you claim your god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and all-good

[jonmichael818]

jonmichael818-You class yourself as an agnostic(from the greek for ignorant, without knowledge). Generally agnostics claim to have no certain knowledge about the existence of God, stating that there isn't enough scientific/empirical evidence for anyone to know for sure. Yet in your profile you claim to have been a Christian for 25 years including having been baptized. A logical fallacy. You cannot be both an agnostic and Christian. As an agnostic you base your uncertain knowledge on science, reason and logic. There is sufficient evidence that God exists yet you don't know. You have the ability to reason rationally that life cannot just spontaneously occur from non-life by chance over time, yet you say you don't know for sure. As an agnostic you cannot base your worldview on logic either for you say you are a Christian and agnostic, a believer yet unbeliever, you don't know for certain that God exists and believe that God exists at the same time. A self-refuting, direct violation of the second law of logic(non-contradiction). Your self-deceptive worldview self-destructs under its own self-refuting absurdity. The Jesus, in whose name you were baptized said "He that is not with Me is against Me..."(Matt. 12:30) Time to get off the fence and decide (from your free-will) whom you will (logically) serve.
After the "Fall" man sins(violates God's law) because he is, by nature, a sinner and rebel against a Holy God. He continually seeks to be autonomous, free from the constraints of his rightful Ruler and Master.
Freewill is not the ability to do anything contrary to your nature. God is not even free to do this. For example: God cannot lie. Unregenerate man has freewill in the same sense-he freely chooses according to his nature. That nature, however, is a sinful nature - unwilling and unable to come to God nor does he willingly desire to please God in any way. "No man can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day"(John 6:44) If you are unwilling and therefore unable you need, once again, to read John 3:36-"He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him". Either/or. "A" cannot be "non-A" at the same time, in the same way. A universal, abstract, transcendent, non-physical, absolute, immutable, certain law of logic/reason.

Sorry if any info that I have posted has been confusing, so let me clarify.

I was a Christian for 25 years of my life, and was baptized. I am now 29 years old and have been an agnostic for 4 years. The process of losing my faith in christianity was a long and grueling one, but once I came to peace with it, I feel wonderful.

 

[Rick B]

I have defined freewill and sin for you as well as demonstrating that your new religion(agnosticism) fails the test of logic. One last remark. Technically you are defined in the Bible as an apostate.

 

[Tinker Grey]

AFAIK, 'apostate' isn't in the Bible. According to etymonline.com, it was coined in the 14th century.

Too, those of us who are apostate care little for what the church or the Bible "technically" defines us as.

ETA: And there is no reason why one can't be defined both as apostate and atheist or agnostic or hindu or muslim or buddhist.

 

[Gracchus]

Technically you are defined in the Bible as an apostate.

If you please: Where in the Bible is "apostate" defined?

 

[Tielec]

I have defined freewill and sin for you as well as demonstrating that your new religion(agnosticism) fails the test of logic. One last remark. Technically you are defined in the Bible as an apostate.

You don't really know what agnosticism is.

 

[hairykid34]

ok, some people seem to misinterpret my question a little because i didn't explain it that well, i will try again:
if god knows and sees everything, implying understanding everyone completely (i think that is somewhere in the bible as well) and is all powerful (including time travel), then he knows at conception who will be born and what they will do in their life and furthermore it means, as he has the power to change these things, he actually chooses everyone who is ever born knowing what they will become, including Hitler, Stalin, Lucifer, Osama bin laden, Herod etc. this also means he creates people who live relatively short lives before they spend an eternity in hell, which could be seen as an unnecessary cruelty as he could've instead created people that would live good happy lives before going to heaven.

it would also mean that when he "tests your faith" by knocking down your house, killing your whole family and taking away your livelihood (for example) he already knows what the result of that test will be, making the actual test an unnecessary cruelty.

it also means that he knew that adam and eve would eat the forbidden fruit and doom all of mankind to a life of work and hardship.

Note that this does not take away from free will, he just predicts all of your actions in advance (from before you were born, or perhaps the moment he created the universe) and acts on them accordingly.

would you describe a being who has committed countless acts of unnecessary cruelty as "all-good"?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hmmm I suppose so, ty.

 

[Rick B]

APOSTASY; APOSTATE a-pos'-ta-si, a-pos'-tat (he apostasia, "a standing away from"): I.e. a falling away, a withdrawal, a defection. Not found in the English Versions of the Bible, but used twice in the New Testament, in the Greek original, to express abandonment of the faith. Paul was falsely accused of teaching the Jews apostasy from Moses (Acts 21:21); he predicted the great apostasy from Christianity, foretold by Jesus (Matthew 24:10-12) which would precede "the day of the Lord" (2 Thessalonians 2:2). Apostasy, not in name but in fact, meets scathing rebuke in the Epistle of Jude, e.g. the apostasy of angels (Jude 1:6). Foretold, with warnings, as sure to abound in the latter days (1 Timothy 4:1-3 2 Thessalonians 2:3 2 Peter 3:17). Causes of: persecution (Matthew 24:9, 10); false teachers (Matthew 24:11); temptation (Luke 8:13); worldliness (2 Timothy 4:4); defective knowledge of Christ (1 John 2:19); moral lapse (Hebrews 6:4-6); forsaking worship and spiritual living (Hebrews 10:25-31); unbelief (Hebrews 3:12). Biblical examples: Saul (1 Samuel 15:11); Amaziah (2 Chronicles 25:14, 27); many disciples (John 6:66); Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1:19, 20); Demas (2 Timothy 4:10). For further illustration see Deuteronomy 13:13; Ze 1:4-6; Galatians 5:4 2 Peter 2:20, 21.

"Forsaking Yahweh" was the characteristic and oft-recurring sin of the chosen people, especially in their contact with idolatrous nations. It constituted their supreme national peril. The tendency appeared in their earliest history, as abundantly seen in the warnings and prohibitions of the laws of Moses.

Agnosticism;
Though there are a couple of references in The Oxford English Dictionary to earlier occurrences of the word ‘agnostic’, it seems (perhaps independently) to have been introduced by T. H. Huxley at a party in London to found the Metaphysical Society, which flourished for over a decade and to which belonged notable thinkers and leaders of opinion. Huxley thought that as many of these people liked to describe themselves as adherents of various ‘isms’ he would invent one for himself. He took it from a description in Acts 17:23 of an altar inscribed “to an unknown God”. Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe. Thus he seems to have been more like a Kantian believer in unknowable noumena than like a Vienna Circle proponent of the view that talk of God is not even meaningful. Perhaps such a logical positivist should be classified as neither a theist nor an atheist, but her view would be just as objectionable to a theist. ‘Agnostic’ is more contextual than is ‘atheist’, as it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it. In this article I confine myself to the use of ‘agnostic’ in a theological context.
Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it? Many philosophers hold that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and good God is empirically refuted by the existence of evil and suffering, and so would be happy to be called atheists rather than agnostics.Of course the existence of a non-benevolent creator God would not be so refutable and atheism would have to depend on arguments other than that of the mere existence of evil. More commonly the theist will continue to include benevolence in the concept of God and attempt to deal with the problem of evil with the help of various auxiliary or even ad hoc hypotheses or considerations, much as a scientist may attempt, often successfully, to shore up against empirical refutation a previously well tested theory. Bayesian considerations may determine rationally, though roughly, the appropriate degree of belief or unbelief.
Taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

[Dark_Lite]

If I have free will, that means I have the power of choice. That means that God has at least ceded that power to me, thus he does not have the power to decide for me, thus God is not omnipotent.
So, either God is not omnipotent or I do not have free will. Q.E.D.

And if everyone has free will then God has ceded a lot of power to us. If everyone acts in his own selfish interests we will be continually at cross purposes, and there will be chaos.

Oh! Wait...! That's called a "free market".

You don't have to exercise power in order to have the ability to exercise power.

 

[Rick B]

As an atheist what is your standard of right and wrong, good or evil, kindness or cruelty? On what do you base your moral philosophy?

 

[Rick B]

If I have free will, that means I have the power of choice. That means that God has at least ceded that power to me
God has a freewill and is omnipotent, that means He cannot be forced and can freely choose to exercise His power over you or not.

You don't have to exercise omnipotence in order to be omnipotent.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As an atheist what is your standard of right and wrong, good or evil, kindness or cruelty? On what do you base your moral philosophy?

Atheists may vary in their answers just as theists do, but I take a virtue ethic approach based on the requirements of life for human beings as rational individuals with complex psychologies. The ultimate ethical end is eudaimonia (personal flourishing), and the ultimate ethical means is the virtue of rationality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rick B]

Eudaimonia or eudaemonia ( εὐδαιμονία; Greek)—sometimes Anglicized as eudemonia—is a Greek word commonly translated as happiness. Etymologically, it consists of the word "eu" ("yea" or "well being") and "daimon" ("spirit" or "minor deity"). Although the word is most commonly translated as happiness, or fortune occasionally good fortune,"human flourishing" is sometimes preferred as a more accurate translation.
"daimon" must give you a little consternation being an anti-deist. So you must place your focus on the happiness part. An interesting note, to me, in the greek daimon is translated as demon.
By "personal flourishing" do mean whatever makes you happy and prosperous?
A virtue is a trait or quality deemed to be morally excellent and thus is valued as a principal foundation of good and moral well being.
A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws of nature or the way that a device is constructed.
Egoism can be a descriptive or a normative position. Psychological egoism, the most famous descriptive position, claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. Normative forms of egoism make claims about what one ought to do, rather than describe what one does do. Ethical egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be morally right that it maximize one's self-interest. Rational egoism claims that it is necessary and sufficient for an action to be rational that it maximize one's self-interest.
Ultimately you are the moral standard of what is ethically premissable. Another eudaimonist(youdemonist) would necessarily believe in his own autonomist freedom of moral absolutes. What a wonderful world filled with psychological egoism you have constructed.

 

[quatona]

As an atheist what is your standard of right and wrong, good or evil, kindness or cruelty? On what do you base your moral philosophy?

As an atheist I merely lack belief in gods, just like as an vegetarian I merely don´t eat meat, or as a guitar teacher I merely teach guitar.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your question seems to imply that atheist must have greater or different problems than theist when developing a moral philosophy. I fail to see how and why that would be so.

 

[Rick B]

As I addressed in my last post; atheists have no universal ultimate standard of right or wrong other than whatever is right or wrong in their own eyes which is logically self-refuting therefore absurd.

 

[quatona]

As I addressed in my last post; atheists have no universal ultimate standard of right or wrong other than whatever is right or wrong in their own eyes which is logically self-refuting therefore absurd.

Just as theist have no universal ultimate standard of right or wrong other than whatever is in their own eyes (and which they project on an imaginary god of their choice).

 

[Rick B]

No. Our standard is objective. Being God, as revealed in the Bible. By your own atheistic admission your ultimate standard is subjective, so how do you know any objective, logical truth.

 

[Rick B]

Not according to what it seems to me as you define freewill. We are all free moral agents. We all make free choices within the boundaries of our human nature. You can freely choose to fly but you do not have the nature of a bird.
We have received our nature from God who created us "in His image, according to His likeness"(Gen.1:26-27), with a reasonable soul. The first man and woman were created sinless but mutable - being freely able to choose good or evil - but their nature was not fixed(unchangeable). Falling for the temptation of being autonomous(like God) instead of obedient, grateful, and dependent creatures, they received the forewarned penalty of immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death. This changed their sinless nature into a nature characterized/dominated by iniquity. Since all of the human race were born from them after their fall we all inherit this latter nature through Adam(the federal head of the human race). So we are all sinners by nature and by choice. If you think that you, or anyone, have a "libertarian" freewill to do good, try keeping the ten commandments for just one day.
This statement, "Actually agnosticism is not a religion, and it is probably the safest position to hold regarding logic because I simply am holding out on making any kind of ultimate conclusion. I do this on the bases that the available evidence to make such a conclusion is not complete, and it may never be complete but thats ok by me.", is fully self-contradictory and illogical. Logic is made up of three primary "LAWS". These laws are universal, irrefutable, binding and certain. You refuse ultimate conclusions/laws and so refuse that which you rely on-logic. Self-refuting again.

 

[Rick B]

It's too late now, you've already committed yourself to ultimate SUBJECTIVE morality, unless you are jumping your illogical ship and embracing Jesus Christ. Then your problem would be solved and we would be on equal footing.

 

[jonmichael818]

Not according to what it seems to me as you define freewill. We are all free moral agents. We all make free choices within the boundaries of our human nature. You can freely choose to fly but you do not have the nature of a bird.
We have received our nature from God who created us "in His image, according to His likeness"(Gen.1:26-27), with a reasonable soul. The first man and woman were created sinless but mutable - being freely able to choose good or evil - but their nature was not fixed(unchangeable).

Ok so basically you believe:
-we received our nature from god.
-we make choices within the boundaries of that nature.
-and that nature is not fixed

I would agree that "nature" is not the only source by which decisions are made. Our environment also influences our decision making process.

So in the case of adam and eve that environmental influence could be the "serpent" right?
But where did that serpent get its ability to make its decisions freely?

Also, our nature lies in our genetic code, so if we made a choice that was not solely a result of environment it would mean we would be acting as a direct result of our nature. And since you say god created our nature, then that would mean god created us to make a choice that you would categorize as a sin.
In that case its gods fault that we sinned.

So we are all sinners by nature and by choice. If you think that you, or anyone, have a "libertarian" freewill to do good, try keeping the ten commandments for just one day.

I do not believe in libertarian free will, I am a determinist.

This statement, "Actually agnosticism is not a religion, and it is probably the safest position to hold regarding logic because I simply am holding out on making any kind of ultimate conclusion. I do this on the bases that the available evidence to make such a conclusion is not complete, and it may never be complete but thats ok by me.", is fully self-contradictory and illogical. Logic is made up of three primary "LAWS". These laws are universal, irrefutable, binding and certain. You refuse ultimate conclusions/laws and so refuse that which you rely on-logic. Self-refuting again.

Something illogical or self-refuting would be to make a conclusion that is not consistent with the evidence. I do not make a conclusion of whether there is a god or not. Which you could say that to not make a conclusion is a conclusion in itself. Thats fine, but I am doing so based on evidence that is incomplete and so that would mean that my decision to do so is not an illogical one at all. It seems more illogical to make a conclusion when the evidence is not complete.