God Is A Psychopath

[phands]

That was kinda my point...
THe guys that banned me, and promised to ban me on sight in the future, their ability to do so could be explained totally without resorting to supermagic discernment gifts.

Oh, agree completely...my intent was to support your position. If it came off otherwise, I apologize.

 

[bilby]

See my post #59. If God is good and God creates us, he must design us, including our moral nature. Good, indifferent or bad. That constrains our free will. Why then don't all humans have a morally good nature that they freely choose to follow? This free will defense is not viable.

If God does not create man with a good moral nature, our free will is constrained to do evil. God cannot escape blame for all moral evil.

You have to construct a coherent theology (atheology) in which God can't create (initially good or neutral) beings with free will who can freely choose to disobey His commandments - ie. be evil contrary to Gods will.

I see no theological impediment to a loving God doing this. In fact, I can't see any alternative apart from free will. Why would God create robots then punish/reward them for doing exactly what He pre-programmed them to do.

Remember - God is ALL powerful. Nothing can go wrong if humans go rogue and turn against Him

But you yet again didn't think it through. If anything has free will, God is not ALL powerful. The two concepts contradict each other. It's the 'ALL' part that you forget when it's inconvenient to your position, but stress when it's convenient that's your downfall.

Is god ALL powerful; OR does god NOT have complete control over every choice made by every human? Free will for humans is a limit on god's power. Self imposed or not, it remains a limit. You want it both ways, but only by abandoning reason and logic can that be possible - and in that case anything goes, you cannot know anything, and your claims are no longer sane - truth and falsehood cannot even exist in such a framework.

The only possibilities are:

1) You are wrong about "ALL powerful"
2) You are wrong about "free will"
or
3) There's no such thing as wrong and ALL claims (no matter how contradictory) are equally true.

 

[steve_bank]

Is it Calvinists who belie those that those who are saved and going to heaven are presdermuined?

God can allow free will to choose worship or not, and then punish those who do not.

The question is if god knows who will make what choices. Did he close his eyes and allow a random process?

If god does not know then god is not all knowing, or he, she, or it , maybe just looks the pother way.

It would be interesting to try user name line Beelzebub on a site.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Boozlebub. Our next supreme court justice.

 

[DBT]

Is it Calvinists who belie those that those who are saved and going to heaven are presdermuined?

God can allow free will to choose worship or not, and then punish those who do not.

The question is if god knows who will make what choices. Did he close his eyes and allow a random process?

If god does not know then god is not all knowing, or he, she, or it , maybe just looks the pother way.

It would be interesting to try user name line Beelzebub on a site.

There are verses that clearly support predestination, and there are verses that don't....

 

[steve_bank]

Is it Calvinists who belie those that those who are saved and going to heaven are presdermuined?

God can allow free will to choose worship or not, and then punish those who do not.

The question is if god knows who will make what choices. Did he close his eyes and allow a random process?

If god does not know then god is not all knowing, or he, she, or it , maybe just looks the pother way.

It would be interesting to try user name line Beelzebub on a site.

There are verses that clearly support predestination, and there are verses that don't....

That is gosh darrn confusing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think I remember that one.

I still respect that. It's always cool to venture into the "other side". I'll always respect that

I respect some of the courage to try to see others' viewpoints, but I loathe the twerps who come here to proselytize and inform us that we're wrong/sinners/doomed to hell/blasphemers.... I would never do that on an xtian forum.

Well... how do you know that that's not how you sound to the Christians? I'm always very tolerant with people I don't share views with. We all have a tendency to think that everything we say is sensible. That's as true for us as them.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is it Calvinists who belie those that those who are saved and going to heaven are presdermuined?

God can allow free will to choose worship or not, and then punish those who do not.

The question is if god knows who will make what choices. Did he close his eyes and allow a random process?

If god does not know then god is not all knowing, or he, she, or it , maybe just looks the pother way.

It would be interesting to try user name line Beelzebub on a site.

Calvinists and Lutherans deny free will. Methodists and Catholics are Semi-Pelagians and argue man has free will.

 

[phands]

Well... how do you know that that's not how you sound to the Christians? I'm always very tolerant with people I don't share views with. We all have a tendency to think that everything we say is sensible. That's as true for us as them.

Firstly, because I don't do that. Xtian forums are repulsive, repressed places, so I wouldn't even try to join one. The mix of putrid piety and malevolent hate is unbearable..
Secondly, because some things are just alogical/illogical in their stated world views, and they refuse to even discuss it, preferring instead to browbeat, preach and quickly ban.

 

[phands]

Is it Calvinists who belie those that those who are saved and going to heaven are presdermuined?

God can allow free will to choose worship or not, and then punish those who do not.

The question is if god knows who will make what choices. Did he close his eyes and allow a random process?

If god does not know then god is not all knowing, or he, she, or it , maybe just looks the pother way.

It would be interesting to try user name line Beelzebub on a site.

Calvinists and Lutherans deny free will. Methodists and Catholics are Semi-Pelagians and argue man has free will.

I think Omar Khayyam, as brilliantly translated by Fitzgerald said it best...

Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestin'd Evil round
Enmesh me, and then impute my Fall to Sin!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is no "moral nature" without the freedom to choose between good or evil.
A dishwasher isn't doing anyone an altruistic favor by washing their dishes. It didn't choose to help out around the kitchen.

Well then, why punish people before they have the freedom to choose between good and evil? I mean, that's what happened in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve made a moral choice to disobey God and eat the apple despite his command not to ... and then got the ability to choose between good and evil after doing so. But then God went ahead and punished them for the poor moral choice they had made before they had the ability to make moral choices.

If there is no "moral nature" without the freedom to choose between good or evil, what was that situation all about?

 

[phands]

There is no "moral nature" without the freedom to choose between good or evil.
A dishwasher isn't doing anyone an altruistic favor by washing their dishes. It didn't choose to help out around the kitchen.

Well then, why punish people before they have the freedom to choose between good and evil? I mean, that's what happened in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve made a moral choice to disobey God and eat the apple despite his command not to ... and then got the ability to choose between good and evil after doing so. But then God went ahead and punished them for the poor moral choice they had made before they had the ability to make moral choices.

If there is no "moral nature" without the freedom to choose between good or evil, what was that situation all about?

Given that a lot of xtians make the (preposterous) claim that gawd is omniscient and omnipotent and everything that happens is predestined in gawd's "grand plan" (which would seem to be a tawdry failure, rather than grand), humans aren't really that different from dishwashers. Fortunately, the obvious answer - that gawd doesn't exist - removes all these contortions.

 

[steve_bank]

If you are a Christian and deny free will and believe it is all god's plan then the message is suffer your position. Which is what I take away from the gospels. If you are a slave be a good one and a credit tom your master. The rerweard is heavne.

A message to the lower class Jesus seemed to be around.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Well... how do you know that that's not how you sound to the Christians? I'm always very tolerant with people I don't share views with. We all have a tendency to think that everything we say is sensible. That's as true for us as them.

Firstly, because I don't do that. Xtian forums are repulsive, repressed places, so I wouldn't even try to join one. The mix of putrid piety and malevolent hate is unbearable..
Secondly, because some things are just alogical/illogical in their stated world views, and they refuse to even discuss it, preferring instead to browbeat, preach and quickly ban.

There's quite a few repulsive and morally repugnant threads here. We all tend to be a bit blind of our own sides crimes

 

[phands]

There's quite a few repulsive and morally repugnant threads here. We all tend to be a bit blind of our own sides crimes

Agreed on "our own side".

Not so sure about the threads...there are lot of threads which discuss morally repugnant and repulsive topics, and a few posters who advocate for or defend morally repulsive and repugnant ideas or actions.

 

[atrib]

If God does not create man with a good moral nature, our free will is constrained to do evil. God cannot escape blame for all moral evil.

You have to construct a coherent theology (atheology) in which God can't create (initially good or neutral) beings with free will who can freely choose to disobey His commandments - ie. be evil contrary to Gods will.

I see no theological impediment to a loving God doing this. In fact, I can't see any alternative apart from free will. Why would God create robots then punish/reward them for doing exactly what He pre-programmed them to do.

Remember - God is ALL powerful. Nothing can go wrong if humans go rogue and turn against Him

My atheology argument is based strictly on claims made about God. God created everything. And so logically, God must design us. And our moral natures.

There is no "moral nature" without the freedom to choose between good or evil.
A dishwasher isn't doing anyone an altruistic favor by washing their dishes. It didn't choose to help out around the kitchen.

Our free will logically, is constrained by our nature.

No, no, no. That's self-contradictory. An oxymoron. "Constrained" by our free will ???
A being that is constrained - by its nature - to only ever act a certain way would entirely remove the moral dimension of its behaviour. You're asking God why He didn't create us with a universal, involuntary compulsion to act 'good' while, at the same time, having a "moral nature" that entails the ability to choose good or evil.
That's incoherent.

All this has been covered in a previous post which you did not respond to (I wonder why). Here is a link to the post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15861-God-Is-A-Psychopath&p=593638&viewfull=1#post593638

The gist of it is that if Biblegod is omniscient, then he is that dishwasher you just talked about. He can't do anything that is not in the script because that would violate his perfect knowledge. If Biblegod is omniscient, he has no free will, just like the rest of us. He doesn't intervene to stop evil or change reality because he is unable to.

Now if you concede that Biblegod is not omni-anything, that changes the scenario. Are you conceding that Biblegod is just a regular fuck like you and me, limited to a few magic tricks, but not really master of everything that exists?

 

[Lion IRC]

All this has been covered in a previous post which you did not respond to (I wonder why). Here is a link to the post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15861-God-Is-A-Psychopath&p=593638&viewfull=1#post593638

I didn't respond because that post was itself merely a gainsaying response to what I had plainly stated.
What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?
You say omniscience prevents/compels God - limiting His divine prerogatives.
I say that God is entirely free to selectively know whatever He wants. And He is able to create beings with spontaneous free will - God can literally (if He wants) not know what free choice they will make.

And I really don't feel like arguing with Wikipedia.
If you don't like my definition of omniscience that fair enough.
But how about you have the intellectual grit to acknowledge that my definition DOES get around the alleged paradox you cling to.

 

[bilby]

All this has been covered in a previous post which you did not respond to (I wonder why). Here is a link to the post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15861-God-Is-A-Psychopath&p=593638&viewfull=1#post593638

I didn't respond because that post was itself merely a gainsaying response to what I had plainly stated.
What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?
You say omniscience prevents/compels God - limiting His divine prerogatives.
I say that God is entirely free to selectively know whatever He wants. And He is able to create beings with spontaneous free will - God can literally (if He wants) not know what free choice they will make.

And I really don't feel like arguing with Wikipedia.
If you don't like my definition of omniscience that fair enough.
But how about you have the intellectual grit to acknowledge that my definition DOES get around the alleged paradox you cling to.

So how does god choose what not to know, without first knowing it and deciding he doesn't want to know it? And having decided that, how does he avoid an infinite loop of checking it out because he doesn't know it, deciding not to know it, checking it out because he doesn't know it...

Your entire position on this question is complete nonsense.

You can sustain it only by abandoning the entire concept of knowledge, reason, and logic. Getting around a paradox by totally abandoning sanity is not a win for your position; It is a 'solution' that destroys itself.

You have succeeded in salvaging your claim that god is omniscient, by defining 'omniscient' to mean 'doesn't know everything'. Congratu-fucking-lations

Now you just need to define 'omnipotent' to mean 'limited in power', and all the worst paradoxes just melt away.

 

[phands]

What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?

It's what you usually do, and have done for years. Usually while also changing the definition of terms that you used which then tripped you up.

 

[atrib]

All this has been covered in a previous post which you did not respond to (I wonder why). Here is a link to the post:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?15861-God-Is-A-Psychopath&p=593638&viewfull=1#post593638

I didn't respond because that post was itself merely a gainsaying response to what I had plainly stated.

You hadn't plainly stated anything. This is what you had said earlier:

Omniscience is not a burden compelling God to maintain permanent conscious awareness of anything and everything at all times in the forefront of His immediate attention. In fact it's precisely because He is omniscient that He can freely elect to know whatever His divine prerogative wishes - whenever He wishes.

Omniscience describes a subset of God"s omnipotence. The unlimited ability to know.
And "to know" is a verb.

You of course are free to hold the opinion that omniscience is defined in only one particular certain way. And I reserve the right to define it in a way which is consistent with omnipotence.

If God can't choose to be casually mindful or wilfully ignorant or selectively thoughtful, then that would constitute a limitation on God's ability. And THEN you would have a proper accusation that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible. But they aren't and you don't.

Ask God what He is going to do tomorrow and He can rightfully answer - "ANYTHING that I want.
Who, if not an all-powerful God can afford not to worry about what will happen tomorrow?

You claimed that Biblegod is omniscient. In this context the word omniscient obviously means that he has complete knowledge of everything. Whether he chooses to "maintain conscious awareness" of this knowledge is irrelevant, whatever "maintain conscious awareness" means. God knows everything about everything, past, present and future. What that means is that Biblegod knows what will happen in the future with 100 percent certainty, or his knowledge would NOT be complete. What that means is that the future is predetermined and no changes are allowed. Not for Biblegod, and not for us humans. And that Biblegod has no free will, nor do humans. Do you dispute any of this?

That is how the logic goes. Now you are implying that the word omniscient means something else, but you won't tell us what because you know you are trapped. But for the sake of argument, feel free to educate us on how you think Biblegod's omniscience works, and how you define the word.

And just for reference, this is how the MW dictionary defines omniscience:

having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight

possessed of universal or complete knowledge

What do you want me to do? Re-post my exact same position again?

No. I would like you explain how Biblegod's omniscience works, and how this omniscience is compatible with Biblegod's alleged omnipotence. Because we are all ignorant idiots here who don't know the secret meaning of common words and how this logical inconsistency gets reconciled in your head.

You say omniscience prevents/compels God - limiting His divine prerogatives.

I didn't just say it, I demonstrated the claim with logic. Logic that you have not attempted to refute yet.

I say that God is entirely free to selectively know whatever He wants.

No he can't. Not if he has complete knowledge of everything. I just explained why, again.

And He is able to create beings with spontaneous free will - God can literally (if He wants) not know what free choice they will make.

This is insane. Now you are stating that Biblegod is not omniscient, after having stated the exact opposite. So which is it?

And note the qualifier "if he wants". How the fuck does that change anything?


For the sake of argument let us assume that Biblegod only chooses to "maintain consciousness about" certain things at certain times, just to shut the door on that nonsense, and say:

Biblegod has the ability to know what the future is with 100 percent accuracy, which would mean that the future is set in stone and cannot be changed. Because otherwise, what he chooses to know about the future today could be different from what he might choose to know about the future tomorrow, or whenever he chooses to "maintain consciousness about" the future. Do you understand what I am saying?

Note that I said "has the ability to know", having accepted your claim that Biblegod only "maintains consciousness about" certain things and not everything.

And I really don't feel like arguing with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is NOT the problem. Your unwillingness to commit to a rational position is.

If you don't like my definition of omniscience that fair enough.
But how about you have the intellectual grit to acknowledge that my definition DOES get around the alleged paradox you cling to.

You haven't told us how you define omniscience in the context of Biblegod's alleged abilities. All you have done is wave your hands around with qualifiers like "maintain consciousness about" and "if He wants". That is the fucking problem here, not my lack of intellectual grit. So clear this up once and for all. I have told you how.