this is the worst argument you've put forward so far. 1. megalomaniacal, who are you to say that? 2. citation needed 3. faith and experience are polar opposites - faith is being sure without any knowledge 4. citation needed (though it is more 10% control 90%) 5. if god is benevolent why is there suffering?
Why are there two posts? I'm heartbroken. Read this again, please. I used reason to form an argument, that's what you do in a debate. In other words, you're not supposed to nitpick. Science uses empirical data to prove and predict truth. I assumed this was common knowledge. If you really want it: Source Incorrect. It says so clearly in the first line Both of us are wrong: The richest 20% accounts for 75% of the world's income. Source You need both sides of the spectrum for love to be possible. I've explained this already, I'll repost this quote because it covers it well: “God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying.” -C.S. Lewis
Citing a christian article which will put forward its ideas to its own ends is a useless way to do things. If you want to define faith, go to a place like oxford dictionary or w.e. to see the actual definition. Also in response to your CS Lewis quote, do you believe that there is free will in heaven? If you do, then is there evil in heaven? If not, then how do you justify the idea that free will and evil go hand in hand, if they don't need to in heaven?
Good to note, but I see a lot more use in it than not. Admittedly, my patience has declined because of the lack of respect, but for the sake of this debate, true, it may prove better for a secularist, but considering the circumstance (his ill-informed definition of faith), I'd think just about any feasible source would be better than his. I believe that man does retain his free will in heaven but loses the capacity to sin. I believe Christ makes us sinless on Earth and people retain that state in heaven. No, I believe evil/sin is anything apart from God and that heaven is God-filled, while hell is God-less. As Dr. William Craig said in relation to this: "It may not be feasible for God to actualize heaven in isolation from such an antecedent world." Also, I think original sin makes our state worse than it could've been. To what degree, I'm not really sure
What the hell do you mean by naturally. If you are trying to suggest instinctively, you are tugging on Darwinism and your arguments demise. Darwinism tells you that all life strives for the proliferation of it's species, and as far as filling the gaps between an evolutionary theory and a social and psychological one, we are well on the way to quantifying our urges and feelings as a product of chemical reactions. All of the evidence leads to this conclusion. Why is it we can understand and react to an object the size of a tennis ball moving towards us at 30mph, but we have no way of even contemplating the behaviour of an electron whizzing around a nucleus at close to the speed of light, or of the forces that would be exerted if you could stand on a neutron star. The answer is that our brains developed to enable us to survive on the Savannah, hunting animals and also being aware and fearful of some of the greatest predators in the animal kingdom. Actually it's more of a world that resonates strange observations, and we construct empirical data in an attempt of understanding it further. Your next comment is probably one of your most bogus. Firstly, there is no element of understanding that faith can provide. As said many times earlier, where the hell do you expect you are getting this information from. I might not know if there is a God, but i know that you don't either, just like everybody else doesn't. New understanding comes only from unfettered inquiry, objective, unbias and unfair. Unfair because we do not hold a predisposition for what we want to happen, nor do we discount when it is not what we wanted to find out. You must have a low view of Jews, women and children then... .. But he could take it from you at any time. So it can't be free will then. So you just have will. I have free will though. But that seems to be what you're pitching, except you say it's for eternity. You almost stumbled on the Orwellian point here. CBA with the rest..
If you postulate that you can have free will and not have evil, it seems ridiculous to me that you also postulate that the reason for evil is free will, as it is a self defeating idea. As for the vague counter you gave by citing WLC, that itself destroys most notions of god people have, as it does not present an omnipotent god. If he is omnipotent, then by the fact that there is evil, he is not omnibenevolent (all good), as he allows evil that he could stop. As for original sin, that itself is an example of the god's less than perfect nature; either he is not omnipotent, as he would have been able both to know they would sin, and be able to stop it/prevent it, or he is not omnibenevolent, and put forward the temptation knowing full well that they would sin, and that that would doom their entire race. If you try to work off of a christian god, it does not satisfy the description by not being one of those two, and if you are working off of a deistic god, then there shouldnt be any talk of original sin or any such thing.
you didnt use reason. you managed to 'rationalise' that collective goals are exclusive to religion; i bring up sale of indulgences once again. both good and evil exist ubiquitously; religion is not required for good, and evil is mostly done in the name of a god. (genocide etc.) science is not empirical data, because there is no such thing as empirical data. data is the raw facts, yet anything empirical is the most basic and simplified form of the information. an analogy: empirical formulae of compounds show the proportion of atoms to atoms in the compound but does not show how many atoms in a molecule. it is wrong to assume truth solely from empirical information because it really holds no water, it is just a signal to what is a possibility. faith and experience are opposites: Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. Experience | Define Experience at Dictionary.com knowledge or practical wisdom gained from what one has observed, encountered, or undergone: a man of experience. the quote highlights that free will makes the world worthwhile creating. that implies that god has free will, so who made free will? suffering isnt just due to free will. is sodomy to blame for earthquakes?
God gave up potential omnipotence and made himself feebly vulnerable and not all-powerful so as to give us the opportunity of freedom, which is of the utmost sacrifice for man, which shows man's significance to him. I believe people should sacrifice their given freewill for his will (though I believe freedom will still remain in heaven and it will be according to his will) in order to create a meaningful relationship with him. Love and faith are meaningless without God's sacrifice for man's freedom. Eh, CBA for the rest. If you want a discussion, I can do that, I can't debate against 3 people and it was stupid of me to start one. I got class in the morning
I mean, what do you want me to say lol. I believe it, it makes sense to me, it's complicated, and judging from the discussion, you guys know little about it. If you want to marginalize it solely because of the way I present it then that's your choice.
In terms of basic problems that I perceive with what you said: -Its not just being given the capability for evil with free will, its the active desire to do things which God then forbids. Giving us the option for religiously immoral acts isn't the same as making them actively tempting, and the latter is certainly not a requirement for free will. Furthermore, if free will demands the option for evil, do we lose our free will in heaven? I feel this is the crux of the issue, as I've never heard an argument of why existence and life must be the way they are which isn't directly contradicted by the promise of heaven. -Also, if the requirement of a proper relationship with God is to effectively surrender the free will that he gave us in favour of his will then, frankly, what's up with that?
Along with what pegasi said you keep talking about free will but it is not free under the auspices of what you're saying. It is conditional will. Conditional on the basis that you follow "god's will" (which as following his will is essentially listening to an ancient text that has been retranslated so many times after being passed down by word of mouth for hundreds of years before being written down I don't know how anyone believes it is the "word of god").
I'm not at all a theologian, as I've said before. I personally focus on the main message on the basis of faith, not necessarily the peripherals, although I'm interested in it. Here's an article I think might clear things up..
By academic standards, 1 source does not qualify for reliable text. Sorry. It makes a mockery of the evolutionary science also, religion should learn to concern itself only with faith and superstition, because it fundamentally lacks the rationale to understand science.
That's not entirely fair. Some theists have an understanding of science just complete enough to convince themselves it's less important than their beliefs, or that their beliefs are compatible with science. That sounds like the bible alright.
Therefore, you should just ignore it completely because we are of course using academic standards in this thread. Come onnnn It has the rationale and more? Some Christians choose to mitigate science because they believe God to be the ultimate truth. Gotta see some sense in that. It's theology, brah.
You haven't sourced anything that isn't a Christian fundamentalist website or wikipedia. The bible as a 1-source text was not my point. An analytical piece that uses the bible at it's only source is completely useless. That was my point. And as usually you completely missed my point on rationale. I was referring to the characteristics of scientific inquiry that are restrained or completely denied by religion, which we have already covered many times. The fact that you can't even recall my previous points only underpins how pointless your rhetoric is becoming.
I think faith is subjective. Faith leads to grace which is the free and unmerited favor of God. That to me is understanding, if it's not to you, then that's your choice, it's understandable, but I don't agree with it. I can't keep putting so much time in this thread, I have school to worry 'bout and I went to the doctors yesterday and I had high blood pressure.. I'd rather lower that since this thread drives me crazaay.
People say the earth and all life on it will end this year. Is there anyone here that supports this? I do not.