Why we need god?

Why we need god?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Qbhuvw8sCeE
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1&version=KJV
plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
m.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3m0tt5KcE
youtube.com/watch?v=EAlfV6-Wtnk
youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

We don't.

There are two methods of spreading your personal values to other people in order to create the world you want

Physical intimidation (Government) and Meta-Physical intimidation (Religion).

Religion is better than Government because it cannot be avoided through loopholes, etc (God knows all, etc).

>Why can't we all just have our own values user
Because this makes for a shitty, ununified country. Or world. Or human race.

Someone had to create everything.

I hate this arguement

if you believe that the universe could not exist without some agent bringing it into existence, there's no reason to believe it was a some "one" and not a some "thing"

even assuming it was a "God" that created everything, that does not necessitate worship, last time I checked everything's pretty shit

>last time I checked everything's pretty shit

Sounds to me like reading the Book of Genesis would explain that to you in a little more detail.

If I were you, I would continue from there until you've finished the whole book, and then maybe your opinion about religion will be given a shred of credibility.

I have
been born and raised on religion, I still go to church occasionally just to socialize with the elderly and be a part of my community, bible's a fine read but nothing makes you more aware of how silly it is than reading it and actually grasping the contradictions

god?

You're assuming God doesn't exist.

If you assume he does exist then you're asking the wrong question. Why we need him is obvious. He created heaven and earth and wishes the best for all of us.

The better question then is why do we want him, and that's a question that you will find the answer to if you let him love you.

Why do you type like someone who is 14 trying to sound like someone who is older?

/thread

>Sounds to me like reading the Book of Genesis would explain that to you in a little more detail.

Why exactly Christianity? It seems arbitrary to start with it when there's thousands of other religions.

FPBP

...

He sustains your very existence.
Now, your existence isn't necessary, so *I* still wouldn't qualify that as a need, but you probably would.

Ok why do we want him?

It is outwith the scope of this thread, but out of all possible theorised hypothesis currently in existence, the Biblical Christian creation theory is the most likely of all.

Sounds to me like reading the Enuma Elish would explain that to you in a little more detail.

you probably just, understandably, associate atheism with underage retards, the same way most people associate national socialism with whitetrash criminals.

because no-god = why live?

Why cant I go assassinate my political
opponents?
because its illegal? so is piracy....

>your existence isn't necessary
>implying God creates unnecessary things
Absolutely heretical.

>Why cant I go assassinate my political
>opponents?
Because you're a basement dweller and not a hitman.

"God" as a concept goes further than religion. It represents a philosophical absolute. Humans are able to look outside of themselves and realize that they are more complex than the other purely-instinctual animals. Because of this, some concept of "God" is necessary on a spiritual.

In what sense?

In a material sense, it is because God sustains the existence of all things.

In a cultural sense, it is not immediately necessary but both reaffirms and asserts the basis of Natural Law.

>the Biblical Christian creation theory is the most likely of all.

How so? Furthermore how is "most likely" an attribute worth mentioning when we are talking about the scope of an almighty creator? Even the most outlandish theory could be true then.

Just read the summary of it but I don't see how it explains my point since it still made by men.

God creates whatever He wants and Wills.
Are you trying to imply He couldn't just as easily not have created you? That would be a denial of His omnipotence and Will.

Ahh yes, the good book of complete absurdities will answer your questions.

Are people really this stupid, or do you just say this stuff because you refuse to examine the embarrassing shit in your life?

>on a spiritual.
level.

Shit.

I personally need god because I don't have faith in our government

Do people really think empty rhetoric constitutes a rebuttal of anything at all?
Aren't you embarrassed?

To save you from the material world that is controlled by Satan.

Of couse, beliving in a giant bearded dude on the sky looks promising

Genesis is a ripoff of the Enuma Elish, I agree with your point.

He could, but since he didn't choose not to create it follows that the person in question is necessarily created, for that which creates is absolute providence.

>How so?

Explaining how it does so would entail examining all postulated alternatives. I am sure you would agree, you would not be able to cover even 1% of all recorded theories for the way in which the existence of the universe came to be. It would therefore be not appropriate to continue on this path, for reasons of ensuring fair treatment to all.

Thats not a correct sentence you utter cunt.

We're necessarily created. Us *having been* created was not a necessity though. Which means our existence isn't necessary.

Us necessarily existing =/= us existing necessarily. They're different premises.

>controlled by Satan.

This seems pretty unsubstantial given that classical theism did not understand God to be anthropomorphic either and not even having a will in the same sense as we do.

>even assuming it was a "God" that created everything, that does not necessitate worship, last time I checked everything's pretty shit

It largely doesn't, that's somethings that is explained in another part of the discussion, but your comment largely depends on how worship in understood. Abiding by his will - his natural law - is akin to worship as well. There's no need to grasp worship as simply kingly prostration.

Sounds like you learned some fancy propositions but didn't learn to justify your claims.

1. Why is the Christian Bible the most likely hypothesis?
2. How did you evaluate all of the other 'possible theorised hypothesis [sic] currently in existence'?

Personally, I think it's more likely that we are being simulated by a computer program designed by future humans to replicate the experience of humans living at our time in history. Can you explain why it is not?

Most people are too stupid to be moral on their own. God is good for society. Once great Christian nations are being destroyed by secular humanism.

No one can even possibly be moral on one's own. God is necessary for substantive morality period.

>Why we need god?

Because it's tiresome to worship all those ancestors. Just have one god and you're good to go.

He's a yuropoor. What do you expect?

A capricious God is what you propose then?

No aspect of an omniscient and omnipotent God can be arbitrary.

Why we need Belgium?

What part of

>It is outwith the scope of this thread

are you having trouble with?

Not at all. I'm making a simple logical point.

>No aspect of an omniscient and omnipotent God can be arbitrary.
God's Will is free. He can Will whatever He likes. Luckily for us He Wills us love, mercy, compassion and grace.

who created god

But isn't this arbitrary?

You really don't seem to understand the magnitude of theories that are possible when you put a creator into the room.

>it cannot be avoided through loopholes
except you know, not believing it

No-one, He has always existed in what humans perceive as time.

But could his will be free from his own knowledge of it though?

Does God's absolute knowledge only go so far as to tell him what will result from his choices, making him unable to assert what he would will to choose otherwise? That's relevant but besides the point. In either case the chosen option must be necessary because God's knowledge of its results remains absolute.

Here's a gem of an album by the way. Only possible by God's benevolent creation.

youtube.com/watch?v=Qbhuvw8sCeE

Which is why it is outwith the scope of this thread for me, or anyone else, to discuss. This medium is not suited to the discussion of every perceived and noted theory for the origin of the universe.

If you feel differently, and want to kick off, be my guest.

It's a thing in all the Abrahamic religions. Lucifer was given original jurisdiction over the entire material world, and he along with his demiurges continued to control it even after he fell from heaven, though God can intervene any time he wants with his miracles. Early Christians used referred to Satan as "The Bringer of Storms", implying that he controlled the weather, which makes sense considering that the Babylonian idol Ba'al Zebul (aka Beelzebub) was known to use his powers to make it rain, thus controlling the germination of seeds and the subsequent harvest.
Satan has control over all aspects of reality including human flesh, but he has no power over the soul. The body is helpless, but the soul can be saved. It's b/c Satan has no power over Souls that he tries to full the world with as much wichedness and corruption as he can.
Satan even controls aspects of the economy and global politics. The devil, by the name of Belphegor (Derived from the Assyrian idol Ba'al Peor), has been known in legend to sow the seeds of discourse among men through disproportionate allocation of wealth, meaning that, in theory, he could have caused the communist revolution in Russia.

If you want to escape this wicked, half-baked reality, you can only hope to become a citizen of God's kingdom by swearing your loyalty to him and becoming the best person you can be.

I get the "but if omniscience applies to Himself, then wouldn't He be a deterministic God" spiel. I just think it has to be nonsense, since it's self-refuting in respect to omnipotence, and makes everything that follows absolutely meaningless.

Because if God is deterministic, then everything that comes from God must also be deterministic. In which case everything - including God Himself at that point - would be completely immoral. Morality is impossible in a deterministic world - you can't hold a rock morally culpable for being pushed by a tide. In like manner you can't hold a person with no will accountable to a deterministic god who likewise has no will at that point.

That's a question I can't answer for you.

For me, I want him because I'm grateful for everything he's done for me and I feel like he can help me help others. My wife wants him more because she believes he's a lifelong friend she can turn to when she needs help. My brother didn't think he wanted God for a long time, but felt empty inside and eventually felt like having God in his life was an important part of being human.

Why you want God is a personal experience, and I hope that for you and everyone who seeks him they realize God makes them happy or speaks to them in a personal way.

If you pray, maybe you will learn whether or not you want God. I hope you can find as much happiness in his companionship as I have.

Not going to answer your question directly because it leaves too much room for breaking in a fallacious argument.

But I'll present to you this. Every single other religion, philosophy, theology, and worldview holds man in a position to reach up to God or the Scientific or Spiritual "Truth" and grasp hold of Him/It through their own efforts. Christianity is the only religion where God is presented as He who reaches down to man.

Also as far as major religions go, they have their own doctrines or systems of do’s and don’ts to appease God; whereas Christianity was created by man in order of having a direct relationship with God.

And finally Christianity looks to the Bible as the singular source of Truth. Interestingly enough the Idea behind god becoming a man, dying and then resurrecting himself is also something which no other major religion dares to claim as true.

Ask a priest or preacher, not Cred Forums.

How and where did you learn that? I'm not memeing just curious.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

God is good. Grace and all blessings are gifts from God. You need Him because without Him there is death and misery.

God cannot lie. His Word is truth.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 1&version=KJV

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This. Most guys here are godless fiends who identify as Christian solely b/c their parents did. Your better off asking a priest or reading the bible.

>Ask a priest or preacher

Gee, that's like asking an insurance salesman if you need insurance.

They always give boring answers though.

Then maybe God himself is immoral. Or rather, amoral. And the theology of omnibenevolence what's nonsense in the end.

>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:7

In many cases people who go by those titles are far worse and misguided than the general population.

Just like Pharisees.

Why do we need food?

We don't. God needs us. L2egregores.

>In many cases people who go by those titles are far worse and misguided than the general population.
>Just like Pharisees.
Fucking everybody is a pharisee nowadays.
How do you think the Russians took USSR over from the jews? By being good citizens? No. They pretended to be. They infiltrated the system and corrupted it to their desires. Of course, it was better than the kikes, but the corruption has the same source.

Bible excerpts, online research, ancient mythology (to a small extent, only for context), and conversations with Christians and Jews who are comfortable talking about it.

I've been really interested in biblical mythology (I lost most of my interest in Greek mythology after my shitty Classical lit. teacher made it all sound abhorrently gay) recently. I wish they had a course in my college besides the flat-out bible study class, where I could learn more about ancient and modern religions.

I don't actually have a religion myself, but I have a deep interest in biblical mythology, it's origins/history, and it's cultural meaning.

Foolish blasphemy.

God creates evil and darkness to punish His people when they stop doing good. The whole point of Him doing that is that His people turn from their sins and go back to Him. Since His wrath is insufferable, nobody can stand it, and they are made to turn back.

God first speaks peace and good will and blessings, then warns people what will happen if they go astray. Then when they go astray God has told the truth, and the people are punished. God has abundant grace.

1 Chronicles 16:34
O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever.

From our perspective, God is necessarily omnibenevolent. Having been created is the ultimate good - which cannot be lessened or taken away by any other state of affairs - we could ever have visited upon us, and since we were created by God it follows that God is Good.

And that's nothing to say of the fact that God Himself declares that He is Good. Given whatever God Wills is necessarily the case, it follows that He is, indeed, Good. And good is a moral term. God thus can't be immoral (immoral meaning simply not-moral, which is inclusive to amoral as well).

That's the wrong perspective.

If religion did not exist, it would have to be created.

Think about it that way.

That's why you follow God and not men senpai.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I almost feel sorry for you. seriously. You ACTUALLY BELIEVE that ANY NORMAL PERSON IN 2016 believes in that "muh christ" bullshit. Lmfao.

I love how countercultures used to be pro atheist, but now that almost everyone actually IS atheist, you start ACTUALLY believing in god. Seriously? GOD? IN 2016? Lmfao. End yourself.

Fuck, I mean, I don't know. I honestly don't know. How stupid can you get? GOD? You seriously think magical sky fairy created all this, and that a virgin woman gave birth to the son of God? Lmfao. Fucking grow up and join the 21st century. "god" hasn't been relevant for 50 years. NOBODY believes in god these days. You are a fucking IDIOT for thinking ANY "white wimmin" believe in god. NO, they go to church every tenth sunday because they feel guilty over getting RAILED by chad and tyrone. You think they've EVER opened a bible in their LIVES?

...

Staler than this mornings eucharist, fedorabro.

Is morality/goodness not created as everything else in his creation? Or is it the case that morality/goodness is not created and therefore equal to God?

An omnipotent being that is capable of infinite benevolence is also capable of infinite malevolence.

God is therefore amoral, for he transcends both good and evil.

>Why we need god?
We need me. Cucks.

truth hurts christcucks

fpbp

Should we play Bingo with this one

>capable of infinite malevolence.
This isn't true. He is good.

So there's something God is incapable of?

>dodging the issue
Without God, everything is permissible and nothing is sacred.

God can't be imperfect, can't lie, can't be evil.

He's constant, good, and does not change.

1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

Lies don't come from love.

prove it

Morality supervenes on there being a hierarchy of wills. In a Christian view, God's Will lays out those moral standards by which subsequent wills are bound and judged by. That's the moral structure - it's not 'created' itself so much as it is a property the proceeds from the Will -> moral standards -> will hierarchy.

>normal don't believe in Christ, because
>muh 2016 years have passed since Christ was born
?

What is sacred? What is the purpose of life? You don't have valid answers because you are an atheist.

He's capable of absolutely everything an anything otherwise he wouldn't be omnipotent. In essence he is perfect. But You have to think it of this way. if you yourself are imperfect, yet have a sense of good and bad, then a being that is infinite times greater than yourself, must have a sense of righteousness that is so far beyond your own understanding, and in that trying to judge his moral character from the lens of something finite just wont work.

GET IN HERE, WE'RE SHAPING AI TO HATE NIGGERS/FAGS/CRIMINALS

There's no issue to dodge, that would be true even with God and the prospect of eternal punishment.

It seems there's a whole lot of things omnipotence can't achieve after all.

I hold the view that "moral" is anything that comes from God's will, because God is the ultimate power. Good and evil or truth and falsehood mean nothing to him because they are all created out of necessity. And that necessity is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of an absolute power.

It seems to me that Christian theologians were too busy trying to solve the problem of evil that they forgot how completely unfettered by morality the Old Testament God was.

Even Muslims got that one right, when they refer to Allah as The Best Deceiver.

?
How do you get that from what I've said?

Because he is wiser.
Because he owns you whether you like it or not.

god and man are simultaneous creations.

god is not some pie in the sky bearded wizard watching you masturbate at night, god is the origin of human conciousness.

religion is essientially thoughts of life and death. Hell and heaven are deplorable concepts created by half brained idiots and for half brained idiots.

god is everything we give meaning to, as the truth of life is nihilism we must create worth.

without god, man is nothing but a beast, never to grow, never to pass on ideas and inherited intelligence.

god is not an omnipotent being, god is not a being, god is an idea, but it is sincerely, the original of all ideas.

god is the culmination of all our ancestor's blood, sweat, and tears. and only the slave has the arrogance to spit on his ancestor's grave.

god will save us all. to have faith does not mean to simply "believve god exists", having faith means believing that what is "good" in your "struggles" will come to fruition, but it will not happen alone, you must strive for it.

From this
>God's Will lays out those moral standards
Why are they moral if not by virtue of his power?

>Why we need god?


It does not matter if we need him. God is.

>God is the ultimate power
Yes it's true, and so your foolish words will be sorely regretted when you are to give account.

So will yours.

>There's no issue to dodge, that would be true even with God and the prospect of eternal punishment.
Except when you understand the type of punishment Hell is. It's nothing like the Simpsons portray it as. Hint: it's about your core identity.

They're moral by virtue of morality necessarily stemming from the existence of His Will and other wills.

Are you unfamiliar with secondary properties? Supervenience?

You're not getting the point from all of this. Right now you're saying that you "hold the view" but what makes your view anymore based on the truth then a Christian viewpoint.

> And that necessity is an unavoidable consequence of the existence of an absolute power.

you're claiming that as a finite man, you know the consequences of an infinite power. It doesn't work that way.

we need god to save Cred Forums before gook moot nukes us.

Am I talking foolishly about God? Calling Him imperfect? Am I blaspheming? Am I asking vain hypothetical pop-sci questions about God and His power?

No.

It's not as much about need as God will always exist in this dimension as long as people do

fpbp

>Because he owns you whether you like it or not.

Song of Solomon 7:10
I am my beloved's, and his desire is toward me.

They can still do it and receive the punishment.

More than that, they are predetermined to do so if God is really omniscient.

>but what makes your view anymore based on the truth then a Christian viewpoint
My view is based on the logical conclusion of an omnipotent will.

I'm not asking how morality comes to be, I'm asking why is it moral in the first place.

>Am I talking foolishly about God?
We all are.

Your vanity merely prevents you from realizing it.

You do realize that everything you're saying is a form of gnosticism, which jesus warned about. You're claiming that through your own works that you can achieve "Infinite consciousness" or enlightenment and that everything is one. Gnosticism is based on a mystical, intuitive, subjective, inward, emotional approach to truth which is not new at all. It is very old

not /x/
sage

Because that's what morality *IS*.
I explained it.

Excuse me, Excuse me! What does God need with a starship?

your roots do not define you, this is taught by the Bible. Slaves to saints, all glory to Jesus Christ who redemed us all should we receive Him. Study the bible thoroughly, my friend, and watch the contradictions melt away in light of context.

I love you, you sound like a saint in Christ, allluia!

have this image on a plate in my home.

this, both you anons are right though i do not want to expand on it bcos its obvious

AMEN! AMEN! I LOVE MY BROTHERS IN CHRIST!

may our Father bless you

I remember you. Glory to our Father for He freed me from my own undoing: i have no wish to masturbate or look at porn anymore . I could kiss you i am so happy!

that is absolutely not what I am saying.

my ideas are not some hippy dippy enlightenment nonsense.

God is the origin of human conciousness, which has never ever been a singular, individual prospect. Humans need each other.

I am speaking from a view point grounded in entirely "observable" concepts. I am not sure whether you are taking my speech entirely "literally" or have just conceived it in a way that I did not intend.

Go back to the post you're replying to. You haven't explained why God is moral, only how you deduce morality from a higher will.

>They can still do it and receive the punishment.
Are you familiar with concepts such as freedom, choice and duty?
>More than that, they are predetermined to do so if God is really omniscient.
So if God knows how you will make your choices, you aren't making the choices?

The fear of divine punishment is all that prevents the total breakdown of society. If we didn't believe in God, we would get right to killing and raping.

>You haven't explained why God is moral
But I have?

>You haven't explained why God is moral
He considers us obtaining morality to be wrong, because now we do wrong.

I have seen so much gnosticism derive from mashing observations together from completely opposing natures to create a form of religion. All things are similiar, yes... but that only points to 1 origination which is Jesus Christ.

>created is the ultimate good
It's the ultimate neutral because that which was born can end up going to either side (Good or Evil)

some people hate God

its simply both. when an airplane flies is it both flying by the power of God and the nature of aerodynamics.

i love this answer, i feel so close to my Father.

Well God will repay.


Ecclesiastes 1
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

>So if God knows how you will make your choices, you aren't making the choices?
He is the only one that could possibly make a real choice.

Then again, his attribute of omniscience makes the word "choice" paradoxical.

Your post only addresses the point of God being able of creating benevolence, to which I replied he is also capable of malevolence, as he himself expresses in the Bible.

None of that says anything about God being bound by the morality that results from his position in the hierarchy of will that you described.

It doesn't matter what you do with your life - you either deciding to do that which is either good or evil has nothing to do with the fact that God created you, which is God's act of ultimate Goodness in regard to you.

If I have a son and he ends up living his life in an evil fashion, I am not responsible for his evil. He is. In like fashion, God is not responsible for whatever evil you may indulge in. He *is* responsible for what He does though. And - in your case - He did that which is the ultimate Good in creating you.

>theists actually believe this

What a bunch of psychopaths.

He is not the father of any of us, we are his slaves, like all his creation. The only difference is that we have free will and we are to rule the earth justly under his command. And He is the most merciful.

Not "being able". He did. It covers Him now.
God is capable of malevolence, sure. But He has never been malevolent nor do I expect Him ever to be malevolent.

He's not bound by morality. He makes the morality in which we perceive His actions unto us. And one of those actions is creating us. Which is the ultimate Good.

People respond to authority. This is how government works, however when men lose their fear in government then they deny it's authority.

God is an entity of which authority cannot be denied and thus will always lead to a society of people that abide by Gods law at a bare minimum

true, everything big or small is taken into account, and we will see our deeds

But doesn't he willingly choose to bind himself to his own law that he creates. Because if he made morality, then he (rightfully so) has to subjugate himself to the rules that he makes?

>we are his slaves
Not true.

2 Chronicles 8
9 But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no servants for his work; but they were men of war, and chief of his captains, and captains of his chariots and horsemen.
10 And these were the chief of king Solomon's officers, even two hundred and fifty, that bare rule over the people.
11 And Solomon brought up the daughter of Pharaoh out of the city of David unto the house that he had built for her: for he said, My wife shall not dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto the ark of the Lord hath come.
12 Then Solomon offered burnt offerings unto the Lord on the altar of the Lord, which he had built before the porch,
13 Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles.
14 And he appointed, according to the order of David his father, the courses of the priests to their service, and the Levites to their charges, to praise and minister before the priests, as the duty of every day required: the porters also by their courses at every gate: for so had David the man of God commanded.
15 And they departed not from the commandment of the king unto the priests and Levites concerning any matter, or concerning the treasures.
16 Now all the work of Solomon was prepared unto the day of the foundation of the house of the Lord, and until it was finished. So the house of the Lord was perfected.

This is a foreshadow of God's kingdom. We are not slaves, but children.

1 John 3:1
Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

Romans 8:16
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

His creation covers him? That's ridiculous.

Although, you do bring an interesting point when you say that creating us is the ultimate good (for us, I presume).

Surely it also holds true that destroying us would be the ultimate Evil, correct?

But couldn't the universe have just been like that too? Why did YHVH have to "create" it? You can't just say "oh well, uh. The universe was made by God! But God has totally been here even before anything existed and uh he didn't need a creator nope"

>He is the only one that could possibly make a real choice.
He did. He even lived a human life.
>Then again, his attribute of omniscience makes the word "choice" paradoxical.
Only if you do not interact with the world itself. Have you opened Schrödinger's box yet?

You lost me. We're not on the same page. Let's leave specific ideas out of this and speak only of "god".

It seems you personally reject all other ideas outside of Christ, I respect other religious ideas (thoughts of life and death), but imo Christianity is simplely a "more advanced" religion, which with a renaissance, could be advanced further.

Logically, there is no "true" god. You disagree most likely, but I will only debate what is observable, there will not be a discussion if your retort is fantasy.

Frankly Christianity has always been in the hands of humans, as god is not a pen or a printing press and it's quite foolish to believe that the original ideas have not changed in several thousand years.

Posting from phone

>That's ridiculous
It's really, really not.

>Surely it also holds true that destroying us would be the ultimate Evil
No, not the case. We would have still been created. Having been created and having subsequently existed is, really, the ultimate Good. Even if you're destroyed (which in Christian theology no one ever is), you would *STILL* have existed and experienced. It would not be taken from you that you would have been.

>Surely it also holds true that destroying us would be the ultimate Evil
If we were to remain pure, it would be.

Yes, that's how we as Christians tend to view it.
But, logically, we do need to allow for at least the potential - if not necessarily the possibility - that He could, by His omnipotence and Will, choose to do otherwise.

So it's a case of "yeah - He could be another way, but we don't expect Him to ever do so".

He gave us free will to choose to be with him or to reject him. So in essence he created us in his image of ultimate good, but allowed us to fall from perfection, and if he didn't allow us to fall from perfection, then we would not have a will that separates us from his own. By allowing evil to exist, he leaves us with an oppertunity to willingly accept or reject his gift for free. In essence evil is not in equilibrium with good, but rather evil is just a lack of good.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Are you implying God does not know the choices his creation will make before it makes them?

What is the ultimate evil then?

How about this: There's no immortal soul and death is the complete annihilation of the self.

>For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten
Ecclesiastes 9:5

Death as the ultimate evil and the natural consequence of the ultimate good of being created.

Disobeying God, obviously.

Is that even possible?

This t b h

Ever lied?

Yes because free will. think of it in extremely arbitrary terms.

God is 1 Evil is 0

You have the choice to be with him, or reject the gift of life and perish. It's really that simple.

the word "son" was interchangeable with servant

Not to God, I'm sure you understand why.

But God creates both evil and you, and he has perfect knowledge his creation. As he knew you before you were even born he knows where you'll end after you die.

I've never heard that argument, have you actually studied scripture, have a source or just bsing?

No, "have you ever lied (period)?" is the question.

Based spaniard

To other people? Of course.

Common Grace is given to all men.
Saving Grace is not.

You can have a happy life and do good works but that will never end with heaven.

Prosperity has made us soft.

Then obviously it's possible to disobey God, since God commands you not to lie, and yet you disobey Him and have done it anyway.

But God already knew I was going to lie, didn't he? You can't really disobey God any more than you can surprise him. And can you surprise an omniscient being?

Of course He knew, He's omnipotent. That didn't stop you from doing it though, did it?

Just because he knows all things past present and future, doesn't mean that he doesn't allow them to play out through the choices of his creation. He knows right now that I might or might not lie tomorrow, where I dont. but I have the choice to actually lie or not lie tomorrow, regardless of him knowing the destined outcome.

Some have said that though God is omniscient he keeps it from himself(yeah I know that's a cop-out) Jesus didn't have all knowledge revealed to himself.

Why we need English education?

>Why we need god?
Simply put, it's the acknowledgement that something greater than ourselves exists.

coz human beings r imperfect and need guidance based on perfection

atheism even offers dis

I think modern english is a muck. Old Saxon sounds so badass

funny how this is one of the better posts here, while everyone else circle jerks around the fantasy of the bearded magician in the sky, one ludwig asks the question as to why must we read?

that which is seen perishes always, but that which is unseen is eternal. Do not look for the physical to explain the post-physical! Do I look for a car to explain to me the nature of thought? No! Your concept of this super-consciousness sounds like subconsciouss elevation of your own mind.

ayy lmao

very wrong

interesting, i agree

Of course it didn't stop me, he basically created me to do it.

The point is, free will and an omniscient/omnipotent creator are incompatible.

>He knows right now that I might or might not lie tomorrow, where I dont
He "always" knows that you won't. That choice was never real.

I remember an argument made by W. L. Craig where he says that God doesn't know what you'll do until you do it, and only then he passes judgement, which is a completely retarded way to reinterpret omniscience and solve the free will paradox.

he's arrogant, but he's not wrong. I used to abhor atheists until I met bible literalists and "historians". then I started to empathize with the beligerant atheists.

The only people destroying christianity are those pervading the mythology as literal. No thinking person is going to genuinely "believe" that a magacian controls all reality- as that defies all logic and philosophy as we know it, considering we are "the image of god" - god works like us, or how we imagine we could potentially work like, we are the creators- given the greatest gift in existence; the gift of creation.

truth is often stranger than fiction. dont be such a heathen user

They're not incompatible.
Here's a way in which they're compatible, copied from an older post.

You can hold that there are a literal infinite of concurrent realities, in which every possibility of every person is played out over each of them. God knows how each person's lot plays out in each reality via omniscience, but given that it's a literal infinite and that people will experience every single possible set of circumstances according to variations in their choices, it seems that - given one could be in *ANY* of those infinite realities - that you effectively have free will. If you're able to experience every single possible state of affairs in accordance with an infinite and concurrent set of realities, then even if God knows what you're going to do, you can't possibly effectively be *more* free than what you are.

funny, I could say the same to you, heathen.

Doesn't that make free will absolutely meaningless though?

He still knows what choice the "you" from this reality will make and will still punish/reward you as he intended before you made that choice.

The only difference is that now there are other "yous" to go to hell or heaven depending on how he decided to distribute the fates of user and his clones.

>If you're able to experience every single possible state of affairs in accordance with an infinite and concurrent set of realities, then you can't possibly effectively be *more* free than what you are

I don't know how you possibly get more free than this. Can you articulate a more rigorous freedom than one in which you can, and do, make any and all possible choices?

oh what grounds

the same grounds you stand on.

to give us repeating digits

But you're not really making all those choices. There's another you making it for you, and God has always known what each and every one of you would choose.

You're describing a scenario where an instance of you before you made any choice could *potentially* make any choice, but the you who made a choice was never free because he was preordained by God to make that specific choice.

So that original you that precedes a choice being made is "free" in the sense that he could choose anything, but not the one that follows it. How is this one free if God already knew what he was going to choose and put him there for that very purpose?

look at Europe

thats not helpful at all, also it is very typical of an answer when people talk about our Father and the direction of their will for or against Him.
X D DDDDDDDDD TROLLED X DX DDDLDD DDID YOU ACKTUAL JUST GIMVE ME A YOU??? ::DD X DXDDXD THX U :33

Only cucks need God.

he's trying to tell you a paradox is not a paradox.

omnipotent magician would mean there is no free will, plain and simple.

They look like they're about to get a shitload of God and his messenger.

I think we're at a point where the circular reasoning is holding you back from getting the big picture. Free will is as meaningful as it gets, because if you were not given a choice, regardless of the known outcome, then your existence would be meaningless. Because you exist, because you have a choice, your meaning is evident. God created man perfect, with man having the option to stay eternal or to chose a spiritual death. In essence, it doesnt matter who is destined for hell or heaven, but moreso for you to realize that you have a choice in the matter. That choice is the essence of what "Meaning" is to Christians.

Yes you are.
You're identical to you. The "you's" in these concurrent realities are all you. They're not separate people. You experience everything concurrently. Simultaneously.

There's no other "you" than the original you.

That being clarified, I'll ask again - how is a person more free than a world in which they can, and do, make any and all possible choices.

I am wrong because you are right? very intellectual. I am calling you a heathen simply because I am reflecting your infantile and regurgitated response back at you, of course it is not helpful.

we are on the same playing field. All I ask is that in debate, you use observable concepts, as there is no debate in the realms of fantasy.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:18

You may have forsaken God, but he still has hope for you and all mankind.

Ah but where is the debate if it must be on your terms rather than a mutual ground? Reflect on your words, dear user, for fantasy is the judgement prescribed to me by your account-- not by a mutual account!

Ha. Other people aren't the ones living in a fantasy land where pic related is acceptable logic.

>omnipotent magician would mean there is no free will, plain and simple
Yes.

Most people struggle with that because they think no one would be held accountable for their actions if free will wasn't real, without realizing there's no tragedy in breaking spoiled eggs.

>You experience everything concurrently. Simultaneously.
Your weekends must be insane, bro.

>how is a person more free than a world in which they can, and do, make any and all possible choices
There's no such a world as far as I know, because a person can only exist in one place at one time. If there's another person in another place at a different time then it's not the same person.

But still, playing along with your example, how does God decide if you get punished or reward if you made all the choices possible, and is therefore deserving of both heaven and hell?

All things are possible through Lord Kek.

Enjoy trying to change the world with atheist liberal activism while we meme your works into nothingness.

>a person can only exist in one place at one time
I don't know where you derive that conclusion from, given it could very possibly occur. That's a brute assertion.

>therefore deserving of both heaven and hell
That's not how salvation works for a Christian. Are you a Christian?

>give pic related with no reference.

do you really expect anyone to understand an infographic without reference?

It's self explanatory. Really, really self explanatory.

>I don't know where you derive that conclusion from, given it could very possibly occur. That's a brute assertion.
Right here
>as far as I know
That's some quantum physics shit you're throwing at me, so the burden of proof is yours.

>That's not how salvation works for a Christian. Are you a Christian?
No, that's why I'm asking you how does it work if you made all the choices that could influence both of these outcomes.

Go on, I'll wait here.

its not, but it gives a clue as to your self righteous ideology.

since I'm such an inferior being, pls explain.

I'm posing a possibility in rejection of the premise that an omnipotent omniscient creator is incompatible with a world in which there is free will.
I don't have to prove it's actually the case that the possibility is realized - all I have to do is point out that it is actually a logical possibility. And it is. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that an omnipotent omniscient creator is incompatible with a world in which there is free will. Boom.

>No
If a Christian is saved, they're saved. Period. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "how much" or "how little" they sinned.

Here's an explanation - a very good, in depth one.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

not spending my night reading that. You can't explain a paragraph infographic yourself? I'm just asking what the reference is here

>its possible that a paradox is not a paradox based on matters that have yet to be observed.

once again, there is no debate in fantasy.

You can spend your time how you'd like. I'll do the same, and not waste my time typing something out to someone which I've already spoonfed almost everything he could want to know about something~

read

>Therefore it is not necessarily the case that an omnipotent omniscient creator is incompatible with a world in which there is free will. Boom.
Even if you redefine "free will" as a Christian version of the many-worlds interpretation where a single soul goes through every life choice possible and gets saved at the end that doesn't make sense, but whatever.

>If a Christian is saved, they're saved. Period. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "how much" or "how little" they sinned.
Oh, so that means if a Christian is saved in one of these "infinite concurrent realities" then he is saved in all of them?

you mean the catholic god? well that's easy, it's a placeholder for islam

>that doesn't make sense
I don't see what you think doesn't make sense about that. It checks out as valid by propositional logic.

Yes.

nice. reverse that, though.

yet that is exactly what I am asking for, mutual debate. for the hundredth time, there is no debate without observable concepts. you are trying to tell me that "fantasy" is opinionated.

to add to a point you were making

>why can't we all just have our own values user
from an atheist pov the morals of god are simply the projections of people's morals, so they're still our own values.

>Yes
Then what's the point of all the eschatological drama?

You're already saved regardless of what you do in this reality.

You want to debate with someone with a hand tied behind their back, user. That's not a debate, and nothing except our holy Father is worth that time and effort.

Depends on what's actually possible for a person.
It may not simply be that which is sheerly logically possible, but a more restricted possibility set.

And if that's the case, not everyone will be saved.

And if that's the case, not everyone will necessarily be saved*.

you know you're making it really hard to empathize with. I know that I am not always right and probably often wrong, but seriously, you're being extremely hypocritical. If you want to talk about metaphysical crap, go to church and talk to them, if you want to talk about realistic concepts like the historical evolution of judeo religions, then stop acting like your on some high horse to heaven and give me some practical concepts to work with.

Well, good news then, it seems we have reached an agreement.

There's no free will because God has already determined your fate. You're only "free" to live up to your own predetermined fate.

I'm just glad I'm probably saved in "infinite concurrent reality nº 777" where I chose to be a devout Christian.

It was good to talk to you, Wolfshiem. See you in Heaven.

I've posed what is absolutely rigorous free will, completely compatible with an omniscient, omnipotent creator.
You're an odd man.

ah i see, different fields altogether lol whoopsie: Jesus Christ is still the son of our Father praise His name alleluia

>absolutely rigorous free will
Tell that to those who chose to be Christians but won't necessarily be saved.

They don't necessarily choose to be Christians under a limited possibility set.
You're a little confused I think.

The thing is we don't need god, god needs us.

He created us for his own sake, not ours.

Humans do just fine without god, we'll just make one (or several) up anyways whether or not he/they exist.

A godless community is, well lost. Even nihilists would need someone they have to strive towards to otherwise they'd become a chaotic society

But they don't necessarily choose to NOT be Christians either, right?

That means it's possible that a person who chose to be Christian won't be saved, correct?

>HAHAHAHA
>[current year]
>ACTUALLY
>lmfao

(((you)))

well i guess the hierarchy needs its minions... toodles.

Buddhists seem to do quite well. Try again

>But they don't necessarily choose to NOT be Christians either, right?
That's right. They don't necessarily choose to not be Christians. There could possibly be a person who chose to be a Christian each and every time.

>That means it's possible that a person who chose to be Christian won't be saved, correct?
No. The premise - that a person won't necessarily choose to be a Christian - does not lead to the conclusion - that a person who chooses to be a Christian might not be saved.

It was already established that a person who finds salvation in Christ and is thus an actual Christian will necessarily be saved.

buddhist god is their tenets.

try again.

being Christian is just a title a person can define themselves, that is not what saves. What saves is clearly outlined in the Gospel of John.

John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 10:28 - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

1 John 5:13 - These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

God is self created. At least, i think, this is what makes the most sense.

god and man are simultaneous creations, the moment man recognized himself, he recognized god.

this desu senpai

He already made it. We take. God is sucker.

Makes sense as well, but with that arises the question: Is every deity who came to be real?

I'm more inclined to polytheism but your argument is very good.

oh man you hit my bread and butter with that question.

I use "god" as a placeholder term for most religions, preferably judeo and greco roman.

judeo seems to have evolved from greco roman polytheism, as they seemed to worship specific human concepts as the "gods"

judeo rolled all the "positive" concepts for civilization into one and hence god. paul took this a step further with christianity.

imo deities have been place holders for natural concepts like hatred, lust, friendship, ect. which at the time were probably less understood than they are now.

>does not lead to the conclusion - that a person who chooses to be a Christian might not be saved
But it does because you're talking about possibilities.

1. There's an infinite number of concurrent realities where I experience every single possibility for me.
2. Some people have the possibility of salvation in their respective personal possibility sets while some don't.
3. Those possibility sets were made possible by God.
4. From 3 we can conclude that God intentionally made some people unable to be saved because they don't have the possibility of salvation in at least one reality.
5. From 2 we can conclude that people who have the possibility of salvation in their personal possibility sets will necessarily be saved because they have experienced it at least one reality.
6. Both people that can possibly be saved and those who can't be saved can possibly become Christians.
7. Therefore, some Christians will not be saved while some non-Christians will.

>He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life
That's not what the Infinite Concurrent Realities model is telling me.

sex

...

Hmm, so you are saying that "god" is nothing more than an ideal? That a spiritual world isn't real at all?

Seems like Plato and his realm of ideas.

Jordan Peterson explains why it is stupid to forsake religion.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=2c3m0tt5KcE

Someone had to create that creator

its more than just an idea to me. I mean we have been given the greatest gift in existance, the ability to create. Everything we envision is in the realm of possiblity. God is our conciousness, intelligence, morals, and every penny of worth on this plane of existance.

Sure, god is an idea, incapable of altering the physical world, but god is the "inner" world itself.

and by inner world, I don't mean some hippy dippy metaphysical nonsense, I mean our minds- conscious and subconscious.

im still working on this ideology, but I truly believe i'm onto something, i have a plan for the future of religious ideology.

>2. Some people have the possibility of salvation in their respective personal possibility sets while some don't.
We don't know that some don't.

Given that, 4 does not necessarily follow, since it is not clear that God made some people unable to be saved by limiting their possibility sets in such a way. And neither does 5 necessarily follow, since it is also directly dependent on 2 being true.

>6. Both people that can possibly be saved and those who can't be saved can possibly become Christians
That's not necessarily true, because we can, again, be working with a more limited possibility sets than sheer logical possibility.

>7. Therefore, some Christians will not be saved while some non-Christians will
This conclusion does not follow from anything. Christians are necessarily saved. Non-Christians are necessarily not saved. If one is a Christian ever, they're a Christian period.

I see, i disagree with some of your notions, like for example i think that our conciousness is powerfull, but i also believe there is something beyond ourserlves, maybe other "conciousness".

I aslo belive we CAN alter the world with our ideas, kinda like meme magic but not really.

also, I don't believe in a spiritual world, simply because that is an unobservable concept.

The only worlds are the physical and inner.

>We don't know that some don't.
But we do know that it is POSSIBLE, right? Come on, you played that card here:

>I don't have to prove it's actually the case that the possibility is realized - all I have to do is point out that it is actually a logical possibility

>Christians are necessarily saved. Non-Christians are necessarily not saved. If one is a Christian ever, they're a Christian period
Yes, so if I'm a Christian in "infinite concurrent reality nº 777" I'm saved even though I'm not Christian in this one.

And the opposite is true for people who become Christians (or should I say "Christians") in this one but can't possibly be saved in any reality.

This. America has enough unity problems as it is with the racial diversity.

We at least need religious uniformity (or at least an agreement on moderate Christian and Capitalistic values, if not belief in God per se) if we are going to have any form of unity.

Obviously we are never going to unite around politics, so religion is probably the only thing we've got. Europeans might not need it though, since their unity is based on blood.

Aaahh, but i believe we will observe it... we just don't have the means yet.

It's all speculation of course.

hmm, I see human consciousness as a large entity of multiple and inter-generational consciousnesses. i.e. tradition, inherited intelligence, ect.

I think your idea of spiritual is the same as my idea of memetics. Ideas are the only "otherworldly" concepts to me as they live when we die.

i simply don't believe in afterlife because its unobservable. I especially don't believe in judgement themes like heaven and hell, that's just too convenient and of course... unobservable.

>Why we need god?
"we" don't -- simple-minded dullards do to justify their fear of death and stop them from running amok like ISIS, as their rabid animals are naturally inclined to do when no Sword of Damocles dangles above their hollow heads

Then what if the Concurrent Realities model does not reflect the true model of Reality itself? Your reasoning and point of reference is coming from a model of your own invention or a model that is being subscribed to in some form or another. And because this model cannot be mathematically quantifiable or proven, it is based on faith alone. In essence, the true nature of the universe does not have to seen through your lens of what reality can be defined by in order to remain true. I hope this makes sense.

understandable, but not debatable. You have a clear head and I appreciate your thoughts, but imo we should only focus on what can be debated.

>Then what if the Concurrent Realities model does not reflect the true model of Reality itself?
That's an understatement.

This whole model he's trying to use to prove free will doesn't reflect anything about reality, it's pure mental masturbation.

Check out jordan peterson's talk about it.

There I'm working under the assumption of logical possibility. Given we're judging the validity of propositions under simple logical veins, it's very easy to dismiss reductive claims - like that it's not possible for there to be free will in a world in which there is an omniscient and omnipotent Creator - since all you have to do is provide a single (logically) possible exception.
Simultaneously, it's very difficult to reject more humble claims that work within predefined sets, like the claim that it simply *may* be the case that we're working with a state of affairs in which every person has every possibility realized for them, but that it may be a more limited possibility set than sheer logical possibility.

>Yes, so if I'm a Christian in "infinite concurrent reality nº 777" I'm saved even though I'm not Christian in this one.
Yes, that would be correct. That also happens to account for the "criticism" often leveled against Christianity that it's absurd that God might sentence a person who never had a shot of knowing Christ (maybe some primitive rain forest native in your country perhaps), since they *WOULD* get a shot (presumably) in an infinitely realized concurrent reality.

>And the opposite is true for people who become Christians (or should I say "Christians") in this one but can't possibly be saved in any reality.
No. That's not the case. I've said this quite a number of times now, so I'll quote myself once again.
>If a Christian is saved, they're saved. Period.
>Christians are necessarily saved. Non-Christians are necessarily not saved. If one is a Christian ever, they're a Christian period.
>It was already established that a person who finds salvation in Christ and is thus an actual Christian will necessarily be saved.

“The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
and could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.” ― Xenophanes

According to Thomas Hobbes, we need a Leviathan. It's not necessarily a stereotypical god.

to an extant I agree with you. your thoughts agree with my model of what I call optimal human

starting with

1: adam- the blank state of man, without original sin equal to an animal
2:adam 2- the learned state of man, having recognized god and himself.
3:divergant paths: Cain - Abel : two paths, while differentiating in morality, both are rather neutral in the grand scheme, this is the most common state of man today, balancing in favor of cain.
4:single path: Lucifer: To be like christ, one must be like lucifer: The 1st advanced stage of man and the most critical- this is the stage of truth to self. The light bringer is neither "good" nor "evil", only set in truth.
5: divergent paths: Satan and Christ: symbolizing the ultimatums of destruction and creation, they are two sides of the same coin- sons of god with eternal balancing of ideology.

I have a lot to work on with this tree, so this is just my basic idea for now. could change alot base on what I gain in thought later on.

Atheism is the ultimate act of pride. It's the, "I'm so awesome, I don't need God, I AM God!" impulse. Unless you were like born in the Soviet Union and don't know anything else, in my personal collection of ancedotes, I find it usually doesn't end well for such people.

We're mortal because of sin. Our natural fate is destruction. We must avert this fate through a being that is immortal and sinless.

It's impossible to meet his standards, which is why God alone can be our savior because we are helpless to change our own souls alone. Because he loved the whole world, he died for the world to give all men a way out.

He made a sacrifice to pay for our crimes in a way that a mortal could not. Because of the actions at the Cross, men from all time have been able to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of God by professing that God will forgive them, believing it in their heart. It is a hope like none other, a hope that is inevitable and irreversible.

God watches children (who have no freewill) get raped and does nothing (while fully capable of stopping it). He cares more about curing somebody's kneepain.

>who have no freewill

>understatement
you say it is, but it doesn't make it any less or more true, no matter if you believe it, or the entire human race believes it. That's the wall you're gonna hit whenever talking about the metaphysical nature of God. You have to apply the same logic you're using to attack his position, and test it against your own model of reality without hitting a means to an end. Denying God is one thing, but providing a sustainable definition of reality without his existence is another. In other words, comparing God to nothing in a vacuum is easy, but comparing his nature to another model of reality is where the problem lies.

thats not "god" thats just reality.

(Agnostic-)Atheism is just saying "We don't know, and we don't believe because there's no good objective evidence". Theism is what's prideful, it's YOUR specific religion and YOUR specific sect that you just happened to be born into which is the ABSOLUTE truth (and yet you have no good objective evidence). Faith (believing things without good objective evidence) is not a good way to truth.

A child getting raped generally doesn't have any freewill.

God is supposedly everywhere. He's right there when a kid gets raped and he does nothing (while fully capable of stopping it). Would you do nothing (if you were capable of stopping it?

I don't know how something being put into a bodily cavity somehow deprives a person of free will.

Does their soul travel elsewhere during the ordeal? Is that what you're proposing?

These are the result of Sin, not God. He allows these things to happen because that is the fallen nature of this world. You have to look at the big picture. These horrors of today are not God just watching us for his entertainment. It's quite the opposite. Infact, why do you think he flooded the earth in the days of Noah. Because humans were just that evil in those days. If he just stopped people from acting evil, then none of us would have free will. we would all just be soulless robots with no choice in the matter. It's satan that creates the horrors of this world, not God. But God gives you an option to renounce the things of this world.

that's not my understand of "god" as I have explained through all of my past posts.

>it's very easy to dismiss reductive claims - like that it's not possible for there to be free will in a world in which there is an omniscient and omnipotent Creator - since all you have to do is provide a single (logically) possible exception
Which you haven't.

In your infinite realities people can only chose what God has already chosen for them. They are not free even in the most literal sense of choosing everything simultaneously, because some choices are unavailable to them.

It's just another failed attempt to solve the question of free will vs omniscience.

>Yes, that would be correct
It sure feels great to be saved without ever stepping into a church.

>a person who finds salvation in Christ and is thus an actual Christian
That's why I said "Christian"

I could convert now, but if I'm not an actual Christian it doesn't have any effect.

>In other words, comparing God to nothing in a vacuum is easy, but comparing his nature to another model of reality is where the problem lies
Maybe that's because the nature of an inaccessible being is, accordingly, inaccessible, and we can only discuss what we attribute to it through our logic.

>I don't know how something being put into a bodily cavity somehow deprives a person of free will.

I'm saying the person being raped generally isn't choosing to be raped.

>Which you haven't
I have. God gave them infinite possibilities.
Unless you can articulate a *MORE FREE WORLD* for humans than one in which they *CAN AND DO DO EVERYTHING*, then it absolutely stands as *at least* a redoubt against the claim that an omniscient omnipotent Creator is incompatible with free will.

And you have not done so. You can't articulate a more free world than that. Because there is no such world where you can be more free than being able to infinitely exhaust your possibilities.

A world without God would be *FAR* less free - you'd only get one world, and one set of possibilities, which you'd exhaust - perhaps also in an entirely deterministic manner - and it'd be over. That would be magnitudes less free.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with free will. That's like saying since I don't have a choice that gravity confines my physical body to the earth in most circumstances that I don't have free will, since gravity doesn't let me choose to not be bound by it.

God watches children get raped and does nothing, while curing grandma's kneepain because of the fallen nature of the world (ie. some dude ate an apple a gazillion years ago and you're guilty for it). Please. Some God watching children getting raped and doing nothing is the fallen one.

If you were capable of stopping a child from being raped, wouldn't you stop it?

I CANT

You're making bullshit up and calling it God.

And, from our research, we could be wiped out completely without any warning.

I have to go to bed. I hope you try and catch me in another thread Brazil. I like this conversation, even if it's a little repetitious.

I frequent many religious threads.

>God gave them infinite possibilities
How can they be infinite when there's a known possibility that's not included?

>And you have not done so. You can't articulate a more free world than that
But I did. It's simply a world where that person can get a ticket fro the magic playground in the sky.

In your world, a person that can't be saved is as free as a convict on death row.

>A world without God would be *FAR* less free - you'd only get one world, and one set of possibilities, which you'd exhaust - perhaps also in an entirely deterministic manner - and it'd be over.
How do you infer that God is necessary for us to have the same world with infinite realities?

A child generally doesn't have a choice to not be raped when they're being raped.

Now I think it's fair to assume for us that finding the truth through cold hard logic becomes fruitless at some point. Logic alone starts to show the limits of its capability. Logic isn't bad, but this is why faith is the final step for all Christians. And through faith, this being becomes accessible, that I can guarantee.

It doesn't take much to beg the question, all you gotta do is ask
"God, If you're there, reveal yourself to me in a way that I can understand."

You'd be surprised at the events that transpire soon after. I'm out user, nice talking to u.

We're both (probably) saved anyway so it doesn't matter.

Also, there is no freewill with an all-knowing God, if God knows everything then he knows exactly what your end-"choice" would be BEFORE he created you (and he could have created you differently or not at all), he then created you as such knowing this beforehand. There is no freewill in such a scenario.

Faith (believing things without good objective evidence) is not a good way to truth. Multiple religions believe things based on faith and come to mutually contradictory conclusions.

God works with a wide brush, he plans the outcomes for every event and by that definition, he could very well stop that child from being raped. However, he didn't. Does that mean God is cruel? That he doesn't care? That he wanted for that child to be raped? Maybe. Having faith is in part about believing that God exists and every outcome is his to control. When unfortunate things happen, it's as much on God's hands as if you won the lottery. The question however is why? And it's one I can't exactly answer.

We clearly can't do shit ourselves. Athiesm claiming we don't need God, >continues to imply that it can save the world, for some reason Athiesm hasn't changed jack shit in the world.

>They then insist that everyone needs to be Athiest but in actuality nothing will fucking happen, except a more disfunctional society that will inevitable make everyone unhappy because these fuckers think they're rational for disbelieving in God but then fuck it all up and vote libtard. They just fucking swap their arrogance for ignorance. Yippity skip

Objective neutralist ftw.
>Inb4 centrist meme, at least I didn't cuck the fuck out and make a stupid decision.

God is made up fiction, that's why. A time when people didn't know how the world worked and made up answers to relieve their anxiety (re: death, droughts, etc.).

If God is there when a child is being raped, fully capable of stopping it, but doesn't. He's not an all-loving God, he's a monster.

If child rape is part of his mysterious master plan, he's not an all-loving God, he's a monster.

Faith (believing things without good objective evidence) is not a good way to truth. Multiple religions believe things based on faith and come to mutually contradictory conclusions.

Of course as a human, I would if I was in the vicinity and had the power to. But lets get back to the scenario you've presented.

So the children get raped. Who is doing the raping? A rapist, not God. Did the rapist choose to commit the evil act of raping these kids? Yes. Lets suppose God stopped the rapist. how will he stop the rapist? Will he supernaturally destroy the rapist, forcibly change his mind? If he does that, then what constitutes an evil act? Because surely he must stop all the evil before it happens. If all evil is stopped then do you even have a choice at all? all you wont even be able to think, because your mind will be totally controlled from ever even thinking anything remotely evil. Do you get the picture?

Some dude ate a apple a bazillion years ago, and fucked it all up, and all it took was God sending one dude from heaven to fix ALL the mistakes humanity made. AKA Jesus.

Because when we let biblical guidance lead our lives we find true happiness. Believing in Adam, Noah's flood, etc comes after you realize the Bible is indeed the word of god, which of course you'll never achieve unless you actually sit down and read.

Fundamentalist religion is going to cause WWIII. If you can't change Fundamentalist Christianity, good luck with Fundamentalist Muslims.

The Enlightenment brought us out of the Dark Ages. It certainly has changed the world.

Religious moderation is because of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance.

religion relies on physical and physiological intimidation tho so it's worse.

God could teleport the rapist to Siberia if he wanted to. Why would he need to stop all evil? He can stop the one that's directly harming one who's blatantly not consenting and is suffering one of the worst immoral acts possible while God just watches.

God also hardened Pharaohs's heart, did he not?

------------

Do you really think you were born sinful because some dude ate an apple a gazillion years ago? People lose their minds at being somehow responsible for their ancestors being slave owners.

It's a made-up story to sell you a cure for an illness you don't have.

You reject God on the principle that he didn't save that child? I understand your logic, but what if he loved that child but chose not to save them? Just a possibility, but what if instead of simply saving them, he just didn't? Love is a vague word, it might just be misconstrued in the context we think of it?

How can a perfect being be born from imperfect beings?
Adam and Eve both ate from the fruit (in never specified it was an apple) and therefore became imperfect beings because they sinned. All their offspring are, therefore, mortal and sinful. Not too hard to understand, think of it as hereditary

Lots of shit doesn't make sense but people act like it do.

I reject that specific God as being all-loving. Yes. If you love a child, you generally don't watch them get raped (while being fully capable of stopping it) and doing nothing. I don't see how love could in any way encompass children being raped or watching it doing nothing (while fully capable of stopping it).

so now you're bringing up the relativist argument.
Basically you're claiming that its up to you to decide whats right and whats wrong. So if rape is evil? Is being a fag evil? is murder evil? is lying evil? all these things are weighted differently by different people on a scale, so I ask what makes one thing worse then another to you? Are you the one that decides whether something is evil or not because this sort of relative mindset is exactly what the most degenerate groups like feminists and sjw's think. "it's bad because i think it's bad." its either God's doctrine, or you make up your own doctrine, or follow somebody else sets of rules and codes. But the latter 2 doctrines are relative, and the former is not.

Well, firstly, there was no literal Genesis Adam/Eve. We evolved (we share a common ancestor with Apes and we're part of the Great Apes genetic family).

Are slave-owners children responsible for their ancestors being slave-owners?

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20

Of course there's also the verses that say that children will bear the iniquity of their father as well. Exodus 20:5, etc.

Contradictions in the Bible, more at Noon.

youtube.com/watch?v=EAlfV6-Wtnk

No, I'm not bringing up a relativist argument. Look into Sam Harris - The Moral Landscape. There's objective morality without a sky wizard.

Heck, even with God, it's not real morality, it's just dictates. Look into Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Look at Europe

God faps to child rape.
Remember he impregnated his mom when she was 12. God confirmed for pedo.

Evidence for evolution.
youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg

Theory vs. Hypthesis vs. Law explained.
youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA

Literally the Bible itself implies humans are supposed to eventually become self-sustaining

Sure the idea is "evil" but it's not said to be impossible. In fact the opposite is inplied, that it's very possible and it shoupd be prevented.

Winning a youtube war will do you no justice. All I can tell you is that I believed in evolution and the big bang theory, learned that shit since grade-school and fully believed what science had to say. the problem with atheists like you is that you assume that Christians live under a rock, when in reality we were sitting next to you in 7th grade science class. I was an atheist like you, so I know how you think, you dont have to reprove evolution to me, because I learned it the way almost everybody learned it. But It's up to you whether you want to find out if you were being lied to all along, or whether you want to keep believing what you want to believe. It wont affect me, only you.

: