Forums → WEPR → Humanity...

That would clear all blame on God and put the blame on us if we chose to do what He tells us not to do, because it is our choice not His to begin with.

Nope. The problem here is that the whole point of an experiment is to find out what happens. Therefore, God as a researcher either cannot be omniscient or cannot be a competent rational being.

it would be very , very counterproductive if He decided to create an atheist in this world. that's why i believe even though God created us and our morality, He still leave us with free will to do whatever we wanted, so it(bad morality) can still be blamed on the persons that actually do the action

Your indeterministic approach fails you here. It isn't enough to say that we have free will and conclude that it gives us some mystical power to shape reality from the outside. Free will is either deterministic or irrational, and our ability to use reason makes the latter highly unlikely (I mentioned a bit of this on page 27).

ok, i admit my mistake in this part. I'm sorry, i forgot to emphasize that I had said in the final parts of my last 3 comment, in which i said that i know that there may be more variables added to the equation for it to be true. try reading my comments much more clearly next time.

So, I point out an oversight, you admit to that oversight, and then you tell me that you were aware of the oversight to begin with... Why, then, did you not correct the oversight? I must now question it's very reason for existence.

Not exactly, if you look at polytheism religions, there are a load of examples of God they worship to NOT do bad things to them ( a form of corruption in my opinion, since the worshiped God literally blackmailed the worshiper.)

This is true, but it doesn't always have to be that obvious. Nor does it negate my statement that people will believe things they want to believe no matter what.

Like you? No, I'm not looking for atheist persons demanding God's responsibility IF He did some corruptions. I'm looking for religious people/believers that had evidence of God's corruption and outspokenly ask for His responsibility. notice in the start of my argument, in which i said

[quote]i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut

I definitely created a range for this problem, and you go outside it. which is basically the same as going to the walls of my argument and doomed to blast right through it[/quote]

I responded to that part already. Also, if you restrict the general statement that "there aren't any [voices demanding God's responsibility] for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity", to the voices of devout Christians only, you end up with an overwhelming exception. After all, why woud those who believe God to be corrupt still believe the teachings of Christianity?

Nope. The problem here is that the whole point of an experiment is to find out what happens. Therefore, God as a researcher either cannot be omniscient or cannot be a competent rational being.

Well, maybe He already knows what will happen if he add humans and morality to the equation. But, he just let it be as it is, rather than tampering with the world as we know it. So it is pretty akin to some scientist creating a bacteria culture and neglecting it for all eternity. So it was never an experiment to prove an idea; rather, it was at the stage of "Usage of the idea" ,so to speak.

Your indeterministic approach fails you here. It isn't enough to say that we have free will and conclude that it gives us some mystical power to shape reality from the outside. Free will is either deterministic or irrational, and our ability to use reason makes the latter highly unlikely (I mentioned a bit of this on page 27).

By very unproductive, an atheist obviously wasn't created by God. No, they exist because the presumed atheist have a free will and a choice to do so. If everything in this world WAS "free willed" by God ( as you said, it is deterministic ), you wouldn't be an atheist nor would you exist, because your existence in it's own would spell "blasphemy" in God's point of view (since no God would want to be dishonored or sullied) . So your free will doesn't give you the power of mystical powers of changing reality, rather it shapes reality in it's own right, because you exist as an atheist rather than a religious person, which would happen if all of Earth's event's was planned by God and we are nothing more than computers receiving an order and carrying it out without question.

So, I point out an oversight, you admit to that oversight, and then you tell me that you were aware of the oversight to begin with... Why, then, did you not correct the oversight? I must now question it's very reason for existence.

uhhh, it was an oversimplification. i don't need to correct it because it was an oversimplification, because i had said there may be more variables in this equation.

This is true, but it doesn't always have to be that obvious. Nor does it negate my statement that people will believe things they want to believe no matter what.

Hmmm........ Even on the religious community, there are differences in the details of beliefs. some are questioning the realism of the events in the bible and investigate how they would happen in reality (if it did happen), such as me. So, not all people would just blindly believe anything a person would said at them, they would sometimes question how it happen, at the very least i'm on those group.

I responded to that part already. Also, if you restrict the general statement that "there aren't any [voices demanding God's responsibility] for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity", to the voices of devout Christians only, you end up with an overwhelming exception. After all, why woud those who believe God to be corrupt still believe the teachings of Christianity?

If there ARE corruptions, we would see some people converting to other religions devoid of the corruption or at least question it. Some would be caught by the catholic church and be given a criminal charge of blasphemy, and we would someone punished or forced to change their beliefs. this would be recorded in the world history by the inquisition, and we would see it now and be discussing it now. But, i don't see anyone getting punished.

If there ARE corruptions, we would see some people converting to other religions devoid of the corruption or at least question it.

Those who question or doubt an assertion are usually those viewing it from an outside perspective.

Then he would have no right to punish people for not believing he exists if he refuses to show himself

exactly the way i believe it to be, because that is the direct consequence of Him being an observer. This will also place the blame on everything "wrong" with earth on the inhabitants;us.

Those who question or doubt an assertion are usually those viewing it from an outside perspective.

Hmmmm...... So what does that make me then? an outsider?

So your free will doesn't give you the power of mystical powers of changing reality, rather it shapes reality in it's own right, because you exist as an atheist rather than a religious person, which would happen if all of Earth's event's was planned by God and we are nothing more than computers receiving an order and carrying it out without question.

I see two problems here:
1 If you can conclude that evil itself was intentionally created by God, why not atheism? Both seem like things that a divine being would rather not have and should be able to prevent.
2 Your argument does nothing to settle the free will problem. In fact, it suggests only that the premise of God creating everything is flawed, because all methods of reasoning produce an impossible conclusion.

uhhh, it was an oversimplification. i don't need to correct it because it was an oversimplification, because i had said there may be more variables in this equation.

That oversimplification led you to the invalid conclusion that God must be benevolent, so it really is something that needed to be addressed.

If there ARE corruptions, we would see some people converting to other religions devoid of the corruption or at least question it. Some would be caught by the catholic church and be given a criminal charge of blasphemy, and we would someone punished or forced to change their beliefs. this would be recorded in the world history by the inquisition, and we would see it now and be discussing it now. But, i don't see anyone getting punished.

I was assuming you were already aware that every one of those things has happened numerous times, and we are discussing it right now.

1 If you can conclude that evil itself was intentionally created by God, why not atheism? Both seem like things that a divine being would rather not have and should be able to prevent.

God would not willingly created Atheism because of the drawbacks it would give God and no benefits it would give God (nevertheless, He made it anyway). Because God would not willingly created Atheism, He would also have no power or right to manage or control atheism (because He won't admit that He created atheism), so an atheist can only become one because he wanted to and chose to do, a feat impossible to do if humans don't have free will and was "designed" from "top to bottom" by God.

Your argument does nothing to settle the free will problem. In fact, it suggests only that the premise of God creating everything is flawed, because all methods of reasoning produce an impossible conclusion.

I am aware that this argument suggest that God created everything premise is flawed, but i had attempted to avoid this by saying that we have free will to explain why we done things God wouldn't want us do. If God really have the power to create everything existing today, then free will are also one of His creation. Now, this is one creation that may be much more restricting rather than benefiting God, but He chose to claim that as His creation (depicted in the bible). because of that, He has some control and power and can affect our own free will ( this is the reason as to why believers pray to god for power to make changes in our lifestyle, because he can affect it). Still, he can't dictate our whole "free will", and this is proven with the existence of atheist and atheism, since if He can literally manipulate our free will, there wouldn't be atheists in this world.

That oversimplification led you to the invalid conclusion that God must be benevolent, so it really is something that needed to be addressed.

Yeah, i know that. my mistake. But i still believe that He is benevolent, based on the fact that Believers HAD to believe that God IS benevolent, otherwise I would not be a Christian. Regardless, i'm still looking for a rational explanation for god's benevolence or perhaps, His malice, hence the reason as to why i'm still here.

I was assuming you were already aware that every one of those things has happened numerous times, and we are discussing it right now.

What my point it that I have failed to find one example of a believer actually accusing god to make some kind of grievous error and/or corruption. We are discussing about a possible corruption by God, not an already backed-by evidence corruption by God ( complete with testimony and presumed silence attempt by the Church )

Because God would not willingly created Atheism, He would also have no power or right to manage or control atheism (because He won't admit that He created atheism), so an atheist can only become one because he wanted to and chose to do, a feat impossible to do if humans don't have free will and was "designed" from "top to bottom" by God.

1 Your rationale seems to be that, because you can't find any reason for its creation, it cannot have been created intentionally.
2 Being designed, or otherwise determined, does not preclude having free will.
3 You are referring to will as though it were some kind of superpower which allows us to scoff at causality and do whatever we like to the world without being influenced by it. This is not correct.

What my point it that I have failed to find one example of a believer actually accusing god to make some kind of grievous error and/or corruption.

From page 32:

[If] you restrict the general statement that "there aren't any [voices demanding God's responsibility] for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity", to the voices of devout Christians only, you end up with an overwhelming exception. After all, why woud those who believe God to be corrupt still believe the teachings of Christianity?

1Your rationale seems to be that, because you can't find any reason for its creation, it cannot have been created intentionally.

exactly the way i think it with atheism. So it was created "accidentally" by God, because of His presumed and believed nature which is a creator of everything.

2 Being designed, or otherwise determined, does not preclude having free will.

I believe that having a free will is precluded by an initial design. What i meant, is that God designed us only at the start of our lives (like basic morphology and temperament), and then He proceeds to be an observer. So, we are basically unhindered by God's design of our future, because there aren't any that was designed by God. If God literally designed us completely with a pre-determined future and chain of life events, then there should be no atheist in the world, because even the existence of atheist should be a blasphemy to God.

3 You are referring to will as though it were some kind of superpower which allows us to scoff at causality and do whatever we like to the world without being influenced by it. This is not correct.

actually, i believe that free will isn't scoffing at any causality or be completely uninfluenced by what happened to the world; because free will in itself IS the causality of what we do every day and a consequence to what happened to the world around us. Because there wasn't any pre-determined future designed by God ( in other words, the future is completely designed by humans ), then the only cause for what happened in the future is only the choices we made from our free will.

If] you restrict the general statement that "there aren't any [voices demanding God's responsibility] for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity", to the voices of devout Christians only, you end up with an overwhelming exception. After all, why woud those who believe God to be corrupt still believe the teachings of Christianity?

Those people before converting to other religions, at least one should convey reasons as to why they do so. Therefore, there SHOULD be at least one testimony from the converted even if the chances of it was to happen are less than 1/100.000, because there has been so many humans that have lived in the time of Christianity and are a christian, there should reasonably at least one testimony, because the number of humans that lived during the time lapse are so much, they can be considered an infinite. The only problem is that i fail to discover one whose reasons is because of corruption by god

I believe that having a free will is precluded by an initial design.

Preceeded, I think is what you mean.

actually, i believe that free will isn't scoffing at any causality or be completely uninfluenced by what happened to the world; because free will in itself IS the causality of what we do every day and a consequence to what happened to the world around us. Because there wasn't any pre-determined future designed by God ( in other words, the future is completely designed by humans ), then the only cause for what happened in the future is only the choices we made from our free will.

To be influenced is to be determined and I sincerely doubt that the future relies upon humanity for its existence.

Those people before converting to other religions, at least one should convey reasons as to why they do so. Therefore, there SHOULD be at least one testimony from the converted even if the chances of it was to happen are less than 1/100.000, because there has been so many humans that have lived in the time of Christianity and are a christian, there should reasonably at least one testimony, because the number of humans that lived during the time lapse are so much, they can be considered an infinite. The only problem is that i fail to discover one whose reasons is because of corruption by god

So, again, it couldn't possibly be true simply because you see no proof of it? That seems a strange view for a Christian to take.

Like what? Confucianism? that isn't even a religion, it is a belief system.

religion "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" - Merriam Webster

Some forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Laveyan Satanism, Hinduism just to name a few religions that are or have variations that are atheistic.

If it does exist (the corruption), then i don't think every believer is just going to keep their mouth shut. There WILL be voices demanding God's responsibility for His actions. Alas, there aren't any for the whole 2000 ( or 1900?) years of Christianity, which is plenty of time for someone to spot a mistake or corruption on God's side.

You mean like this?
Lawsuits against God

To be influenced is to be determined and I sincerely doubt that the future relies upon humanity for its existence.

Yes, determined from the environment, not God. about your doubt, well i can't force you to adapt and take in my beliefs, but here's what i think; the future is like a rainbow, which only exist when there are someone to look at it and experience it, because it is an optical illusion. i think the future, similarly have to be experienced or witnessed by someone (can be a human or other beings) to be "real".

So, again, it couldn't possibly be true simply because you see no proof of it? That seems a strange view for a Christian to take.

strange view indeed. But in my opinion, god's corruption had to be proven before it truly is "true", rather than false, because without evidence there is nothing to prove it's truism ( seeing this from the rational perspective ). However, If you ask my forced belief ( seeing this from faith perspective ), i HAD to believe that God hasn't done any corruption. but hey, if God really did a corruption, then there's nothing i can do to deny it, because i would prefer the rationalist approach rather than pure faith.

religion "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" - Merriam Webster

Some forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Laveyan Satanism, Hinduism just to name a few religions that are or have variations that are atheistic.

Those religions have a "Father figure" or a creator that can be immortalized/assumed into deities. they maybe atheistic in a way they don't worship any deity, but they are still theistic in a way that they are created by someone or something that can be assumed deities ( like Buddha, La Veyan). at least, that's how i was taught.

You mean like this?
Lawsuits against God

Yes like that, finally someone tried to spoke my language. I have read that, and i discovered that they are lawsuiting God for allowing evil deeds to prosper and failing to keep a believer from the devil. however, I have explained these two and give reasons as to why they cannot be a corruption by God.

about your doubt, well i can't force you to adapt and take in my beliefs, but here's what i think; the future is like a rainbow, which only exist when there are someone to look at it and experience it, because it is an optical illusion. i think the future, similarly have to be experienced or witnessed by someone (can be a human or other beings) to be "real".

Oddly enough, I can agree with that.

Yes like that, finally someone tried to spoke my language. I have read that, and i discovered that they are lawsuiting God for allowing evil deeds to prosper and failing to keep a believer from the devil. however, I have explained these two and give reasons as to why they cannot be a corruption by God.

Nevertheless, it is an example of people of faith accusing God of corruption. Your explanation (that evil serves a useful purpose) doesn't really help either, because that purpose may just as easily be malicious or corrupt.

Your explanation (that evil serves a useful purpose) doesn't really help either, because that purpose may just as easily be malicious or corrupt.

Basically, if i was to prove that the creation of evil is not a corruption by God, i have to prove that purpose was not malicious or corrupt, right? Ok then here goes, read this.

In my opinion, Evil serves as only as a way to differentiate good, the latter which God wants us to do.So in a way i think it is a "beneficial" to have bad morality, for bad morality serves as a comparison so we can do good things easier and remember it. that's what i think was what's in it for God if he created "bad" morals

If this was true, then God can't be doing corruption by creating evil, because the motive was not to gain an upper hand over the humans or to blackmail humans. So, it would clear God of all accusation of corruption if the purpose of the creation of evil is only as a comparison to good. Alas, i have no way of proving it, so i think this is still an open question, not an answered one.

Oddly enough, I can agree with that.

Really? You did? i was almost certain you'll throw your arguments in this part

Really? You did? i was almost certain you'll throw your arguments in this part

I guess my main argument would be that "experiencing" the future itself doesn't happen until it's in the past. You can make predictions/hypotheses based on potential outcomes. And the "only exists [through observation]" part doesn't really apply because stuff still happens when no one's around, such as events before life existed in the universe. Although, some ways to make it fit are epistemological solipsism or an eternal external deity that observes stuff.