Religion.

[lolDeath]

No need, you just confirmed what I was thinking, thanks. I'm going to go fight Agent Smith now.

[Phoenix]

No need, you just confirmed what I was thinking, thanks. I'm going to go fight Agent Smith now.

He has a gun...

Make sure you don't get capped seven times like Neo did.

[Esau of Isaac]

Building:Parts that are created to become a part of something perfect ARE IMPERFECT OF AND BY THEMSELVES.

As is the finished result in any and all situations, of course, if you conclude that the parts are.

The reason is because they're purpose is to become complete. Not remain as they are. To remain makes them imperfect. Now what you're obviously getting at is that something like a bolt or screw is perfect of and by itself. even though it is meant to eventually become apart of something greater, like an XBOX 360 controller or something. Still the creation process isn't complete. If you are going to make/create/build something, the things you use, are to you, imperfect, or you'd leave them alone altogether, as adding them to something else could very well take away from that.

Incorrect, and inconsequential even if it were correct. As a finished product the pieces that made it are no more perfect, and the end result is just the sum of its parts. If you're saying that parts are imperfect by nature, then everything is intrinsically imperfect, because everything is made of parts. My chair is made of industrial plastics, of screws, of nuts, bolts, and all manner of differently-shaped pieces that in their assembly come together to form a workable and comfortable area to rest. However, these plastics, these bits of metal, they are all derivatives of chemical processes and molding materials themselves. We can break them down to their basest components, the very simplest elements, and what do we have? Imperfection at its core, if you conclude that parts are always imperfect, of course.

Their purpose is not to become complete in some sort of philosophical sense, it's to serve some end by being put together. What you call complete and what I call complete may very well be different things. Is my computer complete enough to run? Certainly. Does that make it perfect? No, certainly not. It never will be, because I'm imperfect and so is everything else.

Perfect Process: The perfect process can be anything that comes out exactly as planned. Flaws don't make the process imperfect if they are intended from the get-go. And don't take that as a "imperfection is perfection" switch. It's not. I'm saying that flaws can be intended for the purpose of creating perfection.

No, not at all. For something to be perfect, it must be utterly lacking in any form of flaw. Whether the creator has an intended purpose or not, if anything is remotely imperfect about the process itself or the pieces related to it, it's not perfect.

Not only that but it is required since throwing together a bunch of complete things just makes a clump of perfect things that weren't intended to be together as they were already perfect of and by themselves, and not being intended implies a flawed result. If the result is flawed then imperfection is the result. The Perfect Process is a process that goes exactly as intended by the being who initiates it. Therefore, no matter what comes into the design/process/project, as long as the end result is what was intended, it is perfect.

Again, no. By this logic, I could intend to fuck up, and it would be perfect when its premise is by its nature utterly flawed. That doesn't make any sense at all, because we're not talking about subjective perfection, which is in and of itself a view of person to person. We're talking about objective perfection which means that something is lacking of flaws in every single manner possibly imaginable. Which is in and of itself impossible. It's just that much more impossible when contemplating how such a being could create something imperfect, since if it were truly perfect it would do nothing less than perfect; it would employ no imperfect process, it would create nothing imperfect, it would judge nothing imperfectly, and it would not fail or cause imperfections in any area.

ANYTHING BY THAT HAPPENS BY DESIGN IS PERFECT. Also not speaking of Good and evil designs but of a neutral kind of perfection that can only be determined by the creator of said design. (Can't wait til your so called logic discounts this with the same bias view point as before. Yipee...)

You patch a hole in a leaking pipe; it's not doing so well, and is in horrible shape. But all of the pieces came together to do exactly as you intended. I notice the situation and believe you suck ass at patching a leak, and could do the job much better. Is your creation perfect?

A simple yes or no will do. If yes, then you're making no sense and the idea of God being perfect is fucking ludicrous, because by that same notion every fucking thing in existence could be construed as perfect. If no, then you're contradicting yourself because this is how you intended the process to go, whether or not it comes out to be a miserable job that could be improved in every fashion. Have fun.

I honestly have no friggin idea what kind of overall potential a real God would have. What I'm saying is that when you create some thing, you END UP with it, it's not just there. You create by putting it together. That is how creation works, at least in this universe. Logically applying this to God means that he would work the same way assuming he created us. Since humans are supposedly imperfect, that means the creation process is either flawed, or unfinished. If the process of creating something that is perfect is not yet finished then that means the process can be perfect. It is, or it isn't depending on human destiny. Listen carefully... THE END RESULT IS WHAT MATTERS. If the process of creating something perfect required nothing but other perfect things then the whole process would be impossible. (I sense a micro perfection argument approaching quickly... best nip this in the bud...)

You fail to understand that anything and everything is composed of parts. If the parts that make something up are imperfect, then it is intrinsically impossible by definition to be perfect.

If people were to become perfect, then your argument would be rendered null because it would evidence that parts are not necessarily imperfect, and thus the entire premise that creation is in itself imperfect would be incorrect.

So the screw is perfect is it? Only if it's not meant to be apart of the controller and is simply meant to be... a screw(not screwdriver sry). That's where the maker's intent comes into the picture. The perfection of something to be or that already is created can only be determined by the Creator. That's FACT.

I think the color red is perfect, and the color blue is imperfect. You think that the color red is imperfect and the color blue is perfect. They have both served their end to both of us in exactly the fashion we intended. Is red perfect, or imperfect? Is blue perfect or imperfect? If red is perfect but blue is not, why? If blue is perfect but red is not, why? If both are perfect, then why are neither of them imperfect, if they are both viewed as such? If neither are perfect, then why do you follow the premise that if something is seen as perfect then it is perfect?

So can a screwdriver be perfect of and by itself? Only if intended to be by the person who created it. If it was intended to become a part of something greater then it is not perfect alone. So micro perfection can only apply to things that become part of multiple things. I guess a screw could fall into this catagory because you can take it out of one hole and put it into another. But this is about the overall project. You're saying that God can't work with imperfection. That means he can only exist completely alone and by himself with nothing else in existence. There is a purpose in this universe. If there was no reason for it, it would not be here. The purpose is perfection. So the end result of creation will be perfection. That's the only possible outcome of it all. everything in this universe by itself is flawed in someway, partly because it has not fulfilled it's purpose in why it was created.

Correct. If God were truly perfect, God would not create the universe, an imperfect entity, and would simply keep neutrality on any event that presented itself with any options that were less than perfect. In addition, were God to be ageless, the Universe would have either lacked a beginning and existed for eternity like God, or would have never existed at all, because if God's judgment is perfect the only thing that can cause it to do anything is the action of outside forces. As such, God cannot lack the drive to create a Universe one moment and spontaneously decide to create a Universe. Both cases, however, are incorrect, as the Universe both exists, and has a beginning.

There is no possible outcome of perfection, because objective perfection can never actually occur.

Why do you say God damn so much? That's like me saying No-God damn. It's funny as hell. Also I'm glad that people have the mental capacity to ignore the plain truth and run off and do their thing, especially religious scholars and the like, but maybe we should all just take a step back and just try to look at things alittle more unbiasly, and if not with an open mind, then at least a humble heart. This day and age is pretty much a "I'm right because you can't possibly be right." world. It's disgusting to look at how quickly this get's into people's heads. People need to learn to be right, for the right reasons.

I approach situation in as unbiased a manner as I physically can, and judge based on the merit of the actual evidence presented. This day and age is a "if you lack evidence, then your argument is faulty" society, and if the fire's too hot then you better damn well stay out of the kitchen. People need to learn that when they step up to the plate to put their argument forth, they should bring along with it objectivity and logic, because those will win out in the end if one is persistent enough.

And I say Goddamn so much because you get on my Goddamned nerves.

You facts don't prove you right or me wrong, and even if they did prove me wrong, it doesn't mean you and the rest of the "logical" world have the truth and the answers. If you did, then surely noone would contest you right? Well of course those with the same stubborness would but they'd die off in a couple hundred years.

My facts very clearly make your argument wrong, and something's truth is not decided by the number of followers. There are still individuals that contend to this day the notion that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. Does that change that they are wrong? Fuck no, and likewise in this same situation the fact that you disagree with my position --which I strongly believe to have the upper hand in terms of logic and reasoning-- doesn't somehow make your position any fairer.

If perfection is what it's defined as, it can do imperfect things because it's perfect and can do anything, right?

No. By definition of what a perfect being is, it is very much incapable of doing anything imperfect.

Anyone can intentionally do worse than their full ability. If perfect wants to create imperfect, how does that make it imperfect?

...Because it did something imperfect.

Oh, what am I saying, I was hoping this was ending at the Matrix comparison.

So you would say that Neo was perfect?

I'm genuinely interested as to what you drew from the movie, because that's miles off from what I gained.

Make sure you don't get capped seven times like Neo did.

It was ten times silly :P

Edited December 7, 2008 by Esau of Isaac

[Balcerzak]

If God solved EVERYTHING, what would be the point of free will?

But... Free Will!!!

Free will does not exist. There are two ways to go about showing this: scientifically (all processes either have a definite cause, or a random one: decisions which come about by external causes are not free, decisions which are random are not willed) or theologically. Ignoring for the moment the materialistic arguement against free will, let us concede to examine it theologically, give it the benefit of the doubt, the more advantageous position. Even then, free will fails.

Martin Luther wrote an excellent thesis on this, in reply to a challenge by Desiderius Erasmus. It's called "On the Bondage of the Will". Now, I haven't read the entire thing myself, but merely an abridged version, and a review, but I think a few quotes from the abridged version shall be illustrative, and I would hope you consider Luther to be a competent authority in his field. {Warning, tl;dr ahead. I have taken the liberty to bold the most essential sentences and clauses for the lazy, as a skimmers aid to the important points.}

Since God's foreknowledge is not uncertain, "free-will" is non-existent

It is fundamentally necessary and healthy for Christians to acknowledge that God foreknows nothing uncertainly, but that He foresees, purposes, and does all things according to His own immutable, eternal and infallible will. This bombshell knocks "free-will" flat, and utterly shatters it; so that those who want to assert it must either deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice it, or find some other way of dodging it. Surely it was you, my good Erasmus, who a moment ago asserted that God is by nature just, and kindness itself? If this is true, does it not follow that He is immutably just and kind? that, as His nature remains unchanged to all eternity, so do His justice and kindness? And what is said of His justice and kindness must be said also of His knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will, and the other Divine attributes. But if it is religious, godly and wholesome, to affirm these things of God, as you do, what has come over you, that now you should contradict yourself by affirming that it is irreligious, idle and vain to say that God foreknows by necessity? You insist that we should learn the immutability of God's will, while forbidding us to know the immutably of His foreknowledge! Do you suppose that He does not will what He foreknows, or that He does not foreknow what He wills? If he wills what He foreknows, His will is eternal and changeless, because His nature is so. From which it follows, by resistless logic, that all we do, however it may appear to us to be done freely and optionally, is in reality done necessarily and immutably in respect of God's will. For the will of God is effective and cannot be impeded, since power belongs to God's nature; and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. Since, then His will is not impeded, what is done cannot but be done where, when, how, as far as, and by whom, He foresees and wills...

A will which has no power without grace is not free

You describe the power of "free-will" as small, and wholly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then, I ask you: If God's grace is wanting, if it is taken away from that small power, what can it do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do nothing good. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because we have now taken God's grace away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it follows that "free-will" without God's grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good. This being so, I give you full permission to enlarge the power of "free-will" as much as you like; make it angelic, make it divine, if you can! - but when you add this doleful postscript, that it is ineffective apart from God's grace, straightway you rob it of all its power. What is ineffective power but (in plain language) no power? So to say that "free-will" exists and has power, albeit ineffective power, is, in the Sophists' phrase, a contradiction in terms. It is like saying "'free-will' is something which is not free" - as if you said that fire is cold and earth hot. Fire certainly has power to heat; but if hell-fire (even) was cold and chilling instead of burning and scorching, I would not call it "fire", let alone "hot" (unless you meant to refer to an imaginary fire, or a painted one). Note, however, that if we meant by "the power of free-will" the power which makes human beings fit subjects to be caught up by the Spirit and touched by God's grace, as creatures made for eternal life or eternal death, we should have a proper definition. And I certainly acknowledge the existence of this power, this fitness, or "dispositional quality" and "passive aptitude" (as the Sophists call it), which, as everyone knows, is not given to plants or animals. As the proverb says, God did not make heaven for geese! It is a settled truth, then, even on the basis of your own testimony, that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by "free-will"; for the power of "free-will" is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace. It follows, therefore, that "free-will" is obviously a term applicable only to Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) "whatever he wills in heaven and earth" [Psalms 135:6]. If "free-will" is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be - and no blasphemy could exceed that! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and to leave it to be applied to God only. They would do well also to take the term out of men's mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name. If they must at all hazards assign some power to men, let them teach that it be denoted by some other term than "free-will"; especially since we know from our own observation that the mass of men are sadly deceived and misled by this phrase. The meaning which it conveys to their minds is far removed from anything that theologians believe and discuss. The term "free-will" is too grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome. People think it means what the natural force of the phrase would require, namely, a power of freely turning in any direction, yielding to none and subject to none. If they knew that this was not so, and that the term signifies only a tiny spark of power, and that utterly ineffective in itself, since it is the devil's prisoner and slave, it would be a wonder if they did not stone us as mockers and deceivers, who say one thing and mean another - indeed, who have not yet decided what we do mean! Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing then there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up - unprofitably enough - on their own vainglory. But this false idea of "free-will" is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences. If we do not want to drop this term ["free-will"] altogether - which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do - we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with "free-will" in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own "free-will" - though that very "free-will" is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no "free-will", but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.

The hardening of Pharaoh

... This is why Moses generally repeats after each plague: "And the heart of Pharaoh was hardened, so that he would not let the people go; as the Lord had spoken" [Exodus 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12]. What was the point of: "As the Lord had spoken", but that the Lord might appear true, as having foretold that Pharaoh should be hardened? Had there been in Pharaoh any power to turn, or freedom of will that might have gone either way, God could not with such certainty have foretold his hardening. But as it is, He who neither deceives nor is deceived guarantees it; which means that it is completely certain, and necessary, that Pharaoh's hardening will come to pass. And it would not be so, were not that hardening wholly beyond the strength of man, and in the power of God alone, in the manner that I spoke of above: that is, God was certain that He would not suspend the ordinary operation of omnipotence in Pharaoh, or on Pharaoh's account - indeed, He could not omit it; and He was equally certain that the will of Pharaoh, being naturally evil and perverse, could not consent to the word and work of God which opposed it; hence, while by the omnipotence of God the energy of willing was preserved to Pharaoh within, and the word and work that opposed him was set before him without, nothing could happen in Pharaoh but the offending and hardening of his heart. If God had suspended the action of His omnipotence in Pharaoh when He set before him the word of Moses which opposed him, and if the will of Pharaoh might be supposed to have acted alone by its own power, then there could perhaps have been a place for debating which way it had power to turn. But as it is, since he is impelled and made to act by his own willing, no violence is done to his will; for it is not under unwilling constraint, but by an operation of God consonant with its nature it is impelled to will naturally, according to what it is (that is, evil). Therefore, it could not but turn upon one word, and thus become hardened. Thus we see that this passage makes most forcibly against "free-will" on this account that God, who promises, cannot lie; and, if He cannot lie, then Pharaoh cannot but be hardened.

It then follows that God only saves whom he wants to save, and damns all the rest, as salvation is only dependent on the grace of God, and all actions of man are irrelevant and ineffective. Luther even acknowledges such. This may come to be a bit of a disturbing realization, may leave an unpleasant taste in your mouth. If God is good, why does he not save everyone? Then, and this is where I disagree with him, Luther shoots back with that pitiful cop-out, "God's wisdom is inscrutable", "The Lord works in mysterious ways", "I got nothing :shrug:, but here's some bullshit".

The justice of God in His dealings with men

You may be worried that it is hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly persons, who, being born in ungodliness, can by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying so, and being damned, but are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul says: "We were all the children of wrath, even as others" [Eph. 2:3], created such by God Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by the sin of one man, Adam. But here God must be reverenced and held in awe, as being most merciful to those whom He justifies and saves in their own utter unworthiness; and we must show some measure of deference to His Divine wisdom by believing Him just when to us He seems unjust. If His justice were such as could be adjudged just by human reckoning, it clearly would not be Divine; it would in no way differ from human justice. But inasmuch as He is the one true God, wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to man's understanding, it is reasonable, indeed inevitable, that His justice also should be incomprehensible; as Paul cries, saying: "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" [Romans 11:33]. They would not, however, be "unsearchable" if we could at every point grasp the grounds on which they are just. What is man compared with God? How much can our power achieve compared with His power? What is our strength compared with His strength? What is our knowledge compared with His wisdom? What is our substance compared with His substance? In a word, what is all that we are compared with all that He is? If, now, even nature teaches to acknowledge that human power, strength, wisdom, knowledge and substance, and all that is ours, is nothing compared with the Divine power, strength, wisdom, knowledge and substance, what perversity is it on our part to worry at the justice and the judgment of the only God, and to arrogate so much to our own judgment as to presume to comprehend, judge and evaluate God's judgment!

If you can refute Luther (or come from a non-Abrahamic religion, and have fundamentally different viewpoints on the nature of God, and the relationship to will, which would render his arguements irrelevant), then we can argue about free will some more. But until that point, free will does not exist. QED. Stop bringing it up as a shallow-cop out when your logic fails to prove your points, or to support your beliefs. You can't just run to "free will" to save you from the horrible logical contradictions inherent in the construction of YHWH as omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, without retreating entirely from the realm of logic, at which point we have nothing to discuss.

P.S.

Esau: You're doing great things here in the topic, but don't just let them run around with their "free will" defense to the problem of evil. Saying you don't believe in it, or that there's no evidence for it is a good first step, but you really ought to have thrown the gauntlet down. It's a vital issue.

Editted for: P.S., grammar, added generic quote at beginning, to show that it applies to everyone argueing free will, and not just Citrusman.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Balcerzak

[Kintenbo]

If you want to be saved go find a Catholic priest or something.

Wait? Why would you need to see a Catholic priest to be saved? Don't you need to just accept Christ as your savior and sincerely confess that you're a sinner to God to do that?

[Herr Wozzeck]

Wait? Why would you need to see a Catholic priest to be saved? Don't you need to just accept Christ as your savior and sincerely confess that you're a sinner to God to do that?

Being a former Roman Catholic myself, that's not really the way it works. To confess to God in the Roman Catholic church, you literally have to run over to your church during confessional times, talk to the priest, get him to purge your sins, and then say a whole ton of prayers before you can leave. It's overly laborious and most people these days don't see the point of going through all that, sure, but that's the way it's done.

[Judge Judy]

Being a former Roman Catholic myself, that's not really the way it works. To confess to God in the Roman Catholic church, you literally have to run over to your church during confessional times, talk to the priest, get him to purge your sins, and then say a whole ton of prayers before you can leave. It's overly laborious and most people these days don't see the point of going through all that, sure, but that's the way it's done.

That is one long process....

[Kintenbo]

Being a former Roman Catholic myself, that's not really the way it works. To confess to God in the Roman Catholic church, you literally have to run over to your church during confessional times, talk to the priest, get him to purge your sins, and then say a whole ton of prayers before you can leave. It's overly laborious and most people these days don't see the point of going through all that, sure, but that's the way it's done.

Where in the Bible did it say you have to do that? I can't think of any part that said people had to purge your sins for you... Then again, I'm a Baptist, so it might be a tradition exclusive to the Roman Catholics.

[Ragnell]

Being a former Roman Catholic myself, that's not really the way it works. To confess to God in the Roman Catholic church, you literally have to run over to your church during confessional times, talk to the priest, get him to purge your sins, and then say a whole ton of prayers before you can leave. It's overly laborious and most people these days don't see the point of going through all that, sure, but that's the way it's done.

Actually, you don't really say many prayers at all (I'm Roman Catholic, so I would know). But you do go to a confessional and all that. I don't know if you HAVE to do that to get your sins forgiven, but I do it every once and a while anyway.

Now on God being perfect.

A.) You have no idea what God can and cannot do, and neither do I. You may say that is a "cheap dodge" but that is what God is, no one can understand him. It's like trying to get an ant to understand how humans think and act. It just can't be done.

B.) If God plans to make the universe perfect, he can start imperfectly (wow, beating a dead horse here)

Ex: The examples given earlier were ok, but I don't think they got the point across. Here's mine. You want to make a chair. Now, you don't just make the chair instantly with nothing but chair. No, you get together screws, plastic or wood, and whatever other stuff you need. Then you make the chair. Now, halfway through the making of the chair, you don't have a chair, you have a bunch of plastic and screws. But when you're done, you have a chair. Like that, God can make imperfect people and make perfection. And it was said before that if the parts are imperfect, the whole is imperfect. That is completely false. A chair may be made from plastic and screws, but it is a chair, not plastic and screws.

Next, it was earlier said that God couldn't just start the universe, it either always was or never was. This makes good sense in our terms, but read the second line in paragraph #2. Also, it was said WAY earlier that before the big bang all of the universe was wrapped up in a singularity. I would like to say that time and space couldn't just suddenly spring into being out of that either. Because if there was no progression in time, nothing could happen suddenly. It either always happens or never happens. I'm not an expert on the whole "singularity starts time" idea(like anyone here is <_< ), so I may not get the idea perfectly, but that is basically what I've learned on the theory.

And finally, everyone keeps saying that there is no proof of the existance of God. Here are some examples or real, scientific evidence of the Big Guy(I don't have the places I found these on hand, but I can find 'em and link them if anyone wants further proof)

1.) It has been found that at the time when the Israelites left Egypt, the Red Sea did in fact part. I'm not talking drying up and leaving a path. I'm talking about splitting in half and letting the Israelites walk through. And even if there is some whacked-out scientific explanation for this, what are the odds it has only ever happened exactly when the Israelites needed it. And the sea closed on only the Egyptions pursuing them.

2.) Most Christians don't even believe in the Noah's Ark story, but it has been found that the human gene pool seems to recenter (I can't think of a way to accurately express what it said) many years ago. It's as if all but one or two people died suddenly at the exact time when Noah would have existed. And it may be impossible for every animal on earth to get on a boat together, but something did happen that wiped out all but a few humans.

And I would just like to clear this up. Everyone keeps discussing whether Hell is eternal suffering or if it is a final death. I would like to add another theory in there (one that is more accepted than either of those by theologists). It is the theory that the eternal suffering is not just fire or whatever. But more like a gnawing guilt and longing. This theory basically says that every person's soul longs to be with God. And when you are damned to hell you not only have proof that you failed God in the little he asks of you, but you are forever separated from him. And the argument that God is evil for sending people to hell is stupid. Why would anyone do what God wanted if you didn't need to do anything to get into heaven. There has to be some sort of punishment if you truly have turned away from God. If I can quote the bible "But do not ignore the fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard "delay," but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3: 8-9)" This also proves that you will not get bored in heaven because A.) there is not time that we understand and B.) you are not in your body, and do not necesarily have all your human urges/desires. I think of it this way: when you are in heaven, you feel good all the time. You know how you feel when you meet a loved one you haven't seen in a while or when you get a compliment from someone you like. That feeling. All the time.

And finally, I'm really curious about Esau of Isaac's name. I was reading the bible and I noticed that Isaac (Abraham's son) had a son named Esau. Is this where you got it, and if so what is the significance of your name, or is this the biggest coincidence in history?

[WyvernSageLord]

And finally, I'm really curious about Esau of Isaac's name. I was reading the bible and I noticed that Isaac (Abraham's son) had a son named Esau. Is this where you got it, and if so what is the significance of your name, or is this the biggest coincidence in history?

Talk about a massive dose of irony.

[Leonri]

First of all, the Flood was impossible. Not enough water in the world to create a flood like that.

As for Hell. Would you really kill, rape and steal if there was no hell? Doing good out of fear isn't good at all.

An eternity of suffering is a punishment out of proportion to any crime. There is nothing you could possibly to to deserve it. Therefore sending people to hell is evil. Your version of God is evil.

[Judge Judy]

There is nothing you could possibly to to deserve it. Therefore sending people to hell is evil. Your version of God is evil.

To be honest no one really knows whether ''sinners'' will go to hell forever...like probably it just to put people off from doing bad deeds... =/

That is what I think anyway. Like if some of the holy books said, you can do as much as bad things as possible and that you will only be punished for it for a short period of time in hell, people wouldn't think twice before doing something wrong... O.o

Man I never thought of it that way...

Edited December 7, 2008 by Mad Sage

[Defeatist Elitist]

Actually, you don't really say many prayers at all (I'm Roman Catholic, so I would know). But you do go to a confessional and all that. I don't know if you HAVE to do that to get your sins forgiven, but I do it every once and a while anyway.

Now on God being perfect.

A.) You have no idea what God can and cannot do, and neither do I. You may say that is a "cheap dodge" but that is what God is, no one can understand him. It's like trying to get an ant to understand how humans think and act. It just can't be done.

B.) If God plans to make the universe perfect, he can start imperfectly (wow, beating a dead horse here)

Ex: The examples given earlier were ok, but I don't think they got the point across. Here's mine. You want to make a chair. Now, you don't just make the chair instantly with nothing but chair. No, you get together screws, plastic or wood, and whatever other stuff you need. Then you make the chair. Now, halfway through the making of the chair, you don't have a chair, you have a bunch of plastic and screws. But when you're done, you have a chair. Like that, God can make imperfect people and make perfection. And it was said before that if the parts are imperfect, the whole is imperfect. That is completely false. A chair may be made from plastic and screws, but it is a chair, not plastic and screws.

Next, it was earlier said that God couldn't just start the universe, it either always was or never was. This makes good sense in our terms, but read the second line in paragraph #2. Also, it was said WAY earlier that before the big bang all of the universe was wrapped up in a singularity. I would like to say that time and space couldn't just suddenly spring into being out of that either. Because if there was no progression in time, nothing could happen suddenly. It either always happens or never happens. I'm not an expert on the whole "singularity starts time" idea(like anyone here is <_< ), so I may not get the idea perfectly, but that is basically what I've learned on the theory.

And finally, everyone keeps saying that there is no proof of the existance of God. Here are some examples or real, scientific evidence of the Big Guy(I don't have the places I found these on hand, but I can find 'em and link them if anyone wants further proof)

1.) It has been found that at the time when the Israelites left Egypt, the Red Sea did in fact part. I'm not talking drying up and leaving a path. I'm talking about splitting in half and letting the Israelites walk through. And even if there is some whacked-out scientific explanation for this, what are the odds it has only ever happened exactly when the Israelites needed it. And the sea closed on only the Egyptions pursuing them.

2.) Most Christians don't even believe in the Noah's Ark story, but it has been found that the human gene pool seems to recenter (I can't think of a way to accurately express what it said) many years ago. It's as if all but one or two people died suddenly at the exact time when Noah would have existed. And it may be impossible for every animal on earth to get on a boat together, but something did happen that wiped out all but a few humans.

And I would just like to clear this up. Everyone keeps discussing whether Hell is eternal suffering or if it is a final death. I would like to add another theory in there (one that is more accepted than either of those by theologists). It is the theory that the eternal suffering is not just fire or whatever. But more like a gnawing guilt and longing. This theory basically says that every person's soul longs to be with God. And when you are damned to hell you not only have proof that you failed God in the little he asks of you, but you are forever separated from him. And the argument that God is evil for sending people to hell is stupid. Why would anyone do what God wanted if you didn't need to do anything to get into heaven. There has to be some sort of punishment if you truly have turned away from God. If I can quote the bible "But do not ignore the fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like one day. The Lord does not delay his promise, as some regard "delay," but he is patient with you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3: 8-9)" This also proves that you will not get bored in heaven because A.) there is not time that we understand and B.) you are not in your body, and do not necesarily have all your human urges/desires. I think of it this way: when you are in heaven, you feel good all the time. You know how you feel when you meet a loved one you haven't seen in a while or when you get a compliment from someone you like. That feeling. All the time.

And finally, I'm really curious about Esau of Isaac's name. I was reading the bible and I noticed that Isaac (Abraham's son) had a son named Esau. Is this where you got it, and if so what is the significance of your name, or is this the biggest coincidence in history?

First of all, Isaac already addressed this, but let me get this straight... You're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that a CHAIR is perfect? And that chair makers are perfect? A "perfect" chair maker would make "perfect" chairs INSTANTLY. He wouldn't need to make them imperfect first. And I've never seen a "perfect" chair either. There's always MORE it could do. Seriously, you guys are fucking with the word perfect a lot.

And finally, everyone keeps saying that there is no proof of the existance of God. Here are some examples or real, scientific evidence of the Big Guy(I don't have the places I found these on hand, but I can find 'em and link them if anyone wants further proof)

1.) It has been found that at the time when the Israelites left Egypt, the Red Sea did in fact part. I'm not talking drying up and leaving a path. I'm talking about splitting in half and letting the Israelites walk through. And even if there is some whacked-out scientific explanation for this, what are the odds it has only ever happened exactly when the Israelites needed it. And the sea closed on only the Egyptions pursuing them.

2.) Most Christians don't even believe in the Noah's Ark story, but it has been found that the human gene pool seems to recenter (I can't think of a way to accurately express what it said) many years ago. It's as if all but one or two people died suddenly at the exact time when Noah would have existed. And it may be impossible for every animal on earth to get on a boat together, but something did happen that wiped out all but a few humans.

LOLOLOLOLOL. No. There is no historical or fossil evidence of the Red Sea just randomly parting itself. I don't know where you got this... Please link me to it?

As for 2)... I'd also like to see where you got this. It's fairly suspicious, although I could understand some of it. I suspect it will hideously misunderstand Science though...

Also, sorry for saying Goddamn you guys, I'll switch to something better like Mother Fucking Shit Cunts from now on, ok?

Edited December 7, 2008 by ZXValaRevan

[Florete]

Also, sorry for saying Goddamn you guys, I'll switch to something better like Mother Fucking Shit Cunts from now on, ok?

Now is that really necessary? You could just stop using offensive language as a whole, especially Goddamn since it is a religion topic. Seriously, you're just asking for trouble now.

[YokaiKnight]

I learned from Balcerzak's post (and I only skimmed Luther's writings). You should all read it too.

I don't see how any of that fits what you described as perfect. In other words, I whole-heartedly disagree with your view of perfection. Anyone can do less than their full ability, right? Being perfect means you're capable of anything, including doing something imperfect.

This is nowhere in the dictionary definition you provided, the definition Team Atheist (and maybe the Crusaders for Christendom too) has been using, nor my personal definition. Since when does perfect include being able to do anything?

By definition, there are things you can't do:

-Improve. "2. excellent or complete beyond practical or theoretical improvement"

-Do anything wrong, withing whatever you're perfect at being. "4. entirely without any flaws, defects, or shortcomings"

Also, shame on me for getting involved in the "perfect" bullshit. I never thought I could read the word that many times in one thread, page, post, or even paragraph. D:

EDIT: fixed some shit-tastic bbcode.

Edited December 7, 2008 by YokaiKnight

[Defeatist Elitist]

Now is that really necessary? You could just stop using offensive language as a whole, especially Goddamn since it is a religion topic. Seriously, you're just asking for trouble now.

They were the ones who brought it up.

[Phoenix]

I keep hearing this imperfection argument that I may have missed. It's been Team Athiest's (lol) main weapon and I didn't realize it. It went something like this...

"A perfect being would be able to create a perfect thing instantly."

Not if it is using the creation process. If for even a nanosecond, something in your design is imperfect, or incomplete, you've had imperfection in the creation process. Can God create perfection instantly? Probably, but only if he's using a creation process that human beings have never seen before. I'm looking at this logically for the sake of the argument. To "create" something requires you to go through the process of doing so.

That pretty much means that everything you intend to become apart of your creation is imperfect by itself. If it becomes apart of what it was meant to then it is now perfect, because it's creator has fulfilled it's purpose. It is no longer incomplete.

Red and Blue? Esau, did you read what I said carefully? I said the creator decides perfection. Human beings did not thrust colors into existence so we have no say in whether or not they're perfect to begin witih. I said the creator decides what is perfect. If he put both red and blue into existence, it went exactly as planned, and he has finished the project, then they are both perfect.

Hell again? Well of course everybody has their own version, most being that stupid fiery pit where people are screaming and being shanked with pitchforks by demons but once again, I take an atleast slightly logical approach. I'll repeat what I got from the Bible. I highly doubt that our God is as maniacal as the standard interpretation of hell seems to point to.

Eternal Punishment does not equal eternal punishing.

Hell is always translated in Hebrew as A hole in the ground.

Hell is always translated in Greek as A grave.

Gehenna Hellfire is a place to burn dead bodies.

Does anyone see a trend here? I sure as hell do. Pun intended.

That immortal soul thing is part of why people have easily accepted this spiritual torture session that lasts for eternity. But remember this, if that is the correct interpretation of the Bible, then we have absolutely no reason to even open our mouths in defense to our God's character. Eternal punishing or burning alive for all eternity isn't undeserved but warrants a sick and cruel God nonetheless. Sorry I didn't make a bigger point, I was just trying to keep the definition of this stuff fresh in the thread's mind. It will help out later on with this part of the debate I'm sure.

[Fox]

Eternal Punishment does not equal eternal punishing.

Yes it does?

[Esau of Isaac]

Esau: You're doing great things here in the topic, but don't just let them run around with their "free will" defense to the problem of evil. Saying you don't believe in it, or that there's no evidence for it is a good first step, but you really ought to have thrown the gauntlet down. It's a vital issue.

My apologies, I usually coast into topics as time goes on.

Now on God being perfect.

A.) You have no idea what God can and cannot do, and neither do I. You may say that is a "cheap dodge" but that is what God is, no one can understand him. It's like trying to get an ant to understand how humans think and act. It just can't be done.

The fact that you attempt to make a defense that the thing being discussed is beyond discussion renders your point kind of null. You can't use such a defense, because you're effectively making your point inadmissible in a debate of logic and reasoning.

B.) If God plans to make the universe perfect, he can start imperfectly (wow, beating a dead horse here)

But he wouldn't if he were perfect, because it would be allowing imperfection to enter the process. It would just start off with perfect.

Ex: The examples given earlier were ok, but I don't think they got the point across. Here's mine. You want to make a chair. Now, you don't just make the chair instantly with nothing but chair. No, you get together screws, plastic or wood, and whatever other stuff you need. Then you make the chair. Now, halfway through the making of the chair, you don't have a chair, you have a bunch of plastic and screws. But when you're done, you have a chair. Like that, God can make imperfect people and make perfection. And it was said before that if the parts are imperfect, the whole is imperfect. That is completely false. A chair may be made from plastic and screws, but it is a chair, not plastic and screws.

Of course it's imperfect if the parts that make it up are imperfect. No one's calling it plastic and screws, but it is indeed made from them. And unless you're somehow arguing that the chair is perfect just by being created (which makes the entire concept of perfect utterly useless) then your argument is a faulty.

Next, it was earlier said that God couldn't just start the universe, it either always was or never was. This makes good sense in our terms, but read the second line in paragraph #2. Also, it was said WAY earlier that before the big bang all of the universe was wrapped up in a singularity. I would like to say that time and space couldn't just suddenly spring into being out of that either. Because if there was no progression in time, nothing could happen suddenly. It either always happens or never happens. I'm not an expert on the whole "singularity starts time" idea(like anyone here is dry.gif ), so I may not get the idea perfectly, but that is basically what I've learned on the theory.

Before the singularity of space and time, nothing could have happened, by the meaning of what the singularity of space and time were. Again, attempting to speak of a time before time is akin to speaking of a north of the North Pole.

And finally, everyone keeps saying that there is no proof of the existance of God. Here are some examples or real, scientific evidence of the Big Guy(I don't have the places I found these on hand, but I can find 'em and link them if anyone wants further proof)

This should be good.

1.) It has been found that at the time when the Israelites left Egypt, the Red Sea did in fact part. I'm not talking drying up and leaving a path. I'm talking about splitting in half and letting the Israelites walk through. And even if there is some whacked-out scientific explanation for this, what are the odds it has only ever happened exactly when the Israelites needed it. And the sea closed on only the Egyptions pursuing them.

First, I have seen zero evidence outside of the Bible that ever pointed to Moses and his people leaving Egypt. And second, I'm going to have to ask you to back up that claim with some sources.

2.) Most Christians don't even believe in the Noah's Ark story, but it has been found that the human gene pool seems to recenter (I can't think of a way to accurately express what it said) many years ago. It's as if all but one or two people died suddenly at the exact time when Noah would have existed. And it may be impossible for every animal on earth to get on a boat together, but something did happen that wiped out all but a few humans.

If there were only two humans left, or only a family, it would have been impossible for the race as a whole to recover.

Please back up your claims, because they are ridiculous and incredibly tenuously related the Bible itself. There were chaotic events that could have threatened humans and did not involve the flooding of the entire planet. And considering that there is clear and concise evidence that the world has never experienced a flood that covered its entire surface at any point in man's history, you've got quite an argument on your hands.

And finally, I'm really curious about Esau of Isaac's name. I was reading the bible and I noticed that Isaac (Abraham's son) had a son named Esau. Is this where you got it, and if so what is the significance of your name, or is this the biggest coincidence in history?

It's an intentional action. When I had picked the username, I had been a practicing Christian. What I did not know, however, was that Esau was in actuality hated by God. In fact, I believe he was the only one to ever be explicitly stated as an object of hate. Seems rather fitting that when I began questioning my beliefs I find that Esau was in actuality quite the sinner.

Not if it is using the creation process. If for even a nanosecond, something in your design is imperfect, or incomplete, you've had imperfection in the creation process. Can God create perfection instantly? Probably, but only if he's using a creation process that human beings have never seen before. I'm looking at this logically for the sake of the argument. To "create" something requires you to go through the process of doing so.

That pretty much means that everything you intend to become apart of your creation is imperfect by itself. If it becomes apart of what it was meant to then it is now perfect, because it's creator has fulfilled it's purpose. It is no longer incomplete.

And if another person views it as perfect when one viewed it as imperfect?

You're arguing for a subjective perfection. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Red and Blue? Esau, did you read what I said carefully? I said the creator decides perfection. Human beings did not thrust colors into existence so we have no say in whether or not they're perfect to begin witih. I said the creator decides what is perfect. If he put both red and blue into existence, it went exactly as planned, and he has finished the project, then they are both perfect.

Jesus Christ, weak dodge. Replace the two with any object that leads to a subjective view of perfection and you'd get the damn picture. Make "red" "pizza" and "blue" "taco salad". IS IT GETTING THROUGH TO YOU NOW?!

Hell again? Well of course everybody has their own version, most being that stupid fiery pit where people are screaming and being shanked with pitchforks by demons but once again, I take an atleast slightly logical approach. I'll repeat what I got from the Bible. I highly doubt that our God is as maniacal as the standard interpretation of hell seems to point to.

Eternal Punishment does not equal eternal punishing.

Hell is always translated in Hebrew as A hole in the ground.

Hell is always translated in Greek as A grave.

Gehenna Hellfire is a place to burn dead bodies.

I question that and your total knowledge of Hebrew. In fact, you never brought this up prior to now, so I'm calling bullshit and ask that you actually define the terms that are being used in your own words.

Second, no, Gehenna was not just a place where they burned dead bodies. It was explicitly stated in the Bible that individuals that were burned in the fires of Gehenna would have their very spirit consumed. Spirit does not just mean life, no matter how much you want it to mean that. Stop being ridiculous and get a clue.

Does anyone see a trend here? I sure as hell do. Pun intended.

That immortal soul thing is part of why people have easily accepted this spiritual torture session that lasts for eternity. But remember this, if that is the correct interpretation of the Bible, then we have absolutely no reason to even open our mouths in defense to our God's character. Eternal punishing or burning alive for all eternity isn't undeserved but warrants a sick and cruel God nonetheless. Sorry I didn't make a bigger point, I was just trying to keep the definition of this stuff fresh in the thread's mind. It will help out later on with this part of the debate I'm sure.

Why are you forcing this conversation to turn to an area where I hammered the point home to you for dozens of pages in another area? Seriously, did you not learn the last time?

[Ragnell]

Before the singularity of space and time, nothing could have happened, by the meaning of what the singularity of space and time were. Again, attempting to speak of a time before time is akin to speaking of a north of the North Pole.

That is not what I'm saying at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've learned of the theory states that there was no time and during the Big Bang time "unfolded" and began. What I was saying was that, like what you said about God, if time doesn't progress, something either happens or never happens. So the universe either began an eternity ago or never started. Now I'm thinking I'm probably missing something because real scientists wouldn't overlook something like this (I hope), but maybe they did.

[Phoenix]

You're arguing for a subjective perfection. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD.

Jesus Christ, weak dodge. Replace the two with any object that leads to a subjective view of perfection and you'd get the damn picture. Make "red" "pizza" and "blue" "taco salad". IS IT GETTING THROUGH TO YOU NOW?!

I question that and your total knowledge of Hebrew. In fact, you never brought this up prior to now, so I'm calling bullshit and ask that you actually define the terms that are being used in your own words.

Second, no, Gehenna was not just a place where they burned dead bodies. It was explicitly stated in the Bible that individuals that were burned in the fires of Gehenna would have their very spirit consumed. Spirit does not just mean life, no matter how much you want it to mean that. Stop being ridiculous and get a clue.

Why are you forcing this conversation to turn to an area where I hammered the point home to you for dozens of pages in another area? Seriously, did you not learn the last time?

The reason I'm arguing a subjective perfection is because the perfection you athiests keep going on about can't be logically applied to anything. Trying to apply it is a waste of time. When the Bible was written, perfect could have carried the same definition it does now, so if they said it so much, maybe they were talking about the same subjective I am. That or they just couldn't comprehend it, or both.

The next person who accuses me of dodging anything is my nemesis from this day forward. I'm not dodging anything, Team Athiest. It seems like you're trying to drag this into a realm it doesn't belong. Red, Pizza, Blue, Taco Salad, it doesn't matter. You're basically saying that man can judge God's works and be correct in doing so. While you're at it, why not let that ant Ragnell was talking about judge your thoughts and see how far it gets before it's head explodes or it just goes back to thoughtlessly gathering food for the colony. Perfection, the kind that CAN be applied to God logically is the very kind you're trying to avoid. This is the perfection in where only the Creator's view matters. If this perfection applied to humans then the world would look insanely more pathetic than it already does.

I know you question my knowledge. Most wise of you. I'd question yours too but I don't because I have unwarranted faith in the ability of an athiest to think and reason. Also:

In fact, you never brought this up prior to now

What?! I bring this hellfire thing up every few days or so. Read the whole thread or don't make that assumption.

Why doesn't everyone in this thread start laying down some serious proof in their interpretations of the Bible? To me it seems like everybody is using the same standard interpretation of hell and I have a problem with that because of where the interpretation comes from. I prefer to start from the foundation of an issue before jumping into stuff like this. That's why I brought up the definitions.

The definitions of words in their original language helps to identify the intent of what is said, as crazy religions spawn otherwise. Plenty of evidence of that right? YES.

So with that, I will not simply accept something as insane as eternal punishing without mountains of evidence throughout the book.

Also to Fox, the plain one. The two words have different meanings.

Eternal Punishment: Punishment that lasts forever. Example: I am unable to enter a certain area ever again, it does not imply punishing until you start reading to much into it.

Eternal Punishing: Punishment that is on going and evercontinuing. In the process of punishment. This is the hell everybody thinks about.

It is sad that even the Loginators of Team Athiest like to do this:

Someone says hell is not eternal punishing, and they jump straight on the christian bandwagon and accept the same old interpretation they do. Is that very smart? Will you honestly look at the few verses that hint at eternal punishing verses the larger number of verses that clearly say otherwise? Or do those not count because it would go against your belief?

I told you this is a world of "I'm right because you can't possibly be right.". It looks like it's all about evidence, but I know better than that. You know... even if God showed himself and you did start believeing he existed, it wouldn't do you any good in the end. Hell... Satan believes in God. He's been fighting or trying to fight him for thousands of years. It's not helping him much either.

[Blacken]

That is not what I'm saying at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've learned of the theory states that there was no time and during the Big Bang time "unfolded" and began. What I was saying was that, like what you said about God, if time doesn't progress, something either happens or never happens. So the universe either began an eternity ago or never started. Now I'm thinking I'm probably missing something because real scientists wouldn't overlook something like this (I hope), but maybe they did.

You learned wrong. The Big Bang is a singularity. It is mathematically impossible to know what occurred before the singularity. Whether there was a concept such as "time" before the singularity point is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that the Big Bang singularity existed, and the prevailing theories as to the universe's life cycle is that it will be terminated by the Big Crunch, another singularity; the cyclical universe theory suggests that it is a repeating cycle.

[quanta]

That is not what I'm saying at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've learned of the theory states that there was no time and during the Big Bang time "unfolded" and began. What I was saying was that, like what you said about God, if time doesn't progress, something either happens or never happens. So the universe either began an eternity ago or never started. Now I'm thinking I'm probably missing something because real scientists wouldn't overlook something like this (I hope), but maybe they did.

I think you're confusing your metaphysics with physics. All current physics that is confirmed by experiment tends to rely on the very existence of time to make any sense (force is defined as the instantaneous change in momentum over time, the equations of E&M use current density, the schrodinger equation involves partial derivatives with respect to time as do wave equations, general relativity describes the very geometry of time, etc. etc.). Time is always there as far as we can tell, thus physics tends to involve it. There are indeed physics problems involving static situations (those that do not change in time) and advanced theories (none of them completely confirmed yet AFAIK) which deal more with what time actually is and how it is related to space, but that's but a fraction of physics. The mathematical singularity is an issue with either current physics (which we know needs to be refined) or an indication of the physical limits of our predictive power. It's best not to delve to deeply into this without an excellent understanding of the physics or math. And I mean the "you should have a Ph.D. if you even want to try this type of thing". And even then, best not to turn yourself into a headcase (too many brilliant people have gone down that road... just look at what happened to Einstein as he worked on a unified field theory).

Now on to the fun part...

The reason I'm arguing a subjective perfection is because the perfection you athiests keep going on about can't be logically applied to anything. Trying to apply it is a waste of time. When the Bible was written, perfect could have carried the same definition it does now, so if they said it so much, maybe they were talking about the same subjective I am. That or they just couldn't comprehend it, or both.

No.

The next person who accuses me of dodging anything is my nemesis from this day forward. I'm not dodging anything, Team Athiest. It seems like you're trying to drag this into a realm it doesn't belong. Red, Pizza, Blue, Taco Salad, it doesn't matter.

I accuse you of dodging. Also, I like the pigeonholing. Clearly all atheists belong to a secret atheist cabal where they plot how to beat down the poor, defenseless totally homogeneous Christians. Give me a break. There is no team atheist or any team Christian. I know Christians who would take issue with your logic (or extreme lack thereof) and interpretation of the Bible.

You're basically saying that man can judge God's works and be correct in doing so. While you're at it, why not let that ant Ragnell was talking about judge your thoughts and see how far it gets before it's head explodes or it just goes back to thoughtlessly gathering food for the colony. Perfection, the kind that CAN be applied to God logically is the very kind you're trying to avoid. This is the perfection in where only the Creator's view matters. If this perfection applied to humans then the world would look insanely more pathetic than it already does.

Perfection where only the creator's view matters, so nobody can argue over it or make any points because they aren't God himself? Excuse me if I find that a bit rich. How about you just rush to the conclusion of any bad defense and say "Well, logic clearly doesn't apply to someone like God." At least then you're being clear about your assumptions, and you can abandon any pretense of justifying him based upon logic. You can't have it both ways. Either the existence of God can be argued about and probed in a logical manner (it tends to be much more challenging to defend his existence on this basis then to attack his existence), or he's totally illogical and thus it all comes down to faith, in which case trying to argue that he exists is complete folly. Of course, there are also many varying conceptions of God that are sometimes more easily defensible and sometimes even perfectly logical (read: certain versions of Deism, it's basically impossible to logically refute since it assumes God never interferes in the affairs of man, and by extension in the physical world we can observe) , but those aren't the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient one you speak of so I'll not go over those.

I also find it funny that others are not allowed to tag any sort of defining characteristics onto God's perfection, yet you somehow psychically know his intentions and how "If this perfection applied to humans then the world would look insanely more pathetic than it already does."

What?! I bring this hellfire thing up every few days or so. Read the whole thread or don't make that assumption.

Why doesn't everyone in this thread start laying down some serious proof in their interpretations of the Bible? To me it seems like everybody is using the same standard interpretation of hell and I have a problem with that because of where the interpretation comes from. I prefer to start from the foundation of an issue before jumping into stuff like this. That's why I brought up the definitions.

The definitions of words in their original language helps to identify the intent of what is said, as crazy religions spawn otherwise. Plenty of evidence of that right? YES.

So with that, I will not simply accept something as insane as eternal punishing without mountains of evidence throughout the book.

One of the prime reasons this interpretation exists should be obvious. All one would have to do is read Revelations literally. And if one is already reading Genesis and good chunks of the Old Testament literally, it can be a bit tricky to defend not reading Revelations as such.

To be specific, Revelations 20:7-20

When the thousand year are over, Satan will be released from his prison... And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. The death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Obvious metaphors aside, it's pretty clear we're talking about eternal "punishing" here. Unless you want to respond A)nobody's name is in that book, and you have extremely clear reason to believe so (maybe channeling God's will or something), B) burning in a lake of fire isn't really that bad C) there is clear reason to believe that the lake of fire is not the same as the lake of burning sulfur, the lake of fire will clearly go out at some point despite no mention of this and it being called the second death which would seem to indicate it just might be eternal, D) who cares, Revelations is symbolic anyways and certainly not meant to be read literally, just like a great deal of the Bible (including or excepting perhaps, that whole part of God being perfect, Adam and Eve, Jesus being risen from the dead, Moses parting the Red Sea, etc. etc.), or finally E) Revelations shouldn't be canon nor should any other passages supporting the theory of eternal "punishing" be canon, it's a load of bullshit, and I'm clearly more qualified to decide it isn't than the many scholars who decided it was (barring certain sects where it isn't canon, etc.); here are my reasons.

If you're sane, you'll probably go with D or E, but I'm not deciding here.

[Esau of Isaac]

That is not what I'm saying at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I've learned of the theory states that there was no time and during the Big Bang time "unfolded" and began. What I was saying was that, like what you said about God, if time doesn't progress, something either happens or never happens. So the universe either began an eternity ago or never started. Now I'm thinking I'm probably missing something because real scientists wouldn't overlook something like this (I hope), but maybe they did.

You're wrong. There was no time before the singularity of space and time, by definition of what it is. You can't discuss causality when the event that brings causality into being hasn't occurred; that's not sensible.

The reason I'm arguing a subjective perfection is because the perfection you athiests keep going on about can't be logically applied to anything. Trying to apply it is a waste of time. When the Bible was written, perfect could have carried the same definition it does now, so if they said it so much, maybe they were talking about the same subjective I am. That or they just couldn't comprehend it, or both.

Or they actually thought that their God was completely perfect, and were wrong. Don't shift your argument to a subjective manner when objectivity isn't open; it just shows that you are incapable of supporting your preferred view in any manner other than "well it's my opinion that..."

The next person who accuses me of dodging anything is my nemesis from this day forward. I'm not dodging anything, Team Athiest.

"Team 'Athiest'"? Really? Really?

It seems like you're trying to drag this into a realm it doesn't belong. Red, Pizza, Blue, Taco Salad, it doesn't matter

Oh it matters quite a bit. And the fact that you completely ignored my line of questioning when I managed to point out an inherent impossibility to proceed logically in your moronic criteria is evidence enough that you've lost your footing, here.

You're basically saying that man can judge God's works and be correct in doing so. While you're at it, why not let that ant Ragnell was talking about judge your thoughts and see how far it gets before it's head explodes or it just goes back to thoughtlessly gathering food for the colony. Perfection, the kind that CAN be applied to God logically is the very kind you're trying to avoid. This is the perfection in where only the Creator's view matters. If this perfection applied to humans then the world would look insanely more pathetic than it already does.

Except it can't be applied logically, because it's subjective.

I will ask again, with a similar scenario, and if you do not reply satisfactorily, I'll accept it as an admittance of defeat on you part:

John makes a pizza; he believes that it is perfect, and Jack's broccoli is completely imperfect; Jack believes that the broccoli he prepared is one hundred percent perfect and John's pizza is entirely imperfect. Which is correct? If the pizza is perfect but not the broccoli, why? If the broccoli is perfect but not the pizza, why? If they are both perfect, then why are neither of them perfect, if they are both viewed as such? If neither of them are perfect, then you are being contradictory to your own current position.

I know you question my knowledge. Most wise of you. I'd question yours too but I don't because I have unwarranted faith in the ability of an athiest to think and reason.

If you're going to generalize me and group me into a category, could you at least spell the term correctly?

What?! I bring this hellfire thing up every few days or so. Read the whole thread or don't make that assumption.

Your view of Gehenna in that sense was never brought up prior to then. I read the entire thread.

Though I do admit that I read few of your posts.

Why doesn't everyone in this thread start laying down some serious proof in their interpretations of the Bible? To me it seems like everybody is using the same standard interpretation of hell and I have a problem with that because of where the interpretation comes from. I prefer to start from the foundation of an issue before jumping into stuff like this. That's why I brought up the definitions.

The definitions of words in their original language helps to identify the intent of what is said, as crazy religions spawn otherwise. Plenty of evidence of that right? YES.

So with that, I will not simply accept something as insane as eternal punishing without mountains of evidence throughout the book.

I already sufficiently proved that to you in another dozens-of-pages-long topic on the FEE Forums.

It is sad that even the Loginators of Team Athiest like to do this:

Someone says hell is not eternal punishing, and they jump straight on the christian bandwagon and accept the same old interpretation they do. Is that very smart? Will you honestly look at the few verses that hint at eternal punishing verses the larger number of verses that clearly say otherwise? Or do those not count because it would go against your belief?

I didn't jump straight on the Christian bandwagon, I came to the conclusion after studying the book myself. You should try it sometime.

I told you this is a world of "I'm right because you can't possibly be right.". It looks like it's all about evidence, but I know better than that. You know... even if God showed himself and you did start believeing he existed, it wouldn't do you any good in the end. Hell... Satan believes in God. He's been fighting or trying to fight him for thousands of years. It's not helping him much either.

It's hard for a fictional evil character to win in a religion where his enemy has unlimited power.

[Phoenix]

... ... ...

Yeah... I think I'm about ready to never tell another joke in the General section again. You guys are WAY to emotional.

"Don't catagorize me!"

Fine I won't. I just call each of you by name. Does that make you feel better?

To answer Esau's question about the two morons who like to judge each other's cooking.

They are both imperfect. I am applying the Creator's view of perfection to GOD, not to human beings. In traditional Christianity, God is viewed as almighty, there's noone else on his level. You gave me a question concerning to entities on the same level, or plane of existence. That's ignoring the Biblical interpretation of God as a whole isn't it?

Either we can look at God logically and try to apply things to him, or we can just not bother and each jump to our respective sides. Look there's no point in going over this damnable objective perfection because realistically it doesn't exist. Applying that to God is a waste of time, and you're clearly discounting a few details prematurely. Let's fight about something else. Besides... why try to crush my subjective perfection at all? Humans are at their best possible condition when they're having a "Red Sea" moment. Relying on Faith alone isn't that crazy. Illogical... yeah, but not crazy.

To Quanta:

Yeah, do me a favor, and don't drag verses out of the Bible if you're just trying to get the thing discounted.

You go ahead and "interpret" everything in the Bible literally if you want to. Don't look at the original language, don't study the intent of what is said, don't give anything a second thought. Just read the Book and pull another bs religion out of your ass. I'm not stopping you. I have a different method though which works for me B)

Once again, the Team Atheist thing was a continued joke. If you're offended, feel free to cry on Esau's shoulder or something. I also have no intention of just saying "logic doesn't apply to God" Whether it does or doesn't, I wouldn't do that outside of a joke. If I did that seriously, then what the hell are we debating/girly fighting/arguing about? There's only two ways to do this, with logic and evidence, or with logic and pride. Logic and pride is infinitely strong than logic and evidence, but that's why we should try it... just for a few pages or so.

NEMESIS

Accuse if thou will, but great shame be unto you.

He who truly dodgith, doth not stickith around to make all but more complex and vexing.

Thou hast ignored truth, and great shame be unto you.

I am, who I say I am.

Thou hast ignored truth, and great shame be unto you.

Fin. :P

Edited December 9, 2008 by Phoenix