Creationists: How exactly did the fall of man change biological organisms?

[Job 33:6]

Lots of words but no explanation why we have to choose God rather than just having a default belief in him.

As coffee mentioned, you don't have to choose God, rather you can choose against God and face God's wrath.

You don't have to choose not to murder, but if you do choose to murder, you would be subject to God's wrath.

I think that the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why God might destroy us even in a naturalistic world. Because these acts against God run contrary to existence of creation. Cant have creation if we go around destroying it through sinful acts.

 

[Ophiolite]

What you call a threat is a warning. Or would you rather have been given no warning?

Warnings, proper warning, true warnings, warning given with sincere intent, such warnings are clear and unequivocal.

You do not deliver such a warning through the alleged words reported second, third or fourth hand, of an otherwise unremarked individual in the corner of the Roman Empire, to whom you then link claims that mirror mythical elements attached to other Holy figures from other belief systems.

If it is a warning it is an incompetent one. It seems unlikely that God, as envisaged by Christians, would issue an incompetent warning.

 

[tas8831]

He is bound by his own rules,yes. But since he is the one who set them, it is what he wants.

Do as God says, not as God does.
Such morality!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Having my money evaporate as I walked away would surely still upset me. I would suffer as a result of my unpleasant realization that I had failed to succeed.

Then I'd also consider that if I went to rob a bank and the bank happily gave me money, who's money would they be giving me? Or would they simply print money at the cost of inflation every time I wanted more, at the cost of society.

I think that your scenarios, even though you add in ideas such as evaporating money that at surface sounds harmless, yet they continually demonstrate a need for suffering in creation, as noted in my last post as well.

I've was describing how I think it would be possible to minimise suffering in the examples you suggested and make the overall result a positive experience (whose money would they give you? anybody's or nobody's, it doesn't matter, God would balance the books); but my main point, that you continue to ignore, is that you could have been created with free will, without the emotional drives to do harm, in a world where there was no need or reason for such behaviour, and that this is what one would expect from an all-benevolent creator.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've was describing how I think it would be possible to minimise suffering in the examples you suggested and make the overall result a positive experience (whose money would they give you? anybody's or nobody's, it doesn't matter, God would balance the books); but my main point, that you continue to ignore, is that you could have been created with free will, without the emotional drives to do harm, in a world where there was no need or reason for such behaviour, and that this is what one would expect from an all-benevolent creator.

Your analogies don't remove suffering.

And my response remains the same. The idea of "removing my emotional drive" is entering a zone of removing my will and essentially erasing creation.

Imagine my prior analogy of going for a walk outside. I trip, I fall, I suffer.

What is God's next move? To remove my emotional drive to go for walks outside? Perhaps God may as well remove my personal drive to walk anywhere at all, to truly removing suffering from existence?

Maybe God would remove my legs?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And my response remains the same. The idea of "removing my emotional drive" is entering a zone of removing my will and essentially erasing creation.

I'm not saying anything should be removed. I'm saying Gods chosen creatures could be created to be in the same mould as people who don't feel hatred or malice. They still have free will, they just don't have the emotional drive for hate and malice.

Imagine my prior analogy of going for a walk outside. I trip, I fall, I suffer.

What is God's next move? To remove my emotional drive to go for walks outside? Perhaps God may as well remove my personal drive to walk anywhere at all, to truly removing suffering from existence?

Maybe God would remove my legs?

God could simply ensure that you catch yourself before falling, or that you don't hurt yourself when you fall, or that you don't trip in the first place. All assuming it was the kind of world and you were the kind of creature that would make walking necessary or desirable.

Perhaps an all-powerful, all-benevolent God would create a universe of contented disembodied consciousnesses to share its existence, who knows? But the world we experience appears far removed from the creation of an all-benevolent entity.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As coffee mentioned, you don't have to choose God, rather you can choose against God and face God's wrath.

You don't have to choose not to murder, but if you do choose to murder, you would be subject to God's wrath.

I think that the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why God might destroy us even in a naturalistic world. Because these acts against God run contrary to existence of creation. Cant have creation if we go around destroying it through sinful acts.

Big difference is that I can choose to commit murder I cannot choose to believe in a god.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is a 'default belief'? You think God should have made you believe?

Despite repeated requests, you have given no reason why that should be a problem. If I believe in God, only then can I choose to obey or disobey. I don't believe in God, so I cannot choose to obey or disobey him.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As coffee mentioned, you don't have to choose God, rather you can choose against God and face God's wrath.

You don't have to choose not to murder, but if you do choose to murder, you would be subject to God's wrath.

I think that the reasons for this are similar to the reasons why God might destroy us even in a naturalistic world. Because these acts against God run contrary to existence of creation. Cant have creation if we go around destroying it through sinful acts.

You cannot choose something you don't believe in.

 

[loveofourlord]

How is it free will if you can't choose to reject?

That would be like being told "You can pick any flavour ice cream you like, so long as you choose vanilla"

Simple, free will is the ability to chose things you want to do. If he makes it so you would never want to do evil it's still free will. Or do you suggest that those that physically get sick at the idea of killing even to save their own lives don't have free will? It's more akin to being told, "You can pick any flavour of ice cream you want, but no one is ever going to make feces tasting ice cream, or other really disturbing flavours. Is your choice to have whatever ice cream you want, ruined by disgusting flavours never available?

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not saying anything should be removed. I'm saying Gods chosen creatures could be created to be in the same mould as people who don't feel hatred or malice. They still have free will, they just don't have the emotional drive for hate and malice.

God could simply ensure that you catch yourself before falling, or that you don't hurt yourself when you fall, or that you don't trip in the first place. All assuming it was the kind of world and you were the kind of creature that would make walking necessary or desirable.

Perhaps an all-powerful, all-benevolent God would create a universe of contented disembodied consciousnesses to share its existence, who knows? But the world we experience appears far removed from the creation of an all-benevolent entity.

God should insure that I don't hurt myself when I fall? What is he going to make my body invincible to impacts ?

Contended disembodied consciousnesses?

I think that as we travel down this road of thought, what we see time and time again is that creation winds down into something that is for practical purposes, nothing at all.

What would creation be if it were but metaphysically and eternally happy consciousnesses? We aren't even sure happiness could even be experienced in such a world. No body, no brain, yet somehow there is mind and happiness?

 

[Job 33:6]

You cannot choose something you don't believe in.

You said "why we have to choose God rather than just having a default belief in him."

I would simply reiterate that you don't have to choose God's ways. Having default belief in God and not choosing God's ways is an option.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You said "why we have to choose God rather than just having a default belief in him."

I would simply reiterate that you don't have to choose God's ways. Having default belief in God and not choosing God's ways is an option.

Allow me to repeat my argument - you cannot choose something you don't believe in. Before you respond, please take time to prepare a response which addresses my argument, don’t just post a trite handwave.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God should insure that I don't hurt myself when I fall? What is he going to make my body invincible to impacts ?

Possible, but unnecessary, as already explained.

Contended disembodied consciousnesses?

I think that as we travel down this road of thought, what we see time and time again is that creation winds down into something that is for practical purposes, nothing at all.

What would creation be if it were but metaphysically and eternally happy consciousnesses? We aren't even sure happiness could even be experienced in such a world. No body, no brain, yet somehow there is mind and happiness?

Handwaving dismissal is not an argument; incredulity is not an argument. As already stated, I'm simply assuming an all-powerful, all-benevolent God. If you don't think the Abrahamic God is capable of what I have described, that rather calls into question those attributes.

 

[Job 33:6]

Possible, but unnecessary, as already explained.


Handwaving dismissal is not an argument; incredulity is not an argument. As already stated, I'm simply assuming an all-powerful, all-benevolent God. If you don't think the Abrahamic God is capable of what I have described, that rather calls into question those attributes.

You say unnecessary, and yet, what else would you call someone who felt no pain when they fell to the ground? Would their body deflect bullets like superman too? I think that what you're trying to say is that God would have to create other God's, perhaps equal to himself in various attributes, in order to escape any form of suffering.

It's not handwaving and dismissal. I think what you're describing is simply illogical. Sentient beings that are limited in space and time, yet have no body. Sentient beings that are happy, yet don't appear to have any reason for being so. Beings with conscience, and yet no brain either. I think that needing to go to such bizarre thoughts is a demonstration of the accuracy of my position. This collection of attributes sounds logically impossible to me. How could a being be limited in space and time yet have no body? Or have a conscious with no brain or body to be conscious of or to produce consciousness through? These are logical impossibilities. Like saying that God should create a triangle without sides.

I could argue that God ought to just create triangles with four corners, but just because I say something doesn't make that something logically possible to create.

 

[Job 33:6]

Allow me to repeat my argument - you cannot choose something you don't believe in. Before you respond, please take time to prepare a response which addresses my argument, don’t just post a trite handwave.

I don't understand your argument. You asked why you have to choose God. But of course, you don't, if you don't believe, it's understandable that you wouldn't choose God

 

[jacknife]

I don't understand your argument. You asked why you have to choose God. But of course, you don't, if you don't believe, it's understandable that you wouldn't choose God

If you don't believe in an option you can't pick it. Try it yourself pick a god you don't believe in and believe in them for a day.

 

[Job 33:6]

If you don't believe in an option you can't pick it. Try it yourself pick a god you don't believe in and believe in them for a day.

I understand that but what is the argument? Is the argument that if God were good, God would remove people's ability to choose him over other idols and simply create everyone as believers?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You say unnecessary, and yet, what else would you call someone who felt no pain when they fell to the ground? Would their body deflect bullets like superman too? I think that what you're trying to say is that God would have to create other God's, perhaps equal to himself in various attributes, in order to escape any form of suffering.

I'm suggesting that if you fell your fall would be cushioned, there would likely be no bullets (why would they exist in a world of benevolence?). I'm not suggesting the creation of gods, just benevolent creatures for whom suffering is minimised.

It's not handwaving and dismissal. I think what you're describing is simply illogical. Sentient beings that are limited in space and time, yet have no body. Sentient beings that are happy, yet don't appear to have any reason for being so. Beings with conscience, and yet no brain either. I think that needing to go to such bizarre thoughts is a demonstration of the accuracy of my position.

If you're suggesting that immaterial beings can't exist, you're putting the Christian God in an awkward position (not to mention whatever 'heavenly host' you may believe in, e.g. angels). But this was just a speculative suggestion hoping to spark some imagination.

This collection of attributes sounds logically impossible to me. How could a being be limited in space and time yet have no body? Or have a conscious with no brain or body to be conscious of or to produce consciousness through? These are logical impossibilities. Like saying that God should create a triangle without sides.

I said nothing about limitations of space and time - whether there is a space and time and what kind it might be is up to the creator. Is an all-powerful God restricted to creating only a spacetime universe? Who knows? I'm suggesting that some imagination is useful, when speculating about what an omnipotent creator can do. Restricting yourself to a world of guns, stairwells, and uneven pavements is sadly lacking in imagination.

Perhaps this is why you appear untroubled by the problem of evil... do you really think that this world is the best an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator could possibly do?

 

[jacknife]

I understand that but what is the argument? Is the argument that if God were good, God would remove people's ability to choose him over other idols and simply create everyone as believers?

Your idea of God rest heavily on choice and freewill. But they're problems with both of these for example a atheist can't choose something they're not convinced exists therefore God never really gave us much of a choice. A secound problem I see is "Believe in me in this specific way or suffer" isn't really free choice either that's an ultimatum. And finally do we really choose our religion?