more. but i don't think a theist would find this naturalistic explanation, which is, very much, still arm waving (attractive, but arm waving none-the-less), any less abhorent

Why do non-religious people like to start religious debates?

for me, it's is a philosophical inquery, not a strictly 'religious' one.

 

[Neutrino]

well, that is the modern sociological view. the biological roots of human nature are being better fleshed out as genetics and evolutionary biology interdigitate more. but i don't think a theist would find this naturalistic explanation, which is, very much, still arm waving (attractive, but arm waving none-the-less), any less abhorent

Well no, I didn't expect it to be accepted. Just wanted to state that there were other alternatives to the one Apos listed.

for me, it's is a philosophical inquery, not a strictly 'religious' one.

To answer blahblahblah's question, this is pretty much my reason as well. I enjoy philosophy and find it to be interesting and enjoyable to discuss and examine. Religion is just one philosophical theory in my eyes, and since it is one of the most prevalent I often find myself discussing it the most.

I belive I have answered most of those points. Clarify specific issues if you must.

Well, there's this issue: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showpost.php?p=833648&postcount=174

 

[Yakuza]

I thought we just agreed that perfection and free will could not coexist?


Here's a question for you:

Does God have free will?

Of course.

If I am perfect and I tell my child not to do something yet provide the situation were rebellion is an option, how does that make me any less perfect.

 

[Neutrino]

Of course.

Of course God has free will? So you mean he has the ability to make choices between actions and thus has the capacity to do wrong, making him fallible, meaning imperfect?

If I am perfect and I tell my child not to do something yet provide the situation were rebellion is an option, how does that make me any less perfect.

The issue is not one of telling one's child (Adam and Eve) not to do something. The issue is instead the act of creating that child (Adam and Eve) who are capable of rebellion. If they are capable of rebellion then they are not perfect. Thus God, a perfect being, has created an imperfection. This is the contradiction.

 

[blahblahblah]

Ok, I can agree with the stance that if God can only do good then we should base our morals off of God. That makes sense from a religious standpoint.

But then what makes an action right or wrong? Yes, you can say because God is only capable of doing right then we can judge an action from that. However, that only tells us how to have morality, not why.

Why is an action right or wrong? If God does not have free will then he is forced to take the right action. But that doesn't answer the question of why that action is right. What forced God to make that action?

If God cannot choose between two options then it would follow that the essence of morality is not based on his action but on whatever forces him to take that action. But if that is true then there is a higher force than God. Right?

We have morals because it if we disobey those morals, harm can come from it. That should give you an explanation why we have morality. Morality should be considered right because they cause no harm. The difference between my morals and your morals, is that my morals are based off of a inherently good God while your morals are based off of an inherently evil person. (Please don't take that the wrong way). As good as your morals maybe, they are built upon a corrupt foundation. This is akin to building a house on a crumbling foundation. Eventually it will fall. Like it or not, there are fundamental differences between my morals and your morals.

You are also venturing in to things that the Bible doesn't fully explain if it explains it at all. This is nearly the equivalent of asking you how did the universe start before the big bang. What created the matter for the big bang? You wouldn't have an explanation like I don't have an explanation as well.

I also want to add that God is acting on his own behalf, that there is no other force, forcing him to be inherently good.