To all the Christian evolutionists/Old Earth Creationists

[El_Machinae]

VRWC:You have just a 'gut' feeing that I'm wrong, though, don't you? I really thought that knowledge of good and evil would allow us to call a duck a duck, but apparently we DON'T have knowledge of good and evil, because your 'evil-o-meter' agrees that causing innocents to suffer is evil, but God can't be evil.

It's a paradox you should really work through, because you'll be better for it. I like Christians, but I prefer that religious people face the paradoxes in their religions.

Perfection: my point is that Fallen Angel Lord isn't accepting your evidence as 'evidence', and you're not accepting his 'evidence' as evidence. You know what's funny though? There's a module in the brain (called the 'God module') that can be stimulated with electricity. When it's stimulated, people believe in God. I would guess that if it was suppressed, believers wouldn't believe in God anymore (but I can't prove it).

 

[bhsup]

There is no paradox to it. God gave us this world to rule and have dominion over. That includes ourselves, mind you. We are responsible for ourselves. To conclude that because God does not intervene to prevent all suffering that he is evil is just nonsensical. If you want the root of evil, look to Satan, not God.

It's not a gut feeling, by the way. Read my sig.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sigh. Who knowingly created Satan?
Do we have knowledge of good/evil, or not?

If I knowingly introduce a virulent disease into a populace (Satan, in my analogy), but my goal is to increase immunity, is it a good act? I don't think so.

 

[bhsup]

Satan wasn't evil when he was created. He was the greatest of God's creations and he managed somehow to corrupt himself. That's why he cannot be saved, because there was nobody there tempting him to corruption and sin, whereas we can be saved because Satan is there tempting us. God will deal with Satan in his own time...read Revelation.

We're not going to get anywhere on this. I see it one way, you see it another.

 

[El_Machinae]

True: I just can't understand how an 'all good' God is not responsible for creating Satan, and how he's not liable for the evil, since he knew that Satan would be evil.

If I (really smart) took a dog (a lesser creature) and knowingly gave it rabies and released it, I would be responsible for the damage I did. I don't see how I wouldn't. The knowing creation is the sin, here.

Edit: anyone else? Is my reasoning faulty? I expect VRWC to disagree, but my 'theory' is that's because he's religious. I'd like someone else to show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

It's a scale. God 'may' be on the far end of the scale, knowingly creating creatures who suffer, but he's still on the scale.

Hey, at the other end of a similar slippery slope, as I pointed out, God should intervene constantly. So I invoked slippery slope first, don't you go throwing it back at me!

Anyway.

and knowingly gave it rabies

No.
To extend your analogy, God took a dog, made it intelligent, and let it decide for itself whether or not it wanted to have rabies.

I just can't understand how an 'all good' God is not responsible for creating Satan, and how he's liable for the evil, since he knew that Satan would be evil.

God is not "responsible" for Satan's evil because God didn't create Satan to be evil. You're abusing the word "knew" as a past tense here.

Look up "Free will and omniscience" for a better discussion of this, and look at the "God outside time as we know it" aspect.

 

[El_Machinae]

To extend your analogy, God took a dog, made it intelligent, and let it decide for itself whether or not it wanted to have rabies.

No, the dog has the free will to attack small children, even if it has rabies. In that aspect, I'm less culpable than God, since I don't KNOW it will.

He made Satan, with full knowledge that children would be raped in 6 billion (or 1000) years. He created the daycare, and loosed the dog into the middle of it.

And I agree that an all-good God would intervene constantly. You can intervene constantly without removing free will, you know. 1. Only create people that, through their own free will, would have chosen to be good. 2. Create a universe where your suffering was 100% connected to your choices. etc.

A refutation of 1 would be insisting that you need to have evil people around to have good people. Adam and Eve would violate the refutation. I also don't accept that. I don't need the pedophiles to exist to know that helping old ladies across the street is a nice thing to do.

 

[El_Machinae]

Look up "Free will and omniscience" for a better discussion of this, and look at the "God outside time as we know it" aspect.

Please, recommend an essay. Maybe you've read something more clever than I have.

 

[Perfection]

Perfection: my point is that Fallen Angel Lord isn't accepting your evidence as 'evidence', and you're not accepting his 'evidence' as evidence.

I've already demonstrated my awareness of that fact with my rebuttal to FAL as well as demonstrated that differences in his belief and mine make the comparison invalid.

You know what's funny though? There's a module in the brain (called the 'God module') that can be stimulated with electricity. When it's stimulated, people believe in God. I would guess that if it was suppressed, believers wouldn't believe in God anymore (but I can't prove it).

That's a false statement. While there are certainly regions of the brain are associated with religious experience (as well as secular meditation), its activity (especially in the short term) does not determine weather one believes in god.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

He made Satan, with full knowledge that [evil would happen]

Again, God is outside time. I'll try to find a good essay on this, but I don't fully understand it myself. However, I'd rather defer to the theological experts than a stranger on the Internet. Perfection does the same. (defers to experts)
AFAIK, God exists in a sort of two-dimensional time. He can create us at a point in his time, then go forward in our time and see what we've chosen, because at that point in our time, those choices occurred in our past. Then he returns (traveling forward in his time, backwards in ours).

1. Only create people that, through their own free will, would have chosen to be good.

OK - so now you're really violating the free-will-and-omniscience thing (hereafter FWAO) by creating another temporal paradox on top of the one we already have!
Present action based on future perfect?

2. Create a universe where your suffering was 100% connected to your choices. etc.

So, nobody could influence anyone else?

 

[El_Machinae]

That's a false statement. While there are certainly regions of the brain are associated with religious experience (as well as secular meditation), its activity (especially in the short term) does not determine weather one believes in god.

Crap, I can't find the actual paper. I can find websites talking about Ramachandran's results, but not the abstract in pubmed. I'm pretty sure that stimulation makes people believe in 'a' god during stimulation. I wish I could find the paper.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, nobody could influence anyone else?

Yeah. For example, apparently Satan could sin without any help, he didn't need to skin a baby to reject God. Adam and Eve had barely any help.

Sin could still exist without other people, but at least the suffering would be 100% due to your own choices.

I don't need to imagine a 'perfect' world to refute God. I just need to imagine a 'better' world and point my finger at the sky and say "you should have made THAT world, you smug bastard!"

Again, God is outside time.

Actually, I quite easily get this. Calculus really helps one with multi-dimensional thinking. It's a lot like he's looking at a canvas. He can see the whole painting at the same time, while we can only see our 'part' in the painting (since we're in the painting). It's more like he's living in the fourth dimension, while we're living in the third.

He still made the painting, though.

 

[Perfection]

Crap, I can't find the actual paper. I can find websites talking about Ramachandran's results, but not the abstract in pubmed. I'm pretty sure that stimulation makes people believe in 'a' god during stimulation. I wish I could find the paper.

Here's a decent thing I found doing some quick googling.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web2/Eguae.html

Note that while Ramachandran found links between this and religious experience, it does not claim that that this makes one believe in god.

 

[El_Machinae]

Let's just agree that I can't 'source' my statement, because you're right, I can't source it. Ergo, I admit it might have been a false statement.

 

[Perfection]

Well, I think with my article's summary of it, we can safely believe your statement was incorrect.

 

[ironduck]

I notice no one has really attacked my earlier statement that when we ignore free will there's still a lot of suffering that doesn't help people in this world.

The only reply I got was from VRWCAgent who said that we cannot judge god.

Not very helpful because that means we cannot discuss this at all.

 

[bhsup]

The only reply I got was from VRWCAgent who said that we cannot judge god.

Not very helpful because that means we cannot discuss this at all.

I really am sorry I can't be more helpful, but that's just how I feel. We are God's creations. God is so far beyond our comprehension in every conceivable way (I mean, he's GOD), that we cannot possibly apply our views on him.

He can easily set out rules and a core moral framework for us to adher to because he created us and knows us thoroughly. For us to attempt to do the same thing to him is folly in the least.

 

[El_Machinae]

I respect what you're saying, however, nothing scares me more than someone who defines his morality based on a religion, and is willing to over-ride his own instincts. And you still haven't explained how you can have knowledge of good and evil, and not be allowed to apply it.

and ironduck: I can't refute it, and I've been taking all the attention with my extreme viewpoints.

 

[bhsup]

I respect what you're saying, however, nothing scares me more than someone who defines his morality based on a religion, and is willing to over-ride his own instincts. And you still haven't explained how you can have knowledge of good and evil, and not be allowed to apply it.

Er, I never did say that I would override my instinctive feeling of right and wrong because of what the Bible says. Personally, I happen to think my moral compass is guided by God via his Holy Spirit, so I doubt I'll be in conflict.

I would never, ever just stand by and watch someone being harmed and not do anything about it. All I am saying is that we cannot, because we cannot possibly fully comprehend God, judge God because he allows someone to be harmed.

In other words, we can apply our knowledge of good and evil to one another as humans just fine. And going out on the nutjob limb, we could apply it to other alien species we might encounter in the future. We just can't apply it to God for the reasons I stated above and previously.

 

[El_Machinae]

Okay, last one (I promise, you've been a great sport). If God 'allows' someone to be harmed, can't one deduce that He 'wants' that person to be harmed?