Atheists will burn at the 2nd Coming
-
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 06:43 PM)
But he isn't the one commanding anyone to put their hand in the fire. If anything, he's the one commanding them
not
to, while at the same time, not forcing them either way. You can put your hand the fire if you want to, nobody is stopping you -
Isapop — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 07:07 PM)
Which brings us right back to the start.
"The start" being graham's irrefutable point that If god created the system and designed it to have the natural consequences that it does, then there is no difference between that and punishment. -
Isapop — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 02:16 AM)
If there's no difference between punishment and consequence, it shouldn't matter what we call it. But somehow, apparently it does
"Natural consequence" (and similar terms) is the term used by those who like to assert that God isn't doing the punishing. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 01:39 PM)
The Bible does speak of punishment (eg Matthew 25:46), but again, if there's no difference between 'punishment' and 'consequence', then it's just semantics. In any case, God may have presented the options, but he isn't making the choice.
-
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:08 PM)
Suppose I come to you and say "I have paid a hitman to kill you unless you give me a hundred dollars a week from now on."
You refuse to submit. The hitman kills you the following week.
In my defence, I say "Well, I only presented the options. I clearly gave Miscella a way to avoid being killed. I didn't make the choice, Miscella did. And thus I bear no responsibility for the outcome. You cannot possibly accuse me of a crime."
Do you think my argument holds water, legally or morally?
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 30, 2016 08:04 PM)
Yes, I saw that video, too.
No, of course your argument holds no water, legally or morally. I get what you're saying, but it's a bad analogy because the idea is that God isn't asking anything from us. Remember, I call myself a Christian, not a Muslim. If anything, Jesus paid the debt in your scenario for me, and the hitman killed Him instead.
The options you presented is an ultimatum: Do this or die sooner rather than later. The options God presented are little different. He gave you eternal love with the option to refuse it. The only choice you don't have is to not make a choice, so there is something to be said for that. After all, I don't remember asking to play the game
Sorry, I'm really not trying to sound like an evangelical, but if you want to send me money anyway, you'll have to PayPal it because I don't have a collection plate. lol -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 03:55 AM)
If you build a fire to keep me warm and I put my hand in it knowing it will burn me, would you say you were punishing me for choosing to burn myself?
If I'm the one who created fire and your body, both with the properties such that one will burn the other, then yes, absolutely. And most especially if I created both knowing in advance what you would do and what would happen.
According the Bible anyway, God does indeed take responsibility for the existence of the machine, but not for one's decision to say "yellow"
Note, though, that he allegedly created the kid as well, along with it's propensity to behave in such a way as to trigger the machine.
It comes down to this, in the end : if god created it all then god is responsible for what it all does. There's no aspect of reality where he gets to shrug it off as not his fault. It's ALL his fault.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 01:43 PM)
It comes down to this, in the end : if god created it all then god is responsible for what it all does.
This presumes that God also controls the actions of what he created, which makes us all puppets. Are you a puppet, Graham? -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 04:25 PM)
This presumes that God also controls the actions of what he created, which makes us all puppets.
We're presuming an omniscient god for the purpose of the discussion, yes? In which case your suggestion is correct.
Are you a puppet, Graham?
If there is an omniscient god, then yes I am. And so are you and everyone else.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 06:22 PM)
but I would bet it's because you need it to be.
You lose your bet.
So I guess the question is, whether you think that people's future actions fall into the category of "things that can't be known by god."
Do you?
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
Miscella — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 06:39 PM)
I smell a trap here, but if those actions are the result of a freely made decision, then yes, I do. However, even if I didn't, that still doesn't negate the fact that omniscience doesn't include the ability to know what can't be known just as omnipotence doesn't include the ability to do what can't be done.
What's next? You gonna ask me about that rock? -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 07:02 PM)
if those actions are the result of a freely made decision, then yes, I do.
And why do you believe so?
However, even if I didn't, that still doesn't negate the fact that omniscience doesn't include the ability to know what can't be known
(ETA : Actually most definitions don't mention your caveat. But let's go with it.)
Do you presume that there actually is anything that can't be known? And again, if so then why do you presume so?
Oh, and another question - do you think mankind could one day equal god's knowledge? After all, if omniscience is merely knowing "all that is knowable", then surely it must be possible for anybody to attain all of that knowledge?
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god.