When was America great ?

[Arturo Bandini]

BTW, there is thread about this : http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Do-you-believe-and-why?highlight=believe

[KillerGoose]

(07-10-2023, 03:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He designed us perfectly.  If you think this life is all there is, then it might suck.  But if you look at it that souls choose their life, including atheists,  for experiences outside of perfection, and this isn't reality or our natural state, then it makes more sense.  

Funny enough, I do find the idea of death absolutely fascinating. I find myself wondering what happens after death often. Out of everything that I think about from the beginning of the universe to the possibilities of deities, I find death to be the most perplexing and impossible to comprehend. The idea that it is possible that once you die, there is just nothing until the end of time is so unfathomable to me. Of course, the world had been around for a few billion years before I showed up and I had no perception of that but it still just rocks me. Of course, there also could be something, and that is equally as fascinating. 

[GMDino]

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-10-2023, 10:34 AM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think we come back to using your analogy here - if I know for a fact that a person is planning on committing a mass shooting and I provide them with the weapon to do so, fully knowing they will use that weapon to kill people, then I am culpable in some manner for that shooting. There would be an extra moral penalty if the people that were killed were those that I loved. When we speak about god's design and his omniscience & omnipotence, he knew that by giving us free will we would sin. We would have the capability for committing terrible acts and cause suffering. His beloved creations would cause suffering amongst themselves, and he would have to assign a large portion of his beloved creations to suffering for eternity because by that same free will, there would be those who choose to not believe in him. 

I understand your reasoning here. I just disagree with the notion that God holds responsibility for the shooting happening. I think perhaps the issue here is what you mean by "responsible" because that to me sounds like God is the reason that the shooting happened  and not the individuals own desire to shoot people. Or am I wrong?

Quote:This is a strange decision to make for a benevolent, all-loving god. Why is free will designed in this way? Why does free will have an implicit inclusion of sin? We are talking about the creator of the universe - all universal laws would have been created by him. Why not create free will, or life, without the ability to commit terrible acts? Again, he knew everything that was to come of his design choices, so why would he continue with them despite having the ability to change it? 

Honestly  I don't really know why God created this way over another. But I'm also not overly concerned with that detail. But I will say that while I don't know exactly why he created this way over another I will continue in my belief that it wasn't so we would suffer. The fact that God doesn't have the worst interests for us and even gave us an alternative option to suffering (salvation) is enough for me to consider a finite life of suffering a fair trade off with eternal peace. When you compare the two, finite suffering pales vastly in comparison to eternal peace.

Quote:Sure, he didn't have to offer us salvation at all. However, he also didn't have to offer the current version of free will. He could have offered us anything. He could have replaced gravity with something else. He is all-powerful and there is no limit to what he could have done, but he still designed us imperfectly unless, by his eyes, we are perfect. If we are a perfect creation, then his design would have to be intentional, for better or for worse. He would have the foreknowledge of all that was to come and the eternal fates of many of his creations, and he would have to approve of those outcomes. This would change the idea of a "loving god" to one that is similar to a person being proud of their ant colony and the ecosystem they designed rather than a creator who loves all of his creations individually and wants to protect them and keep them safe/happy. One that is interested in the simulation of life rather than the life itself. 

Well that depends on how one defines "perfection" because really... what does it actually mean to be perfect? I would say God is the only perfect being in the purest sense of the word.

Human beings can never truly be "perfect" on God's level because that would then make them God. It's the very same reason why complete free will cannot exist because to have complete free will is to have the free will to do anything, which would include becoming a being as powerful as God, which is paradoxical. You cannot have more than one "God". 

So right from the get go God already has to limit what we can and can't do based on the contradictory nature "free will" presents. 

Where things get iffy for people is the fact that God created divine law from which we can be punished. Why? I'm not sure, but at the same time I believe God deserves that right since he created the universe and everyone in it. 

As for the love aspect, I think this again comes down to how one defines love. God doesn't want us to suffer. I believe he wants us to live in peace because he loves us, otherwise why even offer it? Its not like God actually needs us to live in peace with him. He doesnt need us to suffer fir him either. In fact, he doesnt need us at all. He wants to give us peace on his terms and is not willing to bend to what man wants in order to give them peace.

God also gives us mercy, literally everyday. God could be striking us all with lightning bolts everyday and killing off humanity on a whim, yet he doesnt. There's also the fact that God sent Jesus to die for our sins to also show his love for us.  Again, I understand peoole have a problem with defining that as "love" but I guess that's just where "agree to disagree" comes into play and people will see such thought process as "insanity/ludicrous/illogical etc...".

But it could be argued that it's insanity/ludicrous/illogical to defie an all powerful god with which we know we cannot win who has offered us the very thing we seek in life, which is eternal peace, all for the sake of being able to have a little more choice than we had before. Now, I don't think anyone should follow God simply because he's all powerful, because that wouldn't be what God wants in my opinion. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-10-2023, 12:47 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So if God's intent was to not have them eat the fruit, why have it near them? Or why allow the serpent to poison Eve's mind? Or why allow Eve to thus poison Adam's mind? Why even have the tree? Unless his intent was to create Man in order to have Man suffer.

If a father leaves an open bottle of alcohal on the table and his son or daughter drinks it even after the father told them not to, does that mean the intent was to have them drink the alcohal?

Quote:So he wants worshipped for doing **** all? I mean at least Apollo pulled the Sun across the sky. God apparently said "this is a fun ant farm, I can't wait for it to burn itself down" and started playing XBox.

I'm not really sure how else to say it. God offered us salvation which negates any finite suffering we experience here on earth. I wouldnt call that "doing nothing".

Quote:So the alternative he provides is vague promises of salvation if you follow his (often contradicting) set of rules and worship without question, while also exercising free will with all of human's innate flaws?

Yeah, no. Those are the actions of a benevolent being. 

The alternative he provides is the thing we seek everyday, yet cannot fulfill ourselves. Yet we would rather have sin over that. Why?

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-09-2023, 11:34 PM)Lucidus Wrote: The issue is that God knows the decision before it was made. When God chose to make this world instead of another, he also chose the decisions of this world as opposed to another. Our choices in any omniscient creation scenario would necessarily be contingent and unchangeable; bound by the creator's preferred reality.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds like predestination doctrine which I wholeheartedly reject. 

The idea that God has predetermined everything just doesn't sound logical to me.

You said "preferred reality" but I question this. I don't understand why allowing one thing to exist over another means you prefer that. Would one argue that having a cars gas tank close to empty is preferable to a full one? No, but people drive around with close to empty gas tanks all the time. Not because they prefer that but because they allow it to be a reality.
Sure, God is allowing us to choose to drive around with almost empty gas tanks, but I wouldn't say that's what he prefers simply because  he allows it and knows omnicsiently that we will have an almost empty gas tank.

Quote:Keeping with your analogy -- 

God made a movie in which he purposely hired actors that he knew were terrible. 

Once the movie comes out, he publicly condemns the actors for being terrible. 

Then, he assigns himself to make a sequel using the same terrible actors he condemned.

However, this time, he tells the actors he will forgive them for doing what he hired them to do - be the terrible actors he knows they are - as long as they accept and worship his greatness as a movie maker; which will grant them eternal access to his entire filmography.

I'm being a bit playful with my version of your analogy, but only because I find the entire concept of original sin and sacrificial atonement to be completely devoid of any logical consistency and purposely absent any ontological responsibility. 

See but again, the problem I have with the argument is in the bold. When you say "what he hired them to do" are you saying to sin? Or to have free will? Because yes, I would agree that he hired us to have free will (in a limited sense of course) but he did not hire us to sin. Now that might sound contradictory. How can God give us free will but also demand obedience? 
Well as I mentioned in a separate post, complete free will is a fallacy. Complete free will can never exist because it is a paradox. So the next step is to limit it but still allow for some freedom. You can liken it to someone bending there arm. You have the free range of motion (free will) to bend your arm as far as you like, but at some point you have to stop before your arm painfully breaks.

My ultimate point being that free will is always going to have limits. It's just that obeying God has further restriction on your free will, but God still allows you to act freely within a set capacity.

Quote:Knowledge, in and of itself, doesn't beget an outcome; but omniscience does beget complete knowledge of the outcome. 


Do you believe God could have created any world he wanted, or do you think there are limits to what worlds he can create? -- in terms of all logically possible and noncontradictory worlds, of course.

Yes, I believe could have excluding any contradictions.

Quote:If I created the exact scenario needed for the shooting to happen, having omniscient knowledge of what the shooter's decision would be, I am absolutely responsible if I did anything other than scrap that scenario so that it wouldn't occur.

The shooter, in that scenario, could not do anything other than what I knew he would do. The shooter's free will only exists to the extent he imagines it to be the case, because he can't escape omniscient knowledge and violate already known outcomes.

But I would argue that you only knew the shooter would do it because you have knowledge of the free choice they would make. Not that you have knowledge and that knowledge causes the free will action to take place. It isn't that the shooter can't escape the choice because God knows it will happen, but instead because that is ultimately the choice the shooter will make. Taking God out of all of this, are we all simply bound to fate and every choice we're making right now is unchangeable simply because it's part of the universes current time line?

[Arturo Bandini]

(07-11-2023, 07:07 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: If a father leaves an open bottle of alcohal on the table and his son or daughter drinks it even after the father told them not to, does that mean the intent was to have them drink the alcohal?



I'm not really sure how else to say it. God offered us salvation which negates any finite suffering we experience here on earth. I wouldnt call that "doing nothing".



The alternative he provides is the thing we seek everyday, yet cannot fulfill ourselves. Yet we would rather have sin over that. Why?

What happened to people born before Jesus with no salvation plan at all ? 

[*pally*]

It is always interesting to see what left turns threads take. How did this transition from "when was America great" to religious beliefs

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-11-2023, 09:14 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: What happened to people born before Jesus with no salvation plan at all ? 

Those in faith went to what is known as "Abraham's bosom" which was referred to as a place of "comfort".

Jesus himself mentions this in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2023, 09:22 AM)pally Wrote: It is always interesting to see what left turns threads take.  How did this transition from "when was America great" to religious beliefs

Religion isn't much different than politics.  It's more about what you believe than what is actually true.

Too many "true believers" think a country ran as a theocracy would be heaven without looking at every time a country was/is lead by a religious leader.  

Then they say that was the "wrong" religion.

Or the leader wasn't a "true" believer.

Like politics there is always an excuse other than the belief system.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-11-2023, 07:07 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: If a father leaves an open bottle of alcohal on the table and his son or daughter drinks it even after the father told them not to, does that mean the intent was to have them drink the alcohal?

Does the father beat the child mercilessly for doing so? Or does he admit his mistake and do better going foward. One father deserves praise for taking it on himself, the other scoffed at for blaming others for his lack of foresight.

But both of those fathers aren't omniscient deities, so the comparisons don't measure up.

Quote:I'm not really sure how else to say it. God offered us salvation which negates any finite suffering we experience here on earth. I wouldnt call that "doing nothing".

"Suffer a lifetime of pain for a slim chance at eternal paradise maybe if I actually exist. Also, the price abd rules for entrqnce are ridiculous contradictions" sounds like a carrot tied to your head just out of arm's reach. So maybe nothing is too strong a word here. Bare minimum, at best.

Quote:The alternative he provides is the thing we seek everyday, yet cannot fulfill ourselves. Yet we would rather have sin over that. Why?

With no evidence of an afterlife aside from what folks who have died and come back to say (which is a lot of contradicting stuff and can be traced back to the massive influx of chemicals the brain releases on death), all we as people can do is see the misery in the world. Some folks see it and say 'there has to be a plan' - faith. Others see it and say 'the universe is chaos' - logic.

Whatever let's you make it through the day is all that really matters. 

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-11-2023, 10:23 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Does the father beat the child mercilessly for doing so? Or does he admit his mistake and do better going foward. One father deserves praise for taking it on himself, the other scoffed at for blaming others for his lack of foresight.

You were arguing intent. You asked why would God put the Tree there if he didn't want them to eat from it. I was refuting your argument with the alcohal question.

What you're arguing now is the fairness of it, which is different. Regardless I've already address this point in regards to salvation.

Quote:But both of those fathers aren't omniscient deities, so the comparisons don't measure up.

They do though. Knowledge of everything doesn't prove intent. Just because an omniscient father knows the son or daughter will drink the alcohal doesn't mean he intended for them to do so. You can call it neglect, sure, but it doesn't mean it was intentional for them to drink the alcohal.

Quote:"Suffer a lifetime of pain for a slim chance at eternal paradise maybe if I actually exist. Also, the price abd rules for entrqnce are ridiculous contradictions" sounds like a carrot tied to your head just out of arm's reach. So maybe nothing is too strong a word here. Bare minimum, at best.

The chance is only as slim as you want to make it through your choice to not believe.

And what are these "ridiculous contradictions"?

Quote:With no evidence of an afterlife aside from what folks who have died and come back to say (which is a lot of contradicting stuff and can be traced back to the massive influx of chemicals the brain releases on death), all we as people can do is see the misery in the world. Some folks see it and say 'there has to be a plan' - faith. Others see it and say 'the universe is chaos' - logic.


Whatever let's you make it through the day is all that really matters. 

The question is being asked from the perspective that if suffering is what you want to escape then why not try to escape it?

I understand you don't believe, but you seem more concerned with accusing God of things than actually trying to believe in him and have him end your suffering.

[KillerGoose]

(07-11-2023, 06:55 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I understand your reasoning here. I just disagree with the notion that God holds responsibility for the shooting happening. I think perhaps the issue here is what you mean by "responsible" because that to me sounds like God is the reason that the shooting happened  and not the individuals own desire to shoot people. Or am I wrong?

I will tell you the same thing I said to BengalYankee - I really appreciate your willingness to engage in these discussions. I know it can feel like being swarmed with flaming arrows at times, but they aren't coming from a place of malice on my end and I think it brings critical/philosophical thinking to the frontlines. 

To this portion of your post, I would say that yes, god is responsible in part for the shooting. Maybe you assign blame in his original design with free will and the inclusion of sin. You can assign blame at his decision to not intervene and stop the shooting. Regardless, he is to blame in some manner. This brings me to one of my core tenets when it comes to the idea of god. I am agnostic, so I will not actively tell you that you are wrong and god does not exist. I can fully accept the idea that there is a higher power in some capacity. However, if there is, I do not believe he is omnipotent, omniscient, or all-loving. He may be one of those things, but I don't believe he possesses all three traits. I would also say that if this deity exists, I don't believe we worship him on Earth nor do I think we have any idea what he, or they, are like. 

If we believe in the power of prayer and someone prays for god to keep their child safe at school, or to cure their child of cancer, and neither of those things happen, I think we have three reasonable explanations. 

1. God is unable to accomplish these things. Therefore, he is not omnipotent.
2. God did not know these things were to happen, and was not able to act in time to prevent it. He is not omniscient.
3. God knew these things were to happen and has known since the beginning of time. He also has the capability of preventing it, but chooses not to. How can he be described as all-loving? 
   

One response to #3 may be that he has a "greater plan" but this doesn't sit well with me. For instance, if a nice, well-to-do gentleman comes to you and attempts to take your child against your will with promises to provide the best life imaginable - he will have every comfort he could possibly want, have the best education, best nutrition, best everything, and you get to see him on a regular basis - it may be likely that you will kill that person to prevent them from taking your child. However, if that same child is diagnosed with terminal cancer and the prayers go unanswered, we will worship the being that took them from us because we believe they did it for a good reason and they have been given eternal salvation. However, no one really knows for certain and that is where faith comes in - but what if there is no afterlife? I know people at this point will say "I know there is" but no one truly knows just like no one can answer what occurred before the universe was created. That person may believe with their whole heart that there is an afterlife, but that doesn't prevent them from being wrong. If there is no afterlife, but there is a god, then that god allowed your time with your child to be cut short. We can go down a rabbit hole there, and the "you's" aren't meant to directly refer to you but just more general speech. 

Quote:Honestly  I don't really know why God created this way over another. But I'm also not overly concerned with that detail. But I will say that while I don't know exactly why he created this way over another I will continue in my belief that it wasn't so we would suffer. The fact that God doesn't have the worst interests for us and even gave us an alternative option to suffering (salvation) is enough for me to consider a finite life of suffering a fair trade off with eternal peace. When you compare the two, finite suffering pales vastly in comparison to eternal peace.

Well that depends on how one defines "perfection" because really... what does it actually mean to be perfect? I would say God is the only perfect being in the purest sense of the word.

Human beings can never truly be "perfect" on God's level because that would then make them God. It's the very same reason why complete free will cannot exist because to have complete free will is to have the free will to do anything, which would include becoming a being as powerful as God, which is paradoxical. You cannot have more than one "God". 

So right from the get go God already has to limit what we can and can't do based on the contradictory nature "free will" presents. 

Where things get iffy for people is the fact that God created divine law from which we can be punished. Why? I'm not sure, but at the same time I believe God deserves that right since he created the universe and everyone in it. 

As for the love aspect, I think this again comes down to how one defines love. God doesn't want us to suffer. I believe he wants us to live in peace because he loves us, otherwise why even offer it? Its not like God actually needs us to live in peace with him. He doesnt need us to suffer fir him either. In fact, he doesnt need us at all. He wants to give us peace on his terms and is not willing to bend to what man wants in order to give them peace.

I think there are several points in this portion that I can connect with. Like I said earlier, I am not atheist but agnostic. I can fully accept the idea of a deity, and one answer that I have found that sits well with many of my other beliefs is that if there is a god, he does not interfere with the physical universe. You very well could be correct that this god would not have bad interests in mind for us. He could have created this universe and all of the laws and life that come with it. However, that is where his influence stopped. He won't interfere to stop plagues, meteors, wars or anything else in between. He loves us - as in the universe - as we are his creation. He would prefer us live in peace, but doesn't require it nor does he require us to suffer. He simply created everything and let's it continue as is. This idea of a creator is something that I can make fit my worldview, but I don't believe that this creator is worthy of worship, personally. This goes back to my idea of "he is interested more in the simulation of life rather than the life itself".

Quote:God also gives us mercy, literally everyday. God could be striking us all with lightning bolts everyday and killing off humanity on a whim, yet he doesnt. There's also the fact that God sent Jesus to die for our sins to also show his love for us.  Again, I understand peoole have a problem with defining that as "love" but I guess that's just where "agree to disagree" comes into play and people will see such thought process as "insanity/ludicrous/illogical etc...".

But it could be argued that it's insanity/ludicrous/illogical to defie an all powerful god with which we know we cannot win who has offered us the very thing we seek in life, which is eternal peace, all for the sake of being able to have a little more choice than we had before. Now, I don't think anyone should follow God simply because he's all powerful, because that wouldn't be what God wants in my opinion. 

Hmmm. I don't view this as mercy, or at least, not a type of mercy that is worthy of being recognized. For instance, if we change that sentence to "I show my wife mercy every single day. I could be beating the shit out of her daily and making her wish for death, but I don't." would your first thought be "KillerGoose is merciful"? 

[BigPapaKain]

(07-11-2023, 11:16 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: You were arguing intent. You asked why would God put the Tree there if he didn't want them to eat from it. I was refuting your argument with the alcohal question.

I was actually just pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming God is some omniscient being who failed to see the problem with putting forbidden fruit somewhere where it could be accessed.

Quote:What you're arguing now is the fairness of it, which is different. Regardless I've already address this point in regards to salvation.

I'm not; looking for fairness would mean trying to understand what I believe to be a fictional intent. That's like trying to say Voldermort was being fair or unfair; it doesn't matter because it's made up.

Quote:They do though. Knowledge of everything doesn't prove intent. Just because an omniscient father knows the son or daughter will drink the alcohal doesn't mean he intended for them to do so. You can call it neglect, sure, but it doesn't mean it was intentional for them to drink the alcohal.

Omniscience means he knew exactly what would happen and let it happen anyway. That is 100% intentional. If I'm knowingly putting explosive materials next to an open flame, there's clear intent.

Quote:The chance is only as slim as you want to make it through your choice to not believe.

One sin or one thousand, the stain remains. Pretty shit odds 

Quote:And what are these "ridiculous contradictions"?

Do you want exact quotes or talk about the differences between Old and New Testaments?

Quote:The question is being asked from the perspective that if suffering is what you want to escape then why not try to escape it?

Because there is no escape on the mortal coil. Chaos only ends with oblivion.

Quote:I understand you don't believe, but you seem more concerned with accusing God of things than actually trying to believe in him and have him end your suffering.

I'm not accusing God of anything anymore than I'm accusing Darth Vader of anything. Accusing a fictional character of anything is simply speculation at best. I'm just making talking points. At the end of the day, your faith (in general, not YOU specifically) doesn't bother me in the slightest. As long as it's not being forced on anyone against their will.

[Leon]

its so obvious that some folks just dont understand God or the Word and never will. or they just want to live in sin so thats why they pretend the problem is with God and not them. sad.

[*pally*]

(07-11-2023, 02:05 PM)Leon Wrote: its so obvious that some folks just dont understand God or the Word and never will. or they just want to live in sin so thats why they pretend the problem is with God and not them. sad.

I find that in many cases, those who don't follow God or his Word, live lives that do a better job emulating the beliefs of Christ than do people who claim to be devout followers.

[Leon]

(07-11-2023, 02:10 PM)pally Wrote: I find that in many cases, those who don't follow God or his Word, live lives that do a better job emulating the beliefs of Christ than do people who claim to be devout followers.

and you would be wrong. they just make up there own easy versions to knock down. they dont care about truth. just there sin

[Arturo Bandini]

(07-11-2023, 02:05 PM)Leon Wrote: its so obvious that some folks just dont understand God or the Word and never will. or they just want to live in sin so thats why they pretend the problem is with God and not them. sad.

I've no problem with God I have a problem with his fan club. 

But if you are so skilled to understand it, you fail miserably at explaining it ... 

BTW, it's funny because you are being told to respect other beliefs in that thread but if a believer taunts you and promise you Hell ( like if we were going to be judged by them ) it's OK ...

Free speech I guess is a one way street. And we are supposed to take these threats, mockeries and disdain on us.

[BigPapaKain]

(07-11-2023, 02:05 PM)Leon Wrote: its so obvious that some folks just dont understand God or the Word and never will. or they just want to live in sin so thats why they pretend the problem is with God and not them. sad.

Whoa there partner - judge not and all that.

Plus sins are your rules. Some of us consider what you call sinning 'the human condition'.

[Arturo Bandini]

(07-11-2023, 04:02 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Whoa there partner - judge not and all that.

Plus sins are your rules. Some of us consider what you call sinning 'the human condition'.

I've always asked myself what kind of people was capable of giving money to Kenneth Copeland and now I know.