Atheism (3)

[Gracchus]

you must define innocent, because God defines it differently. If you created something and you knew every thought of that individual you would know if they were guilty or innocent. And God obviously did not believe these were innocent children. I already posted a news link of 35 children strapping bombs to their chest.

Just as a matter of idle curiosity: How many of them were atheists?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, I guess in this case I should at least give you credit for consistency... If you love one mass murderer, you may as well love them all.

However, I'm sure you would even realise that given his actions, assuming you knew nothing more about Bin Laden apart from the 9/11 attacks, that you could not consider that person infinitely loving. It's impossible to make that justification.



So on one hand you're arguing everything is predestined, and on the other hand you are arguing we have free will.

... and you're not aware that they are polar opposites, as in total contradiction? Both concepts are mutually exclusive, both states can not possibly exist at the same time.




That doesn't address my point at all.

If he has foreknowledge of everything, that means he created everything knowing how things would turn out. That therefore means he made things purposefully knowing he'd be ordering genocides and all that fun stuff.

He had the ability to make it in other ways, and he didn't. Therefore he bears the responsibility.




That's a false analogy... God's not only flying in a helicopter, but is the Parade Marshall, who designed every float, built the streets, buildings and the city that the parade is going through. Everyone in attendance is his children who he genetically engineered to be exactly as they are, and had control over how their life developed from birth to the present day.

He's not just standing back and watching all this stuff unfold, he personally designed every aspect of how every thing works. It's impossible that he bears no responsibility for how things play out.


Besides, If we are his children, he is our father. In our society parents are responsible for the actions of their children.

If your kid wants to chase the kid down the street around with a nailgun, you're going to stop him. If you are aware this is going on, and you don't stop him, you are negligent in your duties as a parent.

If this was predestined to happen, then your kid had no choice but to chase the other kid down the street with a nailgun. The responsibility lays with the person who set up the destiny, which is God.

If free will truly exists, then the kid is acting on his own. On a society scale, since God is all knowing and omnipresent, he is aware of all evil that is happening, and he is doing nothing to stop it. In effect, that makes him essentially a cosmic deadbeat dad.

God created man with free moral agency. Meaning they can choose to be saved, or choose to sin.

 

[Dave Ellis]

there were at least nine documented suicide attacks involving Palestinian minors between October 2000 and March 2004.[3] According to the Israel Defense Forces from September 2000 through 2003, 29 suicide attacks have been carried out by youth under the age of 18, 22 shootings attacks and attacks using explosive devices were carried out by youth under the age of and more than 40 youths under the age of 18 were involved in attempted suicide bombings that were thwarted.

from:

Child suicide bombers in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Red Herring. Big one too.... One worth mounting on your wall.

 

[Dave Ellis]

yes you have used that term very loosly and it is nothing but a logical fallacy...


The most common and well-known version of the ad hominem fallacy is just a simple insult, and is called the abusive ad hominem. It occurs whenever a person has given up attempting to persuade a person or an audience about the reasonable of a position and is now resorting to mere personal attacks.

Fallacies of Relevance: Abusive ad hominem

What!?! Pointing out the flaws in your logic is not a personal attack!

Wow....

How about you try addressing the points, which I did re-state in that post.

 

[Dave Ellis]

haven't you heard of terrible two's

two year old tantrums?

They are hardly guiltless. And only God knows to what extent. But He is justified in whatever He deems necessary.

if it is death, then most likely they will be in heaven

Actually, if I'm not mistaken the bible says to take unruly kids out to the edge of town and stone them to death....

Obviously you consider this a moral position, right? If you have kids, I'm assuming they've never misbehaved. Or, of course if they did you went though with God's Punishment and stoned them to death?

 

[Dave Ellis]

no, it's not moral to murder! Already discussed this. I see How you don't want to address your hypocrisy as well. Thats fine. But murder is not the same as killing.

The ironic thing is that you're accusing me of hypocrisy.

An infinitely loving being would forgive, not kill.

 

[Dave Ellis]

God owns His creations, we dont own our children.

That's irrelevant. Ownership doesn't matter, if he loves what he owns, he wouldn't kill it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

all kids have the ability to sin.

They aren't even self aware at that point! Name one sin that a kid that's a day or two old has the ability to carry out?

 

[Dave Ellis]

God created man with free moral agency. Meaning they can choose to be saved, or choose to sin.

But that contradicts things being predestined. If it was predestined for there to be a need for Jesus, then it's predestined that mankind will become sinners. It's impossible to "free-will" your way out of God's destiny for you.

Likewise, as I said before, if he designed and built your brain, he is responsible for your thought patterns. You'll be wired to believe, or not believe.

 

[dlamberth]

God created man with free moral agency. Meaning they can choose to be saved, or choose to sin.

I don't see "moral agency" as having anything to do with being saved or not.

.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I don't see "moral agency" as having anything to do with being saved or not.

.

Good point.... Most Christians maintain that all that matters is acceptance in Jesus to be saved, morality is not all that relevant.

 

[createdtoworship]

But that contradicts things being predestined. If it was predestined for there to be a need for Jesus, then it's predestined that mankind will become sinners. It's impossible to "free-will" your way out of God's destiny for you.

Likewise, as I said before, if he designed and built your brain, he is responsible for your thought patterns. You'll be wired to believe, or not believe.

I see you have been caught up in calvinism before. No, actually if God does in fact choose us on foreknowledge then He knew we would choose Him, and He chose us based on that knowledge. Like choosing the best players for your ball team.

 

[createdtoworship]

They aren't even self aware at that point! Name one sin that a kid that's a day or two old has the ability to carry out?

selfishness! They try to breast feed right away without any further courtesy to the mother.

 

[createdtoworship]

Actually, if I'm not mistaken the bible says to take unruly kids out to the edge of town and stone them to death....

Obviously you consider this a moral position, right? If you have kids, I'm assuming they've never misbehaved. Or, of course if they did you went though with God's Punishment and stoned them to death?

The law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, we don't live under the law anymore.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't see "moral agency" as having anything to do with being saved or not.

.

well that means God would have to create people destined for Hell, in your view which is false. God is loving.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I see you have been caught up in calvinism before. No, actually if God does in fact choose us on foreknowledge then He knew we would choose Him, and He chose us based on that knowledge. Like choosing the best players for your ball team.

That's illogical... He can't know we'd choose him until he decides how to make us.

And why would he decide to create unbelievers then?

 

[Dave Ellis]

selfishness! They try to breast feed right away without any further courtesy to the mother.

Um... since when is a natural response from a being that isn't even self-aware yet selfishness?

 

[createdtoworship]

That's illogical... He can't know we'd choose him until he decides how to make us.

And why would he decide to create unbelievers then?

create a person with the ability to follow orders or not...


A= follow orders
B= not

how is it illogical to create a person with both abilities. Your not forcing them to choose B, you are not forcing them to choose A?

Secondly, if God is outside of space and time which I believe He is, then He knows the end from the beginning. He knows who will actually choose B and He decides on keeping those who choose A. Easy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, we don't live under the law anymore.

There's numerous examples in the New Testament that states the Old Testament laws are still valid.

 

[Dave Ellis]

well that means God would have to create people destined for Hell, in your view which is false. God is loving.

Well, if he knows that they're destined for hell, and he's loving, the best thing to do would be to not create that person in the first place.