Free-will and Atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Simply put, the utterance 'god' is nothing but nonsense gibberish.

What does it mean by 'outside' the universe? How can something 'outside' the univese interact with something inside? What does it mean by something 'outside' the univese to 'care' about people? Or 'Save' people?


In other word, the 'nature of god' is nothing but your personal wish.

Last edited by 01001011 on 21 Feb 2012, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm saying that agnostics and in particular atheist-agnostics have a lot of the deductive/inductive on their side. Theists, on the other hand, have books, for which the debate on whether they're meant to be historical accounts, novels, or anything in between is something we can't nail down.

Well, think multiverse.

^^^ That would still follow some law of physics, therefore physical.

There's no such thing as not physical the way your phrasing it. Theists in that sense are claiming that God is physical but simply not seen at our level; they always have been.

Keep in mind 'physical' these days means anything that's 'real'.

we dont trust those claims one inkling though untill there is at least a consistent structure on which to test them,

if he is indeed "physical" in that sense, (i have always understood the argument(from the christians i have heard) as something non physical no matter how much of a multiverse we live in)

Then they themselves are arguing that he doesn't exist and that they're trying to assert something imaginary over other people. For all the family I have who are Christian though they'll constantly claim that Jesus died for their sins and that God is real. To claim that he can't not be physical. Its either one or the other. If he's trans-dimensional or outside of time he's trans-dimensional or outside of time which still counts as 'real'. For them to claim he's nonphysical is to claim he's beyond our detection; that said I don't think they mean to use 'nonphysical' in the way a materialist would as they clearly believe God is real.

What? You have to prove they existed!! The only evidence you have is from scripture, which is better known as "not evidence".

"Optimus Prime is the greatest ever, who knows what we would do without him" "Optimus Prime is a fictional character..." "PROVE IT!"

If there was only Adam and Eve at the beggining, everybody would be ill because of genetic proximity.

Not to make the point I was trying to make. For our purposes Adam and Eve could have just been characters in a story. They could be an allegorical reference to all of humanity. There are any number of ways one can interpret Adam and Eve as being relevant and use that as evidence to support my claim from the perspective of a Christian worldview, which is a rebuttal of tech's claim that evil disproves God. The only burden I have is to provide references that are consistent with Christian scripture. The existence of Adam and Eve itself is a whole separate argument.

Declension made the assertion that "There were no such people as Adam and Eve." All I'm asking is for him to prove his claim. I have yet to see anything even remotely convincing in support of that claim.

The Bible = the only source about A&E
The Bible= not really reliable for historicity
The Bible= mostly fictional
Therefore
Adam & Eve= likely did not ever exist. Besides the biological explanation which is what really trounces it

I don't really have patience for "Christian worldview" any more than I do "Muslim worldview" or "Satanic worldview". The only types of worldview that matter are the ones that don't involve fantasy

One can only "reinterpret" the Bible to fit modern views so many times before people start questioning it...

I wouldn't bother attacking the bible, unless it's for the fun of it. Several reasons:
(1) It's like punching fog. There is no "the bible". There are dozens of them, in a variety of languages and interpretations. I'm rather fond of the "wicked" bible, in which the word "not" was left out of one passage by mistake and the faithful are commanded "thou shalt commit adultery". There are errors and contradictions, and many of them are because no-one quite knows what was meant. And this says nothing about the shift in meaning that words can have over time, turning an innocent expression into an insult or a dire curse into a scolding for children.
(2) The bible is clearly nonsense if read as literal truth, which means all but the most fundamentalist (or, if you prefer, crazy) of believers accept that some of it is parable or metaphor. Some parts are no longer relevant, perhaps - we don't stone people to death for working on Sundays these days, and we don't even keep slaves any more. The problem comes with the interpretation, and it seems everyone has their own idea of what truth is meant. Because the book itself is vague and rambling, it is often used to pick and choose whatever meaning the reader requires.
(3) The most important of all - using the bible to argue against the religion implies that the bible is a credible source. If I argue against Gandalf existing because of a minor plot point in The Hobbit, I'm missing the crucial point that the book itself is a work of fiction. It doesn't have to make sense - it isn't true. Similarly, trying to argue religion by referencing the holy book of that religion is giving it a level of meaning. You're not refusing the sale - you're arguing about the price.



Now here is a philosophical minefield. Let us assume that God exists and does indeed know everything, in all possible futures. There are two major reasons why free will becomes impossible.

(1) Unless God is entirely inactive, he will produce the future he wants. He is supposedly omnipotent, after all, and with that perfect knowledge he can subtly alter our decisions (indeed, the bible suggests he does on several occasions). He doesn't even need to do so constantly - just once will be enough, at the moment of creation. Basically, if God has a Grand Plan, all our choices necessarily must conform to it. Any free will we thus have is inconsequential.
An entirely inactive God can know all our options and not interfere with them - however, he then wouldn't have a plan, or indeed any impact whatsoever on the universe, and may as well not exist for all practical purposes.

(2) Even simpler - if God knows everything, he not only knows all possible futures, but which one is going to happen. Which is determinism. If he doesn't know which future is going to happen, he doesn't know everything that is going to happen.

Not really a problem if no other text has a need for it. Given that the names mean something mundane and generic, it could be related texts or variations on the text exist that render A&E into something else relevant to that particular culture. It's entirely possible that the Bible is the only surviving text that renders the original tradition the most accurately.


Places and events as recorded in the Bible could quite easily have fallen victim to the ravages of time. Archeological evidence has consistently brought evidence confirming the historicity of the Bible.


Not really, at least not in any way you can prove. As of yet, I've not seen a convincing disproof that Adam and Eve existed in some sense. Torah lists the earliest legal code for law-and-order as well as ceremonial purity and Hebrew cultural identity. That's about as fictional as the US Constitution and various federal and state legal codes. The Bible has a number of songs, proverbs, other wisdom writings. Accounts of exile and captivity. The authors of Kings and Chronicles even cite other official documents as sources that were likely in a palace or temple library and have unfortunately have since been destroyed. In that particular case, it could be we don't have as much evidence as we'd like, but that doesn't necessarily prove the records that did survive false. The insight the prophets give as to what life in Israel and Judah was like isn't fiction, and having multiple sources there helps confirm depictions of Hebrew culture as non-fiction. Wisdom writings aren't generally considered hard facts in the usual sense, but they aren't considered fiction in the strictest sense, either.

And that's just the OT. The NT consists of various accounts by multiple eyewitnesses to Jesus' actions and teachings and serve as evidence anyone can examine to make up his own mind as to whether Jesus really was the Messiah or not. No matter how you attempt to explain it all away, it doesn't change the fact that those witnesses experienced what they did and believed it. That's not fiction any more than any courtroom proceeding.


Not really. Genesis 1 suggests humans existed before Adam and Eve, which debunks the biological explanation.


Then it looks like we're done here.





I tend to favor a literal interpretation for that very reason with the caveat that some portions of the Bible are not meant to be taken literally. I really don't believe Genesis 2 and 3 are meant to be purely allegory, for instance. But I don't believe that every single person mentioned in Jesus' parables were actual references to real people, either. Hyperbole was a feature of Semitic language, so it's not a stretch to imagine that Jesus was pointing to an actual mountain when talking about faith bringing down mountains. But being a hyperbole, I don't think Jesus meant for people to run out and command mountains to move. The best understanding of the Bible is one that takes into account the various contexts in which is was written rather than imposing a modern reinterpretation of it.

Do I know with any certainty that there WAS an Adam and Eve? Apart from the Biblical assertion that they existed, no. But, again, that is not a disproof that they did exist, nor does it mean whether they were two actual real people or if they allegorically stood for something else that the concepts they represented (real or not) aren't relevant to the lessons that they are used to teach--which is, quite simply, that mankind is a fallen creature deserving of death and in need of salvation from sin and its deadly consequences. Trying to somehow read into it any further than that is just missing the point.

Adam and Eve are said to be the first humans, directly made by God. This didn't happen. What happened is that we evolved from apes. I can't believe you don't know this.

We are not descended from two modern humans. We are descended from at least 10,000 modern humans.

Interesting.


True. According to the Bible, even actions intended for evil can still be used by God to bring about a good outcome.


Right. I tend to think God is not inactive.


Which would mean God is not omniscient, and a number of contradictions and inconsistencies would follow.

But this also creates the problem of endlessly affirming/denying free will. A determinist cannot disprove that there are choices to be made. A free-will person can't disprove that free will might be an illusion.

So, exactly what is the point of having the discussion?

Just to throw in my tuppence here... Places and events recorded in the bible are not necessarily relevant as a means of determining truth. As has been mentioned before, there are numerous places and events mentioned in the Harry Potter series, such as Kings Cross Station - this doesn't imply Voldemort is real. The White House is a real place and is really where the US President works, but that doesn't mean Mr Sheen was ever that president. The Empire State Building is a real place, but the Daleks weren't involved in the architectural plans.

So yes, some events and places in the bible are correct. This does not mean anything with regards to the others.