Ok there are many diverse views in the ESUS on the subject of God(or gods), religion and spirituality. This is a place to debate formally, with reasoning not just statements.
The standard forum rules apply.
RESPECT OTHER'S VIEW POINTS!!!
Moderators are free to lock this thread for any length of time to allow everyone time to cool off and let tensions ease. When we feel it is ready to re-open it will be done.
These rules are subject to change as debate develops.
So go!
(I am refraining from first post because I want to see other people's views.)
Theological Debate ***SERIOUS*** Please Read Rules First
-
Metallinauts
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 3:29 am
- Prefix: The
- Name: Metallinautsi Federation
-
The Mindset
- Posts: 3079
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:35 pm
- Prefix: Den interstellera republik av
- Name: The Mindset
1. The Abramatic god is defined as omniscient. ( 1 Samuel 2:3, John 18:4 )
2. The Abramatic god is defined as omnipotent. ( Revelation 19:6 )
3. The Abramatic god is defined as all-loving. ( 1 John 4:8 )
These traits are contradictory. An omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving being cannot exist because of the nature of the universe we live in. An omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving being could not, by definition, allow pain and suffering to exist. Why?
An omniscient being, being all-knowing, would be able to conceive of a universe without evil, but where all other qualities of humanity are retained. (i.e., a being that knows EVERYTHING can conceive of a universe where humans retain complete free will, but there is no pain or suffering). An omnipotent being, being all-powerful, can create this world.
Therefore, the Abramatic god is either:
1. Omniscient and omnipotent, in which case I wouldn't worship it because it's purposefully included pain and suffering in its creation when it need not to have, or,
2. Omniscient and all-loving, in which case it's not a particularly good god, since it's powerless to "fix" the universe it supposedly created, or,
3. Omnipotent and all-loving, but not able to conceive of a universe where evil does not exist, in which case it's not omniscient and does not know everything.
Either way, I propose that for these reasons all Abramatic religions that claim god is all three of these natures to be wrong.
2. The Abramatic god is defined as omnipotent. ( Revelation 19:6 )
3. The Abramatic god is defined as all-loving. ( 1 John 4:8 )
These traits are contradictory. An omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving being cannot exist because of the nature of the universe we live in. An omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving being could not, by definition, allow pain and suffering to exist. Why?
An omniscient being, being all-knowing, would be able to conceive of a universe without evil, but where all other qualities of humanity are retained. (i.e., a being that knows EVERYTHING can conceive of a universe where humans retain complete free will, but there is no pain or suffering). An omnipotent being, being all-powerful, can create this world.
Therefore, the Abramatic god is either:
1. Omniscient and omnipotent, in which case I wouldn't worship it because it's purposefully included pain and suffering in its creation when it need not to have, or,
2. Omniscient and all-loving, in which case it's not a particularly good god, since it's powerless to "fix" the universe it supposedly created, or,
3. Omnipotent and all-loving, but not able to conceive of a universe where evil does not exist, in which case it's not omniscient and does not know everything.
Either way, I propose that for these reasons all Abramatic religions that claim god is all three of these natures to be wrong.
Mindset, that makes no sense. The very idea of free will implies the choice of doing bad or evil as opposed to good. Without evil, there exists no free will.
As for your definitions, you are assuming that there can exist free will without any wrongdoing. Again, this is contradictory in itself, as wrongdoing is a choice that can be made, without that choice, there cannot be free will. All-knowing implies knowing all, not that everything we as people assume to be possible. God loves us so much that He gave us the choice to love him back, or not. Being omniscient, He knew in advance that any being without His supreme power could not possibly stay within His will, and thus He provided the ultimate sacrifice to create a way for us to circumvent our self-serving, sinful nature.
No, these traits are not contradictory at all, but rather complimentary.
As for your definitions, you are assuming that there can exist free will without any wrongdoing. Again, this is contradictory in itself, as wrongdoing is a choice that can be made, without that choice, there cannot be free will. All-knowing implies knowing all, not that everything we as people assume to be possible. God loves us so much that He gave us the choice to love him back, or not. Being omniscient, He knew in advance that any being without His supreme power could not possibly stay within His will, and thus He provided the ultimate sacrifice to create a way for us to circumvent our self-serving, sinful nature.
No, these traits are not contradictory at all, but rather complimentary.
[22:28] Coop: Because, you know, Florida only has more exotic indigenous species on its beaches than the rest of the US combined
[22:28] Anithraldur/Darth Pompious: The world is changed: sororities dont' count Megas
-
The Mindset
- Posts: 3079
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:35 pm
- Prefix: Den interstellera republik av
- Name: The Mindset
That's my point. An ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING god could ignore logic, since it creates it.Megas wrote:Mindset, that makes no sense. The very idea of free will implies the choice of doing bad or evil as opposed to good. Without evil, there exists no free will.
As for your definitions, you are assuming that there can exist free will without any wrongdoing. Again, this is contradictory in itself, as wrongdoing is a choice that can be made, without that choice, there cannot be free will. All-knowing implies knowing all, not that everything we as people assume to be possible. God loves us so much that He gave us the choice to love him back, or not. Being omniscient, He knew in advance that any being without His supreme power could not possibly stay within His will, and thus He provided the ultimate sacrifice to create a way for us to circumvent our self-serving, sinful nature.
No, these traits are not contradictory at all, but rather complimentary.
Or perhaps is restricted by its own all powerfulness by creating that logic?The Mindset wrote:That's my point. An ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING god could ignore logic, since it creates it.Megas wrote:Mindset, that makes no sense. The very idea of free will implies the choice of doing bad or evil as opposed to good. Without evil, there exists no free will.
As for your definitions, you are assuming that there can exist free will without any wrongdoing. Again, this is contradictory in itself, as wrongdoing is a choice that can be made, without that choice, there cannot be free will. All-knowing implies knowing all, not that everything we as people assume to be possible. God loves us so much that He gave us the choice to love him back, or not. Being omniscient, He knew in advance that any being without His supreme power could not possibly stay within His will, and thus He provided the ultimate sacrifice to create a way for us to circumvent our self-serving, sinful nature.
No, these traits are not contradictory at all, but rather complimentary.
[22:28] Coop: Because, you know, Florida only has more exotic indigenous species on its beaches than the rest of the US combined
[22:28] Anithraldur/Darth Pompious: The world is changed: sororities dont' count Megas
-
The Mindset
- Posts: 3079
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:35 pm
- Prefix: Den interstellera republik av
- Name: The Mindset
-
Hyperspatial Travel
- ESUS Danza Slap
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 am
- Prefix: The Aleph-Null Cardinality of
- Name: Hyperspatial Travel
The 'can God create a rock larger than he can lift?' question. Essentially, being omnipotent, (note this whole thing is based on the presupposition that God exists. I'm not saying he does, it's merely easier this way), God can do that.
However, to do so, he would have to limit his own omnipotence. Therefore, although he has the ability to do something, he chooses not to do so. Thus, he is restricted by his own will, not removing his ability to do something, but removing his willingness to do so.
..that should answer it, in part.
However, to do so, he would have to limit his own omnipotence. Therefore, although he has the ability to do something, he chooses not to do so. Thus, he is restricted by his own will, not removing his ability to do something, but removing his willingness to do so.
..that should answer it, in part.
It's amazing how a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of hungry wolves.
-
The Terranites
- ESUS Teletubby Fan
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:57 am
It seems that I am a catholic, and all that It entails. But when It comes to the freewill vs. destiny thing I am quite ...embattled.
My main problem IS free will. A main argument for free will is that sin IS validation of free will.
In that, you are "free" to follow God's will and you will be then justly rewarded! and saved!
orrrrr
you can use your "free will" to disobey what God wants for you and you can end up in hell where you obviously belong?
That statement offends my olfactory senses, it smells bad, it gives me naseua.....
My main problem IS free will. A main argument for free will is that sin IS validation of free will.
In that, you are "free" to follow God's will and you will be then justly rewarded! and saved!
orrrrr
you can use your "free will" to disobey what God wants for you and you can end up in hell where you obviously belong?
That statement offends my olfactory senses, it smells bad, it gives me naseua.....