Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is why we established that it is not a logical inconsistency for God to have free will and it be a 100% guarantee that He will always choose the Good. You keep bouncing back and forth between it being logical for one and illogical for another.You describe a non-free will situation but call it free will...you are having me on aren't you? GOD can't do logical inconsistencies. 2+2≠7. Water is wet and the results of a free will decision must be chosen, not created or it is not free will.
I think your willingness to gaslight folk who do believe this as unreasonable or worse is par for the atheist course who has run out of reasons for his morality except personal preference. If you have that right, why do I not?
Whats next? Believers are deluded, psychotic, should be restrained...I've heard all of these.
This is why we established that it is not a logical inconsistency for God to have free will and it be a 100% guarantee that He will always choose the Good.
No, I'm not talking about anyone being forced. That's you assuming force is the only way to ensure no sin. So I keep pointing back at God and saying, "He's not forced. He has free will. He is guaranteed not to sin". But then you keep claiming that force is the only way to ensure beings don't sin. Which is it? Is God forced not to sin, or can we guarantee no sin without using force? You have to pick one....and you ignore my protestations that the guarantee is not found in our creation (or GOD's because HE was not created) but in our commitment to our decision to be morally good in accord with YHWH's nature as morally good.
You seem to think that there is some magical force keeping GOD and the holy angels from ever choosing sin and call that force a guarantee but it is not a force except as a personal decision to never sin or at least for some to never sin again because they have experienced the world that such a deviation into sin causes, the suffering and degradation of spirit...no one will ever choose to sin because they don't want to. Period. That is your guarantee!
Okay.This is getting ridiculous...I'm ending my involvement.
Even then Christians can't provide evidence.Not if you redefine 'evidence' like skeptics did 'design'.Amoranemix 165 said:[39] The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.
[40] Indeed, I meant the claim or belief of God's goodness, or God's alleged goodness is not evidence based. It is definition based.Yo must mean that the AWARENESS OF GOD'S GOODNESS IS NOT EVIDENCE BASED...[40] especially to sinners who cannot understand spiritual things because of our assessment by sinfulness and their love for sin...as most readily exlained int Rom 1.Amoranemix said:The lack of evidence presented in this thread supports the idea that God's goodness is not evidence based.
I have not presented a non-sequitir argument.TedT 170 said:This non-sequitur is meaningless...the ability to make a free will choice is driven by what the person wants which is an open option with no coercion of any kind in the least to choose good or bad...so there is nothing inevitable about the choice to force evil, ie, it is only possible, not inevitable. A leap over the garden fence doesn't make that place a gate...Amoranemix said:Aha. So, according to you, free will makes the ability to choose evil inevitable, but not to the actual extent. Hence, free will cannot explain why there is so much ability to choose evil. Hence, the claim that a good god would not give is some many evil choices, remains unchallenged.
To be honest, I expected you would be able to present more evidence.TedT 170 said:Amoranemix said:[30] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[41] That is not what you said and if you had, it would have been a bald assertion, for you failed to support it.TedT 170 said:I said it was a waste of our time...[41]Amoranemix said:You committed a straw man fallacy, for no one is suggesting we waste time on that. Presumably you are assuming that an evil god must be an invention, while a good one must be real. However, no justification for such distinction has been provided.
The justification for the difference between a benevolent GOD and an evil god has been well documented elsewhere and rejected, but...
rejecting a doctrine of faith does not prove the object of that faith cannot be real. The life of Christ is enough for many people to understand that GOD is good but hey, we know any and every doctrine can be disqualified endlessly...blah blah blah so to speak. We know how non-believers think - we were, for the most part, all non-believers at one time or another, why keep harping on things outside of your experience that we have experienced that gave us the impetus we need to believe?
[31] Your analogy is poor, for water is wet by definition. Freedom is a better analogy to free will. That people are unable to leave earth does not imply they have no freedom. Likewise, limitation on people's ability to make or avoid choices does not preclude free will. Otherwise, no one would have free will.TedT 174 said:TedT 156 to Moral Orel :
To be a true free will, it is an absolute necessity that every and any option pertinent to the choice must be available to be chosen...[31]
IF love is to be real, the ability to reject love must be available.
IF a real marriage is available, rejection of the marriage proposal must be available.[32]
IF holy righteousness is available to be chosen then totally corrupt eternal evil must be available to be chosen by the rejection of righteousness.[33]
This is why GOD allowed evil to be created by the free will of HIS creation - it was an absolute necessity for the others to be able to respond freely to HIS loving proposal of marriage.[34]
Amoranemix 165 :
[31] Are you going for the no true Sottsman fallacy ? Is it not true free will unless it meets the criteria that suit your beliefs ?
Why should people have true free will ?[*]
TedT 174 :
[31] The no true Scotsman idea does not deny that there is truth to some facts by definition...water IS wet! A free will must be FREE from constraint and coercion or it can't be free.
This only matters to Christians who know we need a free will but who also know we are born sinful, that is, enslaved to sin which implies we have no free will will so they invent all kinds of doublethink to solve their cognitive dissonance about the need for reconciliation.
[*] In the Christian system a free will is an absolute necessity for GOD to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, the heavenly marriage with those of HIS creation who wanted to join HIM in that marriage...as I've said a number of times already.
[32] I mistakingly assumed that what you said was relevant and speculated what the relevance could be.TedT 174 said:[32] I neither said that nor implied that... and it is so far out in left field I have no idea how to answer... wowser.Amoranemix 165 said:[32] What relevance does that have ? How would absense of false gods make the millions of marriages yearly forced ?
[33] Why should that be ?
[34] Why would that be an absolute necessity ?
[no response]
First, that was about God being good (se, standard English) rather than evil.TedT 175 said:1st. The evidence of the Bible and the life of Christ has moved millions.[42]Amoranemix said:[OldWiseGuy 164 to OP : “What more is needed?”]
The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.
2nd. The evidence of the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling us - a fact of evidence a non-believer cannot fathom so must denigrate or gaslight but no believer can ignore as a weird voice in their head.[43]
3d. The reborn changed life of the believer such that they KNOW they are a new person and everyone who knows them well tells the same story about them.[44]
This is about evidence, not proof. Just as atheists have no proof there is no GOD, Christians have no proof that there is, but we put our FAITH, an unproven hope, in the evidence that it is true and we will inherit HIS promises.
You forgot to answer my questions.TedT said:[no response]Amoranemix 165 said:[35] That is not the impression the Bible gives.
[36] If you are right, then you dispelled the myth of God being love.
[37] How did sinning cause them to lose free will ?
[38] I assume you mean ashamed of their sins and repent for their sins. What does evil have to do with this ? What if these sinners don't open their eyes to evil, but still repent for their sins ?
[45] You are mistaken, for there are plenty of candidate benchmarks, like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Bashar Al Assad and Kim Jong-Un. Even if there weren't, so what ?Because if not for God there is no possibility of a benchmark of goodness.[45] We all know deep down that evil is absurdity so there must be a standard of goodness.[46] Since finite, imperfect, and mortal beings like you or I cannot hope to define that standard from our own experiences or decisions we need a Being that survives all our poor criticisms. Only an Almighty, Eternal, and All-knowing God could also by definition define goodness.[47]
[48] Jayem wasn't trying to prove, but speculating. Hence, why would his argument be moot ?mindlight 187 said:My argument from necessity and also consideration of the finite, imperfect, and mortal commentary of dissenters is a logical refutation of our ability to speculate. The only options left are to believe or not to believe in what God Himself has revealed about His goodness. You base your two-god theory and speculation on the observation of good and evil in the world. My argument is that the presence of either cannot prove your theory either way and so it is a moot argument.[48] Because we do not know and cannot say from our own resources we can only choose to accept or reject a logically acceptable alternative. A God that is Almighty, Eternal, and All-knowing is the only possible foundation for any absolute sense of goodness.[49]jayem said:OK, you're saying that of necessity, there must exist an entity of perfect goodness that serves as the ultimate exemplar of moral rectitude. That entity is God. To me, that's more of a prudential rather than an evidential argument. Why couldn't God be dualistic? At some times, the apogee of benevolence. At others, the nadir of malevolence. Or maybe there are 2 Gods--one totally merciful and magnanimous, and one utterly pitiless and hateful. Both are in constant, never ending struggle with each other. Aside from having faith in traditional religious teachings, there's no way to determine God's moral nature.
In post 156 you said : “To be a true free will, it is an absolute necessity that every and any option pertinent to the choice must be available to be chosen...“TedT 195 said:Well Bradskii, you are quite correct - life on earth is full of coercions, especially our enslavement to sin but you should know that
1. while I do believe in the absolute necessity of our free will, I do not believe sinners have a free will.
[50] So you claim, but can you prove that ?It's been proven to me and many others.[50] A prerequisite condition is to love God. Otherwise to witness a martyrdom or a miracle could work for an atheist[51]Amoranemix 165 said:So you claim, but can you prove that ?
Each person's fall also had to be by God's free will decision and if God is omniscient, it also had to be by God's informed decision.TedT 204 said:If HE is ALL LOVING and all benevolent as I think then HE cannot have, would never have, predestined the fall of anyone. The fall, each person's first venture into rebellious sin had to be by their free will decision to do so.NeoGaia777 191 said:God the Father has no rivals or enemies, but predestined all...
What does arbitrariness have to do with free will ?I'm far from convinced that this is an argument against free will.
Let's say that you spin a coin. There is nothing to contrain it to land on heads or tails. It's purely arbitrary. Now imagine that you had the temporary ability to see the future. And you look forward a few minutes and see that the coin landed on heads. Does your knowledge change the fact that it was an arbitrary event? Not at all.
It's nonsense to suggest that every coin toss you don't see in the future is arbitrary and every one that you do see is fixed in some way. It would be the same with God. Just because He knows how a coin toss (or a choice you make) will eventuate doesn't fix that result in advance.
[50] How is sin supposed to make the best parts of people's lives filthy ?TedT 229 to Bradskii said:Why are our best choices, our most righteous decisions, thoughts and passons counted as filthy rags? The sinfulness of a person permeates every part of his life, even the best parts, contaminating his best so it is filthy, not good.[50] How else could Paul write: Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.
Indeed. Your beliefs are determined by your (dis)likes, not by evidence. God's omniscience would have inconvenient consequences, therefore he must not be. That is typical for Christians.TedT 230 said:I have come to discredit this presupposition...it leads directly to HIS creating those who would fall into demonhood and eternal damnation while knowing this would be their end. I cannot countenance this as the actions of a most loving, righteous and just creator...it just doesn't fit.neogaia777 211 said:If any God absolutely knew/knows everything from the beginning to end, etc, but from the beginning, etc, then He knows all outcomes of all supposed choices, correct...?
Some people would say that if God condemns them to Hell how can they not hate him? But I also understand what BigV means.TedT 249 said:Hi BigV,BigV said:Well, remember that Jesus saves you from Hell! How can you love Jesus if you know that the alternative is torture in Hell for all eternity?
Some people would say that since He saves me from hell how can I not love Him? but I do know what you mean...
[52 That is a good realization. In their zeal to innocentiate God from everything reprehensible Christians often ignore that decisions of humans more than decisions of God are uninformed.TedT 249 said:2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.[52]
But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death / hell here,” “life / heaven there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right.[53]
Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Only then will their choices be following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy.[54]
Given that, with your definition of free will, no one has it, it follows that no one is reborn.TedT 252 said:...but these are the same things for the negative pov to the positive pov: no free will in sinners but a free will in those sinners who are reborn, ie, in whom sin is not accounted to them anymore so it is dealt with by GOD's grace.Bradskii said:You just moved tbe goalposts. It was 'no free will if you are evil'. So I suggested someone making a free will decision to do a morally good act (if that person has committed evil). And now it's 'no free will until you are reborn in Christ'.
2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.
Ahh, it seems like anther round of how to tell the story wrongly or even who can tell the story with the most wrong interpretation, has started. Good luck to all contestants!
The warnings about hell and the sufferings of a sinful life were just that, warnings, as, without any proof that HE had any power over such things we were not coerced by them. The proof of their uncoercive nature as warnings is found in the fact that many, Satan and all, ignored these warnings as the lies of a false god and repudiated HIM.
Right now, I'd be more afraid of the gun to my head than I would be if you said, "Believe in me or I'll send you to hell...sometime, somehow...maybe." In this world, just how real is the coercive power of the meaning of hell?
I contend Adam and Eve were already sinners so they did not have a free will and I also contend the evidence is that they were sinful in the garden before they ate so that only leaves them to have sinned by a free will decision to sin BEFORE the creation of the physical universe or at least before their being sown (not created) into this world, Matt 13:36-39.Well, the Bible starts off with a very vague warning. The first people are told that in the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, they will die. As far as we know, death is not explained to them. And the concept of Hell didn't really show up until after Moses was done writing his five books.
So, did Adam and Eve have a free choice, if they did not understand that eternal hell is awaiting, by default, all of their kids? Seems like that bit was left out. In fact, most Judaism believing Jews don't even believe in Hell. So, what choice are they making?
The thing is that I tell you this did not happen yet you don't listen...you interpret what you read only so that you can stand on this bogus claim.IF someone holds a gun to you head and is warning you that there is a bullet that will blow your head off, will you still have a free choice to obey the person with the gun?
The internet is full of stories about Christians who are afraid of going to Hell. They are doing everything possible to avoid it and yet, they still fear it.
Eternal life, in either place, did not come even become available until Jesus, etc...Well, the Bible starts off with a very vague warning. The first people are told that in the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, they will die. As far as we know, death is not explained to them. And the concept of Hell didn't really show up until after Moses was done writing his five books.
So, did Adam and Eve have a free choice, if they did not understand that eternal hell is awaiting, by default, all of their kids? Seems like that bit was left out. In fact, most Judaism believing Jews don't even believe in Hell. So, what choice are they making?
Ones explanation of morality would be presupposed on a benevolent God would break if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted e can say they morals are subjective but try to make objective observations to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacyOther than having faith in the Bible, and religious tradition, is there any way to know that the biblical God is morally good? Based solely on observation, it’s far more logical to believe that God—if one even exists—is one of 3 possibilities:
1) Dualistic. Sometimes good, sometimes evil. Or possibly 2 gods—one good, and one evil, in constant struggle with each other.
2) Morally neutral and uninvolved.
3) Morally evil and deceptive.
Please try to write in complete sentences using punctuation. This is just one long run-on sentence.Ones explanation of morality would be presupposed on a benevolent God would break if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted e can say they morals are subjective but try to make objective observations to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy
Ones explanation of morality cant be presupposed on a benevolent God, if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong such as murder than most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God. We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy. God isnt based on modern views he is based on being completely good like i said you can't confuse ethics with morals they are not the samePlease try to write in complete sentences using punctuation. This is just one long run-on sentence.
Ones explanation of morality cant be presupposed on a benevolent God, if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong such as murder than most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God. We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy. God isnt based on modern views he is based on being completely good like i said you can't confuse ethics with morals they are not the same
if God in our religion not perfectly good in one aspect which is the basement of something than he isnt omnibenevolent our religion goes hard on Gods goodness more than the rest of his attributes they make it clear the big dumb down view on our God is goodness secondly wat fallacy am i using im speaking in third person in the views of a nonbeliever. Just because your a nonbeliever doesnt mean you wont make an argument against God dont be foolish secondly relativity all views concerning ethics concerning God isn't gonna be grounded to us or our seekness for virtue. Me grounding on defining the morality of God isnt equated to us on our own grounds and if you dont understand what i mean this in the views of a theist not atheist. Keep the thread too its original precedentOne's explanation of morality can't be presupposed on [the basis of] a benevolent God.
So who's "one" here. Are you not as a Christian presupposing morality on God? Are you complaining that non-believers can't. Do you understand why your writing is unclear.
Now start a new sentence
Iftheretheir moralitywaswere objectively or ethically accepted, which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong, such as murder,thanthen most likely we can state knowledge or this (?) grounds on a benevolent God.
Accepted? Who's doing the accepting? You have "which". Which should have an antecedent. What is it? Accepting? Their morality? "Then most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God." Aside from being a grammatical mess, this statement most decidedly doesn't follow from that which precedes it.
We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God. [T]hen again, a person who believes [in] a benevolent God would state they believetheretheir moral views are objective while your's are based on ethical relativism--a complete inductive fallacy.
Who's "we"? Who's "they"? If I'm a non-believer why would I be making an argument to God? Dude, this is totally unclear. Who is doing what? Who's got the fallacy? Those saying their views are objective or those who's are based on ethical relativism?
God isn't based on modern views. [H]e is based on being completely good. [L]ikeiI said, you can't confuse ethics with morals. [T]hey are not the same
How can a being that's eternal be based on anything? Perhaps you should say one's conception of God is based on goodness.
Word salad. We're done.if God in our religion not perfectly good in one aspect which is the basement of something than he isnt omnibenevolent our religion goes hard on Gods goodness more than the rest of his attributes they make it clear the big dumb down view on our God is goodness secondly wat fallacy am i using im speaking in third person in the views of a nonbeliever. Just because your a nonbeliever doesnt mean you wont make an argument against God dont be foolish secondly relativity all views concerning ethics concerning God isn't gonna be grounded to us or our seekness for virtue. Me grounding on defining the morality of God isnt equated to us on our own grounds and if you dont understand what i mean this in the views of a theist not atheist. Keep the thread too its original precedent
If the God of Christianity is not perfectly good in any one aspect, which would indicate that He isnt omnibenevolent...well, Christianity thinks more about God's goodness than the rest of his attributes. It's His most important characteristic.
Secondly, I'm not talking fallaciously. I am speaking in the third person as a nonbeliever would. Just because you're a nonbeliever doesn't mean that you can't argue gainst God. Don't be foolish!
Thirdly, all views concerning God's ethics aren't going to be based on our personal views or our search for virtue. Me defining the morality of God isn't dependent on my own personal views of morality. And to clarify, these are the views of a theist. Not an atheist.
Let's keep the thread on track...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?