ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd June 2019, 03:34 AM   #81
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,316
In other words you are trying to reconcile a couple of thousand of years of fan fiction!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2019, 04:04 AM   #82
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hans & Ians

You have a bit of a problem with your views of heaven and that is even for the rule book and tick list Christian denominations such as the RCC heaven is a very ill defined concept and has changed a lot over the centuries. It's pretty much impossible to have a concept of heaven that covers all Christians beyond a "in the presence of god". And even that's complicated because for some there is still the physical resurrection to happen so we all "slumber" until then.

Even the sinning bit is very difficult to pin down, for some Chrisitans god forgives us all our sins so we all get to sit down with God no matter what we do on earth, for others they get shipped to purgatory for a little while (or in the good old days until your relatives have coughed up enough gold for the church to move you on), others that you will only be judged at the final resurrection.
Well, if we're looking at individual Xians, sure, I've already said that each of them formed their own rationalization. And after all, Xianity has always been about: God forgives ME everything, because he really loves ME, but YOU will burn in hell for cutting me off on the highway

When you look at the RCC doctrines, though, I would respectfully disagree that it changed all that much. Sure, they toned down what they say in public, but most of the doctrines and church father opinions behind remained very much unchanged.

E.g., the 7 deadly sins are STILL defined as the thought crime of basically thinking about any aspect of your own life instead of thinking about the glory of Jesus. E.g., there's still not supposed to be any sin in Heaven. So when you put the two together, you tell me if you get anything good out of it
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2019, 11:35 PM   #83
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Hans & Ians

You have a bit of a problem with your views of heaven and that is even for the rule book and tick list Christian denominations such as the RCC heaven is a very ill defined concept and has changed a lot over the centuries. It's pretty much impossible to have a concept of heaven that covers all Christians beyond a "in the presence of god". And even that's complicated because for some there is still the physical resurrection to happen so we all "slumber" until then.

Even the sinning bit is very difficult to pin down, for some Chrisitans god forgives us all our sins so we all get to sit down with God no matter what we do on earth, for others they get shipped to purgatory for a little while (or in the good old days until your relatives have coughed up enough gold for the church to move you on), others that you will only be judged at the final resurrection.

Well when you say "we" have problem with our view of heaven, what you actually mean and what you then immediately described is a massive problem with Christians themselves not having any clear consistent view of what heaven is claimed to be! You are just showing that the "problem" is that Christians overall don't know what to say about it!

Personally I'm pretty sure that heaven does not exist. And I expect Han's does not believe it exists either. So neither of us have a problem with our view of “it”. All that I'm saying is that the religious beliefs about heaven, religious sins and souls, simply do not make honest logical sense and just leads to all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies.

Last edited by IanS; 22nd June 2019 at 11:59 PM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 12:09 AM   #84
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In other words you are trying to reconcile a couple of thousand of years of fan fiction!

Well I'm not trying to reconcile it. I'm doing the exact opposite of that, and saying that it in all honesty it looks as if it's Christian beliefs that are not reconcilable.

And if Christians beliefs and claims about God creating heaven & creating souls etc. are not "reconcilable" with, or compatible with, an honest objective examination of what they are saying, then that just becomes yet another example of why religious Christian beliefs (and similar religious beliefs) are most likely wrong.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 07:54 AM   #85
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Of course it's inconsistent and erroneous. Example - you start off above saying that "God clearly had not intended man to possess free will", well that's a fatal error straight away isn't it

Eh? How do you see that as either an error, or in any way "fatal"?

God had clearly intended man to gambol around, literally sheep-like, without the wits or the knowledge to make any informed choices about anything. Then Adam and Eve upset God's plan to keep them in that state, and upset God. Surely that much is straightforward enough?


Quote:
(before you even proceed to make it worse with more logical errors)

What logical errors? You're the one who seems -- erroneously -- to imagine that God created all men without knowledge of good and evil. The fact is that that applies only to Adam and Eve. The error seems to be yours.


Quote:
... if God did not intend people to have free will, then how did they get free will just by eating the forbidden fruit?

You're asking me to explain the mechanism of how eating an apple can give you knowledge of good and evil? That's a strange question to ask. If this had been from LoTR or HP, we could've asked Tolkien scholars, or Rowling, but as it is your guess is as good as mine!


Quote:
... why did God allow that? ...

I think the simplest explanation is that God did not "allow" it. That it happened in spite of God's plans.


Quote:
according to you God immediately made a huge mistake there! ...

Indeed. Seems the simplest explanation why God was upset with Adam and Eve.


Quote:
... how could God, of all people, start with such a huge mistake about the most fundamental thing that he intended to do (ie to create Man on Earth)??? What sort of hopeless argument is that?

That's hopeless only in as far as the attempt to show that the Bible necessarily shows, at every point, that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Clearly as far as Adam and Eve's going against God's plan, God proved to be neither. That seems obvious. What seems to be your difficulty with this?


Quote:
But even if you overlook that fatal flaw,

You keep on saying "fatal flaw", or words to that effect. I don't see any flaw there, nor any kind of "fatality". Fatal to what, unless to some attempt to show that God, as evidenced within the Bible, is necessarily and consistently omniscient and omnipotent? Is that what you're attempting? If not, I don't see what you're finding confusing here.


Quote:
then you are still left with the same question of how "sinners" all get into heaven? To repeat - the "sins" are said to be thoughts, ie "sinful thoughts" (mainly thoughts that all humans naturally have about sex at adolescence, or earlier) ... Catholics can go to a church and make a confession ... but they have already committed the sin of their thoughts ...

when they die, then the biblical teaching and the Church teaching today, is (apparently) that the good and faithful will go to heaven as a disembodied conscious thinking soul .... but that's a consciousness that has "sinned", and it's also a consciousness that is continually sinning ...

... how did the past sins all cease to exist? And, why do the sinful thoughts of the heavenly soul stop upon death? How did any of that happen? ...

... do you want to say that the thoughts no longer exist providing the persons conscious thinking says to itself that it has "accepted Jesus"? OK, so apart from asking what it couold possibly mean to say you have "accepted Jesus into your heart" (or into your head or wherever), how could that "acceptance" stop a thinking consciousness from thinking of any of the things it had thought of before? A miracle?

You have to invoke a miracle in order to overcome what would otherwise be an untenable self-contradictory claim. And the whole idea of a miracle is that its' the answer given when there is no genuine answer it's the complete opposite of a genuine consistent answer.

All of that is part of your discussion with Hans, not me. I'll leave the both of you to it.

But I'm not sure I follow your objection to miracles, as far as the Bible or Christian doctrine of any denomination. That's like reading Harry Potter, and objecting to magic!

Given that you're swallowing -- not really believing, but accepting in order to go on with the story -- Jesus bring up Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine, or Moses parting the seas, et cetera, it seems ... strange, to object to miracles per se.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 12:04 PM   #86
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
TBH, don't see how not knowing good from evil flat out precludes free will.

(Note again that in this thread I'm only talking about "free will" in the sense that nobody prevents you from doing some action. Which seems to be the definition used in that theological defence of theodicy.)

It seems to me like Adam and Eve would still have the same actions available to them, even without knowing that some of them are evil. They may not choose the same ones. But they're not forced into them.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 12:15 PM   #87
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
That said, if you want to go into the implications of knowing or not knowing good from evil, that opens its own cans of worms. E.g.,

1. Since, just like original sin, that seems to be inherited, it seems to me like it is saying that we DO have SOME sense of good and evil even without God telling us which is which. And sure enough, for example, Adam and Eve decided against running around naked, without God telling them to.

So there goes the whole "you can't have morality without God" argument out the window right there.

2. It gets even more complicated to justify the idea of a moral God -- and this time I'm not even talking the "omni"s of theodicy, but a God with any morality at all -- if you include other sources lie the Talmud or midrash, some of which were actually mainstream even in the RCC at some point. E.g., the serpent in the Garden Of Eden being a woman is even depicted on very Christian cathedrals (e.g., Notre Dame de Paris), seats of bishops and all. And THAT one is supposed to be Lilith, Adam's first wife.

As the story goes, God didn't actually derp out and make Adam as the only animal without a female pair. He first made Adam and Lilith, both from mud, none of that rib business. Except that got Lilith ideas like that she should be equal to Adam. Adam wanted more like a subservient servant, so she buggers off right out of the garden of Eden, and does some more weird stuff along the way. Then at some point she returns, finds Adam with Eve, so she goes and tempts Eve to eat the apple.

Well, long story short, Lilith is generally judged as evil, at least by traditional church types. (More modern feminist types would actually find her a good role model.) But we're talking about someone who didn't eat the apple herself, so she never knew the difference. So how can one assign moral judgments to her actions? And it's not only the midrash that judges her. IF she is the snake in the garden, then God himself most definitely judges and punishes that one. Even though, again, it's asking someone to know the difference between good and evil without having had the pre-requisites to even know there's such things.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 01:32 PM   #88
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
Yes, that "coercion-free" definition you'd used in that other thread, would indeed appear to be apt in this particular theodicy-related sense: not coerced by some magic of God's to think in some way, that is, free of God's mental control.

Which would imply that underneath God's control (that He may or may not choose to exercise), we're basically free.

You're right, thinking about this, I don't see, either, how knowledge of good and evil necessarily impacts that freedom. Except in one sense: complexity.

Now this isn't fundamental. Yet, I'd argue, this is still germane to this discussion. An animal, or a very small child, doesn't really have free will in the same sense that we humans do -- that we adult humans and older human children do.

(Or would you, yourself, expand the scope of free will to include all animals, even the 'lower' ones, as well as infants and very young children? If that's what you're suggesting, I guess I have to agree: Adam and Eve did, in that sense, come equipped with free will.)
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 01:37 PM   #89
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
That Lilith story, I'm afraid this is the first I'm hearing of it. Thanks for bringing it up. I guess I'll check this up a bit myself.

Absolutely, the serpent clearly did possess robust free will. And if Lilith is likened to the serpent, then she, Lilith, too was clearly possessed of free will.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2019, 01:41 PM   #90
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Well, I don't think they're going to have a very complex mental model anyway. I mean, we have an expression that goes, "I wasn't born yesterday" for a reason, and in Adam and Eve's case, they were literally born yesterday or thereabouts. They probably haven't even cleared the first hurdle in Piaget's mental development model. So, yes, I would expect that even a three year old could take much better decisions than these could.

Which does make it very... interesting, that God could curse them and all their descendants for all eternity for a decision taken at that kind of knowledge level.

But basically if we take the meaning of "free will" to mean just "God isn't stopping or forcing you to do it", for the scope of that theological defence, then yeah, my cat has free will too then. I doubt that even a god could make one do anything unless it wants to
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 26th June 2019 at 01:45 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 06:30 AM   #91
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,464
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I THINK it does, actually. If you had a circuit* in your brain that stopped you when you try to intentionally kill someone how's it different from having gravity stopping you from going upwards? There's some physical limitation that keeps you from doing something. It can be a law of physics, or a hard-wired synapse, it's still a hard limitation.
Exactly. The fact that we already have countless things we can't do, like holding our breath until you die, makes the whole argument moot.
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2019, 07:38 AM   #92
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 18,100
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Exactly. The fact that we already have countless things we can't do, like holding our breath until you die, makes the whole argument moot.
Yes, it shows that the whole concept of "free will" is a red herring. We have the free will to do the things we are free to do, but we don't have the free will to do the things we aren't able to choose to do.

How did God determine what things would be allowed to be chosen to do and which ones aren't?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 10:47 AM   #93
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Eh? How do you see that as either an error, or in any way "fatal"?

God had clearly intended man to gambol around, literally sheep-like, without the wits or the knowledge to make any informed choices about anything. Then Adam and Eve upset God's plan to keep them in that state, and upset God. Surely that much is straightforward enough?



What logical errors? You're the one who seems -- erroneously -- to imagine that God created all men without knowledge of good and evil. The fact is that that applies only to Adam and Eve. The error seems to be your


You're asking me to explain the mechanism of how eating an apple can give you knowledge of good and evil? That's a strange question to ask. If this had been from LoTR or HP, we could've asked Tolkien scholars, or Rowling, but as it is your guess is as good as mine!

I think the simplest explanation is that God did not "allow" it. That it happened in spite of God's plans.

Indeed. Seems the simplest explanation why God was upset with Adam and Eve.

That's hopeless only in as far as the attempt to show that the Bible necessarily shows, at every point, that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Clearly as far as Adam and Eve's going against God's plan, God proved to be neither. That seems obvious. What seems to be your difficulty with this?

You keep on saying "fatal flaw", or words to that effect. I don't see any flaw there, nor any kind of "fatality". Fatal to what, unless to some attempt to show that God, as evidenced within the Bible, is necessarily and consistently omniscient and omnipotent? Is that what you're attempting? If not, I don't see what you're finding confusing here.

All of that is part of your discussion with Hans, not me. I'll leave the both of you to it.

But I'm not sure I follow your objection to miracles, as far as the Bible or Christian doctrine of any denomination. That's like reading Harry Potter, and objecting to magic!

Given that you're swallowing -- not really believing, but accepting in order to go on with the story -- Jesus bring up Lazarus from the dead, or turning water into wine, or Moses parting the seas, et cetera, it seems ... strange, to object to miracles per se.

OK, well I can't be bothered with most of the above, which just sounds like all the usual religious nonsense. But just on the highlighted bit -

- if you claim (as you did, at least twice now), that God did not intend people to have free will, and yet you say that the people he created did in fact immediately have free will, then I am asking you how did God make such an enormous mistake as that?? ...

... according to YOU - this God (who you just assume to exist) made humans and specifically tried not to give them free will, but they somehow immediately had free will anyway!! ...

... what sort of omnipotent all knowing & always right God who's entire desire to create Man, makes an instant mistake as enormous as that with the very first life that he creates??
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 11:16 AM   #94
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Well, in all fairness, about God making huge mistakes... look at what Genesis says happened there. There's a tree which isn't supposed to be for the users, shall we say, but it is accessible anyway. And as soon as Eve plucks an apple, it's like pulling the pin off a grenade. Or rather a cascade of increasingly surreal stuff. Stuff that was designed to be immortal, becomes mortal. Animals which weren't supposed to eat each other (I guess lions had those teeth for grazing?) suddenly sprout the instincts and digestive tract to do so. "Sin" corrupts everything in a way God apparently can't just roll back from a backup. Etc.

And let me stress that: supposedly none of that was supposed to work that way as designed.

It's a bug, really. It's the cosmic-scale mother of all buffer overflows.

And God not only could make THAT huge a bug, but doesn't even own up and fix it. Nah, he blames those two kids in the garden.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2019, 11:50 AM   #95
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well I can't be bothered with most of the above, which just sounds like all the usual religious nonsense. But just on the highlighted bit -

- if you claim (as you did, at least twice now), that God did not intend people to have free will, and yet you say that the people he created did in fact immediately have free will, then I am asking you how did God make such an enormous mistake as that?? ...

... according to YOU - this God (who you just assume to exist) made humans and specifically tried not to give them free will, but they somehow immediately had free will anyway!! ...

... what sort of omnipotent all knowing & always right God who's entire desire to create Man, makes an instant mistake as enormous as that with the very first life that he creates??

If you cannot be bothered to read clearly worded responses to the points you yourself have raised, how can you possibly ever hope to understand anything, except perhaps by magic or through some kind of divine intervention?

You can take a horse to water, and, just maybe, you can compel it to drink by holding its head under the water against it will. But do you really expect me to take on that bother?
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 01:11 AM   #96
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
BTW, for both IanS and Chanakya: it's also useful to remember that at least for the Catholics the excuse is that none of that actually happened. There was no tree, no talking snake, no Adam and Eve... but God is still eternally pissed off at every human for what those two did. Or it may be a metaphor for something or another that some humans did to piss God off, except God won't tell us in plain-text what that Original Sin was. And I mean, I for one would like to know exactly how original it was
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 2nd July 2019 at 01:13 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 10:43 AM   #97
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
If you cannot be bothered to read clearly worded responses to the points you yourself have raised, how can you possibly ever hope to understand anything, except perhaps by magic or through some kind of divine intervention?

You can take a horse to water, and, just maybe, you can compel it to drink by holding its head under the water against it will. But do you really expect me to take on that bother?

I can be bothered to hear how you explain your claim that God tried to make his humans without free will, but actually made them with free will by mistake.

How could a God so omnipotent as to be the creator of the entire universe make a mistake as profound and as vital as that?

Remember also that according to the people who believe all the biblical stories of that God, his entire purpose in even creating the universe and the Earth at all, was just as a place to produce humans ... that was his entire purpose (supposedly) ... so how when an almighty omnipotent God like that miraculously creates humans, does he make them with the wrong attributes?

How did this God make such a whopping great mistake as that?

What I am not interested in is reading any more of whatever religious beliefs you may have about any other biblical stories. But what I am interested in is how you can (or cannot) explain how this all powerful perfect God failed to create humans in they way he meant to?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 10:47 AM   #98
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
@Hans

Absolutely. That is why I was interested in epeeist's take on this. If a significant portion of the Bible is metaphor, then where do you draw the line, and on what basis? Is the original sin -- as you say -- also to be seen as metaphor? What about redemption of that sin through Jesus? Wouldn't that take away the entire point of Christianity, and of the (RC) Church as well?

My take is that this inconsistency isn't a big deal. It can be fun to minutely analyze Middle Earth lore and the Silmarillion, all that, for consistency, and to suss out our own inferences about the whys and wherefores of it all; but even if we find the odd inconsistency, that doesn't detract from the pleasure of reading Tolkien. Always provided, of course, that we're clear we're dealing with fiction.

Of course, if we're seriously contesting the truth value of the Bible, then that's a separate matter. And if that's what we're doing, then by far the easiest way is to simply ask for evidence, and be done with it.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 11:07 AM   #99
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
@IanS

Glad to discuss, if you're game.

I see you object to my belief in the Christian God. Well, I object to your slavish devotion to the Greek pantheon, and to your claiming that Zeus is the One True God. In particular I object to your claim that dancing in the nude under a full moon is what pleases Zeus the most.

What's that? That's not what you're saying? Well, nor am I saying what you think I'm saying! My religious beliefs indeed! Hence that allusion to the horse!

In other words, please go back and read my posts addressed to you. It's fine if you wish to end the discussion, no issues at all; but if you wish to talk, well then, I don't see how you can do that meaningfully unless you also listen.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 11:09 AM   #100
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
BTW, for both IanS and Chanakya: it's also useful to remember that at least for the Catholics the excuse is that none of that actually happened. There was no tree, no talking snake, no Adam and Eve... but God is still eternally pissed off at every human for what those two did. Or it may be a metaphor for something or another that some humans did to piss God off, except God won't tell us in plain-text what that Original Sin was. And I mean, I for one would like to know exactly how original it was

Catholics do believe that God created Mankind though, don't they.

And they do believe God is omnipotent, don't they.

So that they do believe he knew what he was doing when he created humans.

They don't believe he was making sloppy mistakes when creating humans, do they.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2019, 11:52 AM   #101
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Catholics do believe that God created Mankind though, don't they.

And they do believe God is omnipotent, don't they.

So that they do believe he knew what he was doing when he created humans.

They don't believe he was making sloppy mistakes when creating humans, do they.
What "they" believe is about as hard to nail down as jello to a wall, to reuse Randi's words. They can be even down with God just guiding evolution a bit here and there, rather than outright playing creator. Or really anything that can be taken as good enough to be what the OT was actually a metaphor for, after ten pints and a lobotomy. And by metaphor, I mean, if you can play madlibs using the actual OT sentence as a template and replacing random unrelated words in it, and get whatever you wanted to get, that's good enough.

So, yeah, they're literally ok with there never having been an Adam or Eve, or really, pfft, like God would need to personally sculpt two naked apes. Sure they evolved. But God is still pissed off at us for what they did, even if they're just fictive characters in his metaphoric fiction. And they won't, for example, allow women priests because Paul argued that Eve was the deceived one, so clearly women can't be trusted with that kinda stuff.

I mean, if tomorrow some aliens from the Xnorg system landed and showed proof that they seeded life on Earth, the Catholics would probably even be down with that. Sure, they'd go without blinking an eye, then God worked in mysterious ways through those, and the whole Genesis 1 and 2 were really a metaphor for aliens coming out of a flying saucer and tipping over a test tube full of bacteria into a lake.

And what they can't take as a metaphor, there's the "too complicated for mortal minds to understand" excuse. Trinity? Yeah, it may not make sense to anyone who's read the book, but it just shows that the Trinity is real and mortals are too limited to understand it.

Because, I guess, God is so smart, that he can't express himself in a clear and understandable fashion. If he's harder to understand than someone with IQ 30 and schizophrenic to boot, that just shows how infinitely smart God is

So, yeah, good luck with catching those with any concrete claims you can debunk
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 01:55 AM   #102
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
@IanS

Glad to discuss, if you're game.

I see you object to my belief in the Christian God. Well, I object to your slavish devotion to the Greek pantheon, and to your claiming that Zeus is the One True God. In particular I object to your claim that dancing in the nude under a full moon is what pleases Zeus the most.

What's that? That's not what you're saying? Well, nor am I saying what you think I'm saying! My religious beliefs indeed! Hence that allusion to the horse!

In other words, please go back and read my posts addressed to you. It's fine if you wish to end the discussion, no issues at all; but if you wish to talk, well then, I don't see how you can do that meaningfully unless you also listen.

How did the creator of the universe make the mistake of creating humans with free will, when he specifically meant to create them without free will?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 02:04 AM   #103
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
What "they" believe is about as hard to nail down as jello to a wall, to reuse Randi's words. They can be even down with God just guiding evolution a bit here and there, rather than outright playing creator. Or really anything that can be taken as good enough to be what the OT was actually a metaphor for, after ten pints and a lobotomy. And by metaphor, I mean, if you can play madlibs using the actual OT sentence as a template and replacing random unrelated words in it, and get whatever you wanted to get, that's good enough.

So, yeah, they're literally ok with there never having been an Adam or Eve, or really, pfft, like God would need to personally sculpt two naked apes. Sure they evolved. But God is still pissed off at us for what they did, even if they're just fictive characters in his metaphoric fiction. And they won't, for example, allow women priests because Paul argued that Eve was the deceived one, so clearly women can't be trusted with that kinda stuff.

I mean, if tomorrow some aliens from the Xnorg system landed and showed proof that they seeded life on Earth, the Catholics would probably even be down with that. Sure, they'd go without blinking an eye, then God worked in mysterious ways through those, and the whole Genesis 1 and 2 were really a metaphor for aliens coming out of a flying saucer and tipping over a test tube full of bacteria into a lake.

And what they can't take as a metaphor, there's the "too complicated for mortal minds to understand" excuse. Trinity? Yeah, it may not make sense to anyone who's read the book, but it just shows that the Trinity is real and mortals are too limited to understand it.

Because, I guess, God is so smart, that he can't express himself in a clear and understandable fashion. If he's harder to understand than someone with IQ 30 and schizophrenic to boot, that just shows how infinitely smart God is

So, yeah, good luck with catching those with any concrete claims you can debunk

If you are talking about the personal beliefs, opinions, claims from a billion Catholics all around the world, then you are likley to be able to claim support for anything at all about their beliefs.

We are talking about the official stance of the Catholic Church, and I suppose that means the Pope and his Vatican officials. What do they say about -

believing that God created Mankind

believing God is omnipotent

believing that he knew what he was doing when he created humans

believing God could not make sloppy mistakes when creating humans


That is what they profess to believe isn't it?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 02:26 AM   #104
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
I'm not talking about personal rationalizations of individual laymen, believe it or not. The Catholic doctrine is currently basically that the whole of OT is just one big metaphor, and they don't even know what it's a metaphor FOR. Just about any page and line you open the book at, they can say with a straight face and without contradicting any official theology, "yeah, no, we don't take that literally." And if they can't come up with anything sane that it's supposed to be a metaphor for, they can say with just as straight a face, "yeah, no, we don't know what that means. It's one of those mysteries too complicated for a mortal mind to understand."
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 05:02 AM   #105
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm not talking about personal rationalizations of individual laymen, believe it or not. The Catholic doctrine is currently basically that the whole of OT is just one big metaphor, and they don't even know what it's a metaphor FOR. Just about any page and line you open the book at, they can say with a straight face and without contradicting any official theology, "yeah, no, we don't take that literally." And if they can't come up with anything sane that it's supposed to be a metaphor for, they can say with just as straight a face, "yeah, no, we don't know what that means. It's one of those mysteries too complicated for a mortal mind to understand."


What does the Pope and his 430 Bishops and Cardinals say about God creating humans? Do they insist that God most definitely did deliberately create humans, or not?

Do they claim that God is the almighty creator of the entire universe, or not?

Do they say this is what all good/correct Catholics (all Christians, actually), should, or must, believe?

And do they say that is all known as absolute fact from the Bible?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 05:10 AM   #106
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,316
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
What "they" believe is about as hard to nail down as jello to a wall, to reuse Randi's words. They can be even down with God just guiding evolution a bit here and there, rather than outright playing creator. Or really anything that can be taken as good enough to be what the OT was actually a metaphor for, after ten pints and a lobotomy. And by metaphor, I mean, if you can play madlibs using the actual OT sentence as a template and replacing random unrelated words in it, and get whatever you wanted to get, that's good enough.



So, yeah, they're literally ok with there never having been an Adam or Eve, or really, pfft, like God would need to personally sculpt two naked apes. Sure they evolved. But God is still pissed off at us for what they did, even if they're just fictive characters in his metaphoric fiction. And they won't, for example, allow women priests because Paul argued that Eve was the deceived one, so clearly women can't be trusted with that kinda stuff.



I mean, if tomorrow some aliens from the Xnorg system landed and showed proof that they seeded life on Earth, the Catholics would probably even be down with that. Sure, they'd go without blinking an eye, then God worked in mysterious ways through those, and the whole Genesis 1 and 2 were really a metaphor for aliens coming out of a flying saucer and tipping over a test tube full of bacteria into a lake.



And what they can't take as a metaphor, there's the "too complicated for mortal minds to understand" excuse. Trinity? Yeah, it may not make sense to anyone who's read the book, but it just shows that the Trinity is real and mortals are too limited to understand it.



Because, I guess, God is so smart, that he can't express himself in a clear and understandable fashion. If he's harder to understand than someone with IQ 30 and schizophrenic to boot, that just shows how infinitely smart God is



So, yeah, good luck with catching those with any concrete claims you can debunk
And let's not forget they've had 2000 years of some of the finest minds finding wriggle room for whatever they wanted to be "true". Pretty hard to beat in their own turf.

Of course away from their home ground...
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 05:17 AM   #107
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,316
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
What does the Pope and his 430 Bishops and Cardinals say about God creating humans? Do they insist that God most definitely did deliberately create humans, or not?



Do they claim that God is the almighty creator of the entire universe, or not?



Do they say this is what all good/correct Catholics (all Christians, actually), should, or must, believe?



And do they say that is all known as absolute fact from the Bible?
One of the mistakes a lot of nonRCs make is thinking that the bible is the primary source of the religion, it isn't, it is just one of the sources. The church itself is as authoritative as the Bible, in fact it's fair to say it is more authoritative than the bible for the RCC. The RCC has never been happy with the plebs being able to even read the Bible!

And you cannot summarise the church's doctrines to such simple terms to be fair to the church.

Sounds like you need to spend some time at the official Holy See website to read up on their rather fanciful doctrines.

ETA This is probably the best starting place if you want to know what the RCC says about the origins of mankind.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...rdship_en.html
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 4th July 2019 at 05:22 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 06:10 AM   #108
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
What does the Pope and his 430 Bishops and Cardinals say about God creating humans? Do they insist that God most definitely did deliberately create humans, or not?

Do they claim that God is the almighty creator of the entire universe, or not?

Do they say this is what all good/correct Catholics (all Christians, actually), should, or must, believe?

And do they say that is all known as absolute fact from the Bible?
I'm saying that when you think you backed them into a corner, they'll proclaim that they don't take the walls literally, or that the corner is too great a mystery for mortal minds so it doesn't count

And that goes double if your source is the bible. The protestants take their bible very seriously. (Well, except for the Anglicans, some of which don't even take the Queen seriously, and for whom actually believing in God or the Bible is an optional extra.) The catholics do not.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 11:27 AM   #109
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
How did the creator of the universe make the mistake of creating humans with free will, when he specifically meant to create them without free will?

The Adam-Eve-serpent-apple fiasco clearly shows, on evidence of the Biblical stories, that the Creator was neither literally omniscient, nor literally omnipotent.

At this point you seem given to spluttering indignantly, and repeatedly asking out "But HOW?" That, I suggest, is because you are yet to outgrow the religious idea that God is infallible, or that the Bible is literally gospel truth and necessarilly true -- or, at any rate, necessarily perfectly consistent. At least I can think of no other reason why you seem unable to follow this very simple and straightforward argument.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the idea that the Bible is fiction, and fiction that, given its iffy provenance, sometimes lacking in internal consistency. Remove these religious blinkers, and you will clearly see that the whole Original Sin chapter of the Bible shows that the Creater is NOT omniscient, nor omnipotent.

If you want to join the religious in their wild contortions to explain this clear inconsistency, that is your affair.

Last edited by Chanakya; 4th July 2019 at 11:37 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 11:46 AM   #110
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
One of the mistakes a lot of nonRCs make is thinking that the bible is the primary source of the religion, it isn't, it is just one of the sources. The church itself is as authoritative as the Bible, in fact it's fair to say it is more authoritative than the bible for the RCC. The RCC has never been happy with the plebs being able to even read the Bible!

And you cannot summarise the church's doctrines to such simple terms to be fair to the church.

Sounds like you need to spend some time at the official Holy See website to read up on their rather fanciful doctrines.

ETA This is probably the best starting place if you want to know what the RCC says about the origins of mankind.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...rdship_en.html

Well here is the actual answer to the question (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) -

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s2c1p6.htm

PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
CHAPTER ONE
I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER
ARTICLE I
"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"
Paragraph 6. Man


355*"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them ."218*Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"
356*Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219*He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220*and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221

357*Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

358*God created everything for man,222*but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:

What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223




The following gobbledygook is from your own enormous textural link -

CHAPTER ONE
HUMAN PERSONS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD


6. As the witness of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium makes clear, the truth that human beings are created in the image of God is at the heart of Christian revelation. This truth was recognized and its broad implications expounded by the Fathers of the Church and by the great scholastic theologians. Although, as we shall note below, this truth was challenged by some influential modern thinkers, today biblical scholars and theologians join with the Magisterium in reclaiming and reaffirming the doctrine of the*imago Dei.
1. The*imago Dei*in Scripture and Tradition
7. With few exceptions, most exegetes today acknowledge that the theme of the*imago Dei*is central to biblical revelation (cf. Gen. 1:26f; 5:1-3; 9:6). The theme is seen as the key to the biblical understanding of human nature and to all the affirmations of biblical anthropology in both the Old and New Testaments. For the Bible, the*imago Dei*constitutes almost a definition of man: the mystery of man cannot be grasped apart from the mystery of God.

3. The*imago Dei*at Vatican Council II and in current theology
21. Despite these unfavorable trends, interest in the recovery of the theology of the*imago Dei*rose steadily throughout the mid- twentieth century. Intense study of the Scriptures, of the Fathers of the Church, and of the great scholastic theologians produced a renewed awareness of the ubiquity and importance of the theme of the*imago Dei.*This recovery was well underway among Catholic theologians before the Second Vatican Council. The council gave new impetus to the theology of the*imago Dei, most especially in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World*Gaudium et Spes.
Instead of just produce a link a huge mass of text in antique religious language, please quote the part where you claim it says that God did not create Man.



Instead of just producing a link to a huge mass of text in antique religious language/terminology, please actually quote the part where you claim it says that God did not create Man.

Last edited by IanS; 4th July 2019 at 11:48 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 12:05 PM   #111
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,316
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well here is the actual answer to the question (from the Catechism of the Catholic Church) -



http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p1s2c1p6.htm



PART ONE

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION TWO

THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

CHAPTER ONE

I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER

ARTICLE I

"I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH"

Paragraph 6. Man




355*"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them ."218*Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.



I. "IN THE IMAGE OF GOD"

356*Of all visible creatures only man is "able to know and love his creator".219*He is "the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake",220*and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God's own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:



What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her, by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good.221



357*Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.



358*God created everything for man,222*but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:



What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honor? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223








The following gobbledygook is from your own enormous textural link -



CHAPTER ONE

HUMAN PERSONS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD




6. As the witness of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium makes clear, the truth that human beings are created in the image of God is at the heart of Christian revelation. This truth was recognized and its broad implications expounded by the Fathers of the Church and by the great scholastic theologians. Although, as we shall note below, this truth was challenged by some influential modern thinkers, today biblical scholars and theologians join with the Magisterium in reclaiming and reaffirming the doctrine of the*imago Dei.

1. The*imago Dei*in Scripture and Tradition

7. With few exceptions, most exegetes today acknowledge that the theme of the*imago Dei*is central to biblical revelation (cf. Gen. 1:26f; 5:1-3; 9:6). The theme is seen as the key to the biblical understanding of human nature and to all the affirmations of biblical anthropology in both the Old and New Testaments. For the Bible, the*imago Dei*constitutes almost a definition of man: the mystery of man cannot be grasped apart from the mystery of God.



3. The*imago Dei*at Vatican Council II and in current theology

21. Despite these unfavorable trends, interest in the recovery of the theology of the*imago Dei*rose steadily throughout the mid- twentieth century. Intense study of the Scriptures, of the Fathers of the Church, and of the great scholastic theologians produced a renewed awareness of the ubiquity and importance of the theme of the*imago Dei.*This recovery was well underway among Catholic theologians before the Second Vatican Council. The council gave new impetus to the theology of the*imago Dei, most especially in the Constitution on the Church in the Modern World*Gaudium et Spes.

Instead of just produce a link a huge mass of text in antique religious language, please quote the part where you claim it says that God did not create Man.






Instead of just producing a link to a huge mass of text in antique religious language/terminology, please actually quote the part where you claim it says that God did not create Man.
Ians I'm not making any claim beyond you misunderstanding the RCC.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2019, 01:14 PM   #112
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
The Adam-Eve-serpent-apple fiasco clearly shows, on evidence of the Biblical stories, that the Creator was neither literally omniscient, nor literally omnipotent.

At this point you seem given to spluttering indignantly, and repeatedly asking out "But HOW?" That, I suggest, is because you are yet to outgrow the religious idea that God is infallible, or that the Bible is literally gospel truth and necessarilly true -- or, at any rate, necessarily perfectly consistent. At least I can think of no other reason why you seem unable to follow this very simple and straightforward argument.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the idea that the Bible is fiction, and fiction that, given its iffy provenance, sometimes lacking in internal consistency. Remove these religious blinkers, and you will clearly see that the whole Original Sin chapter of the Bible shows that the Creater is NOT omniscient, nor omnipotent.

If you want to join the religious in their wild contortions to explain this clear inconsistency, that is your affair.
Nah, I don't think he's saying that God is infallible. He just seems to think that the guys saying he is -- you know, the Pope and his gang -- would actually care that the Bible says otherwise. What Ian doesn't seem to get his head around is that those guys don't actually care much about what their book actually says.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 12:02 AM   #113
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
The Adam-Eve-serpent-apple fiasco clearly shows, on evidence of the Biblical stories, that the Creator was neither literally omniscient, nor literally omnipotent.

At this point you seem given to spluttering indignantly, and repeatedly asking out "But HOW?" That, I suggest, is because you are yet to outgrow the religious idea that God is infallible, or that the Bible is literally gospel truth and necessarilly true -- or, at any rate, necessarily perfectly consistent. At least I can think of no other reason why you seem unable to follow this very simple and straightforward argument.

You seem unable to wrap your head around the idea that the Bible is fiction, and fiction that, given its iffy provenance, sometimes lacking in internal consistency. Remove these religious blinkers, and you will clearly see that the whole Original Sin chapter of the Bible shows that the Creater is NOT omniscient, nor omnipotent.

If you want to join the religious in their wild contortions to explain this clear inconsistency, that is your affair.


You claimed that God (you took him as existing) tried to make humans without freewill, but that he made a mistake and they somehow did have freewill ...

... I am asking you how a God who according to all Christians is the all-knowing deliberate intentional creator of the entire universe, and who you yourself said was the creator of Man (in which statement you were assuming he actually exists) ... I am asking how a God as powerful as that could make the enormous error that you claim he did make?

How did an almighty all-knowing supernatural God create humans with freewill when his entire intention was to create them without freewill (according to you)?

Do you have answer for what you yourself claimed , or not?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 12:39 AM   #114
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Ians I'm not making any claim beyond you misunderstanding the RCC.

I am not making any understanding or misunderstanding (as you call it, or claim it to be the case) about the RCC ... I am quoting to you what the Pope himself says and what his 400+ Cardinals and Bishops say ... they are the head of that church in which all Catholics are supposed to accept what the Pope and his officials say about the core beliefs of the religion ... you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the Pope and his cardinals and bishops about what they claim to believe themselves.

It is completely absurd for people here to claim that Christians do not believe that God made Man. Indeed, it is precisely that belief which has become such a massive stumbling block for all Christians ever since Darwin described evolution in 1859. It has taken over 100 years since Darwin, for Popes and Archbishops and any of their senior church-leading clergy to very slowly and very reluctantly begin saying that perhaps evolution is really true, but that they still insist that God simply must have chosen the method of evolution to intentionally create humans … and anything more absurd and dishonest than that from all those church leaders and all their billions of faithful around the world should be hard for any honest educated person to imagine.


But apart from any of that - I was arguing with what Chanakya said when he said that God made humans with freewill by mistake ... in saying that Chanakya himself was accepting that God did indeed exist and did indeed make humans, and he was saying he made an unintentional mistake with it ...

... my point to Chanakya was just to ask him how it was possible that this God (he was talking about the Christian God ... that's the almighty supernatural creator of the universe) could possibly have made a mistake as big as that.

One explanation of course, which Chanakya has steadfastly refused to give or simply admit, is that this God never existed and that the whole Christian story of making Man, with it's contradictory confusions over freewill, has now (in the 21st century) been exposed as almost certainly no more than untrue uneducated ancient myth. Exposed most directly and unarguably in fact by everything we have now discovered about evolution.

Last edited by IanS; 5th July 2019 at 12:41 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 01:14 AM   #115
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Nah, I don't think he's saying that God is infallible. He just seems to think that the guys saying he is -- you know, the Pope and his gang -- would actually care that the Bible says otherwise. What Ian doesn't seem to get his head around is that those guys don't actually care much about what their book actually says.

You've said this many times before in other threads, ie that Catholics in particular do not believe what it says in the bible.

But it says a lot of things in the bible, many thousands of things. No doubt at one time (2000 to 3000 years ago), most faithful followers did believe it was all true. In fact they probably believed that it literally had to be true (as a certainty), because they believed it to be the word of the almighty God himself.

However, the huge success of science, particularly in the 20th century and now in the 21st century, which has given astonishingly detailed and really unarguable explanations for all of those things that were once claimed and believed from the bible, has caused almost every educated honest person around the world to have serious doubts about any of the miraculous claims in the bible ... whether claimed/believed by Catholics or Protestants (or any other type of bible wielding Christians) ...

... so of course some Christians today express doubts about literal belief in certain passages of the bible. They may not believe the story of Adam & Eve is literally true, for example. But what they certainly do all still believe is that God exists, than he is the supernatural creator of the entire universe, and that he intentionally made Mankind as his special creation (made in his own image) etc.

If you disagree with that and say that Christians do not accept the beliefs preached to them by the heads of the church, ie the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, then you will have to quote the Pope and the Archbishop either saying that faithful Christians all around the world are disputing & rejecting what the bible says and what the Pope & Archbishop say about God as creator of Man ... or else you will have to quote where those leaders of the Christian Church themselevs say that God did not create Man ... can you give us the quotes of them saying anything remotely like that about what all practicing Christians must believe as their faith from the bible?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 03:28 AM   #116
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Well, basically yes, they used to take the bible a lot more seriously. But after science on one hand and protestants on the other started to make that position rather untenable, by now they're playing the card that they're so open minded that their brain fell out
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:14 AM   #117
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,245
@IanS :

This discussion, as far as you are concerned, is beginning to take on a surreal aspect! Afraid you're smuggling in positively industrial quantities of straw in here!

If we were to discuss Tolkien, would you accuse me of some CT that upends evolution as we know it, would you accuse me of claiming that hobbits and elves and dwarves and orcs actually existed?

As far as the free will argument: I don't know if you've followed my exchanges with Hans and, earler on, with Darat: but I suppose there are two ways of looking at free will. At one level, even the lower animals can be thought to have free will, and that free will Adam and Eve did possess. But actual meaningful free will, in the sense that we commonly use that term, is predicated on a minimal basis of knowledge and understanding and coherence. That knowledge, and therefore free will in any meaningful sense, God clearly did not equip Adam and Eve with, nor intended for them to acquire: they munched their way to it in the teeth of God's plan and His command.

And that clearly shows that, per Biblical stories, there are limits to God's fore-knowledge of and control over his creation.

I'm at a loss to understand what you find confusing with this very straightforward argument.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:28 AM   #118
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,316
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
I am not making any understanding or misunderstanding (as you call it, or claim it to be the case) about the RCC ... I am quoting to you what the Pope himself says and what his 400+ Cardinals and Bishops say ... they are the head of that church in which all Catholics are supposed to accept what the Pope and his officials say about the core beliefs of the religion ... you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the Pope and his cardinals and bishops about what they claim to believe themselves.

It is completely absurd for people here to claim that Christians do not believe that God made Man. Indeed, it is precisely that belief which has become such a massive stumbling block for all Christians ever since Darwin described evolution in 1859. It has taken over 100 years since Darwin, for Popes and Archbishops and any of their senior church-leading clergy to very slowly and very reluctantly begin saying that perhaps evolution is really true, but that they still insist that God simply must have chosen the method of evolution to intentionally create humans and anything more absurd and dishonest than that from all those church leaders and all their billions of faithful around the world should be hard for any honest educated person to imagine.


But apart from any of that - I was arguing with what Chanakya said when he said that God made humans with freewill by mistake ... in saying that Chanakya himself was accepting that God did indeed exist and did indeed make humans, and he was saying he made an unintentional mistake with it ...

... my point to Chanakya was just to ask him how it was possible that this God (he was talking about the Christian God ... that's the almighty supernatural creator of the universe) could possibly have made a mistake as big as that.

One explanation of course, which Chanakya has steadfastly refused to give or simply admit, is that this God never existed and that the whole Christian story of making Man, with it's contradictory confusions over freewill, has now (in the 21st century) been exposed as almost certainly no more than untrue uneducated ancient myth. Exposed most directly and unarguably in fact by everything we have now discovered about evolution.
Who has claimed the RCC doesnt hold that their God created man? You seem to be arguing furiously with your self!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 07:28 AM   #119
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,703
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, basically yes, they used to take the bible a lot more seriously. But after science on one hand and protestants on the other started to make that position rather untenable, by now they're playing the card that they're so open minded that their brain fell out

These people (Christians) are not idiots. They certainly have a properly functioning brain. And many them have at least as high an IQ and at least as many degrees and doctorates as anyone here. Their brains have not fallen out.

Of course they believe things that I think are anti-scientific and therefore simply untenable in the 21st century. But they do actually believe those things. They do really believe that a supernatural God exists as the creator of this universe and the creator of humans upon the Earth.

However, the point that I have been disputing with Chanakya is really quite different to that - he said that God clearly intended humans NOT to have freewill, but that God made a mistake and the humans turned out to have freewill anyway ... in saying that, Chanakya is first accepting (if only for the sake of argument) that this God exists, and he is then additionally saying that this God, who is the Christian God and the supernatural creator of everything, began by making an enormous mistake when he created humans (again, Chanakya was accepting that God had made the humans), and had actually given them freewill (when he, God, specifically tried to make them without that freewill) ...

... what I am asking him is how such a God (ie the biblical Christian God) could have made such a huge error as that??

The point is that if Chanakya or anyone else has to explain freewill by claiming that God produced it by mistake, then that claim is incompatible with the claimed properties of that Christian God.

I am saying that if one has to make a claim like that, then it just shows that such ideas of a God are a contradiction in their own terms a God as erroneous and fallible as that is incompatible with the same God claimed by Christians. Either the claim is wrong, or else the God belief is wrong.

Or to put it another way I am disputing Chanakya's claim of how we got any freewill (if we do indeed have what we call freewill), I am disputing that we got it by God creating humans and making a mistake over giving humans free will. I am saying instead that this God did not create any humans at all, and that the reason why we have what appears to be freewill is due to Mankind's evolutionary history coming from a long series of far more primitive species over many billions of years.

If Chanakya wants me to back that up, then I (anyone) can show the evidence of evolution and how brain size and conscious intelligence has increased not merely throughout the time-line of species homo, but all through the evolution of all life on Earth

but conversely it seems Cahankya cannot tell us how God created humans and how he made the mistake of failing to stop these humans having free will because I have asked him to explain that numerous times now.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2019, 09:49 AM   #120
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 86,316
He has explained it using one of the sources Christians tend to use. That source has the creation of man without the ability to decide if something is good or bad, all they can do is follow what they are told. Which is how god made them. They then against god's wishes acquire the ability to know good from bad, to make their own judgements, in other words gain free will.

So one of the sources of Christianity shows that humans were not meant to have freewill.

That's the claim he/she is making.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:14 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.