Epos Nix on 25/3/2008 at 14:43
Maybe the vocal creationists are just idiots because they are missing the entire point of their religion.
Ben Gunn on 25/3/2008 at 14:47
I wonder if they are also going to build a bridge between the two kilimanjaros.
frozenman on 25/3/2008 at 17:38
That was certainly a rousing tale of
ADVENTURE,
FAITH,
VILE EVOLUTIONARY CONSPIRATORS
and
DINOSAURS.
But really, that was good shit.
paloalto90 on 25/3/2008 at 18:39
Quote:
And yet, at the same time, you claim that perfection equals no free will. You also claim that we are imperfect so we can have free will.
Where did I say this?
Obviously it is possible to have free will and still choose perfection every time,assuming of course that you can tell the difference between perfection and imperfection.
If you have a choice between a rotten sandwich and a good one,do you need to choose the rotten one to validate the fact that you have free will?I don't think so.
As far as God is concerned I am not sure whether you need to have knowledge of the antithesis of perfection in order to create perfection.If God were an automaton he would have no concept of free will and thus could not impart it to others.
catbarf on 25/3/2008 at 19:54
Quote Posted by paloalto90
Obviously it is possible to have free will and still choose perfection every time,assuming of course that you can tell the difference between perfection and imperfection.
Then why would a 'perfect' God create 'perfect' Man who then creates evil?
Quote Posted by Kolya
I've got a question: The demarcation line between science and religion is falsifiability. If creationists/IDers suggest that the creation of man or the universe by an intelligent being (god) was indeed a scientific theory, it would have to be falsifiable, that is open to empirical testing.
Now the base of religion is belief. If god's existence (and he has to exist to create something) is opened up to empirical testing, then belief becomes superfluous, since we will just look at the outcome of our tests. Are creationists heretics for trying to destroy this very base of religion? Or at least doing atheists all around a big favour?
In order for an idea to be presented as science in the first place, it must have some sort of evidence. Something cannot be touted as science simply because it cannot be proven false.
Epos Nix on 25/3/2008 at 20:31
Man does not 'create' evil; evil already exists regardless. Like darkness or a void, evil exists in man's heart until compassion, like a light, fills the space and douses the darkness.
If God does exist and did create man (which is a view I don't subscribe to, but meh), he created a being with the capacity to choose whether or not to love. If man chooses not to love then by default he will be filled with varying degrees of selfishness.
Kolya on 25/3/2008 at 23:11
Quote Posted by catbarf
Something cannot be touted as science simply because it cannot be proven false.
That's not what I was saying though.
paloalto90 on 26/3/2008 at 00:29
Quote:
Then why would a 'perfect' God create 'perfect' Man who then creates evil?
You are a cocreator with God.Which means you bear a certain amount of responsibility for your creation.There would be no point if this were not the case.The opportunity to do evil was created because of the trial balloon of expanding God's love into denser states of matter.It was an initiation of sorts.This created the possibility into falling into states of relative good and evil.That is the situation you have today.You must regain the image of perfection and then desire to return to it.
Unfortunately a lot of people have the mistaken notion that you will lose your individuality if you seek perfection again.This is not the case.
flexbuster on 26/3/2008 at 00:54
I've decided to throw something into this silly "free will" argument:
Given premises:
* God is all-powerful
* God is all-knowing
* God created the Universe
This leads to the following conclusions:
* God could have created the universe in any of an infinite number of configurations.
* God, being all-knowing, knows all results of a given configuration of the universe, including all future natural and manmade occurrences.
Those lead to these:
* No matter what sort of free will God gives the people in the world, he knows from the very start what the future actions of they and all their offspring will be.
* God would also know all the actions of any potential people in any potential universe he could create, which are of an infinite number. Not to mention that he had full control over the nature of man itself.
And here's the final conclusions:
* God knowingly created a universe wherein he knew exactly what everyone in it would do. He could have changed this. In effect, no matter what sort of "free will" you say this god has, he is directly responsible and is the direct cause of everything every human does, and their very nature, and chose these things himself. God is, according to Christianity, blaming humans for using the "free will" that God gave them, even though God intentionally created a universe effectively deciding what its occupants would choose.
* Either there is no meaningful manner of "Free will", our actions having been previously chosen out of an infinite set of possible ones *for* us, or one of the assumptions about God is incorrect (perhaps he isn't all-knowing and can't do everything, or doesn't do it in a perfect manner).
Quote:
In order for an idea to be presented as science in the first place, it must have some sort of evidence. Something cannot be touted as science simply because it cannot be proven false.
You've got it backwards. If something can't in any way possibly be proven false, it *isn't* science. Think of any actually-scientific thing you can imagine. If they're actually science, there would be some hypothetical way it could be disproven. For instance, theories of gravity can be (and have been) disproven by observation of the universe. Creationism is generally nonfalsifiable, as in, you cannot even hypothetically prove it wrong on an empirical level, because no matter what you say, they could always come up with some reason why it fits their model. There's no way to even test whether or not it's wrong.
paloalto90 on 26/3/2008 at 02:57
Quote:
God could have created the universe in any of an infinite number of configurations.
God, being all-knowing, knows all results of a given configuration of the universe, including all future natural and manmade occurrences.
I don't think all knowing includes knowing what choice you will make.
If you have true free will and and an equal chance to choose two potentials then God does not know.Otherwise on some level it is predestination.
I think part of the argument is that some people think being perfect means that you have no future possibility of becoming imperfect.I don't think that is true.
It is odd that they are silly arguments yet tend to be the longest posts.
