HTOTM: FUSION
Originally Posted by Deprived View Post
I disagree - for god to claim something is good he must simply define good and evil. I believe that god can define something which does not exist - because he has knowledge of it without requiring it to exist in the first place. He can claim something to be good even when there is no contrast.



Which does not explain why he punishes people for choosing one side over the other and rewards the other side.

To the first statement, anybody can define something they know nothing about, or might not even exist, but it doesn't mean they are right. Even an omnipotent, all knowing being cannot possible define something which has yet to exist accurately. And for God to come up with such an absolute upon creation, he would have to be absolutely sure of an existance of evil, or at the very least a neutrality (which still cannot exist without evil, as a middle ground only exists when there are two opposite sides). And if the world was his first creation there would of had to be a manifestation of something other than good somewhere within it for his statement to be the absolute that it is.

To the second statement, just because you have free will does not mean God has to agree with your choices. The world is essentially isolated from God's judgement, he can see all you do but he will do nothing about it. It's only until you leave the world that God can reward you for your devotion or punish you for your sins. Compare it to this: suppose you have the choice to get drunk everyday and you do. You have the free will to decide whether or not to get drunk, but that does not mean you are exempt from the judgement of your peers. With God it is exactly the same scenario, except on a much larger scale and with greater consequences.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by OrAclE View Post
To the first statement, anybody can define something they know nothing about, or might not even exist, but it doesn't mean they are right. Even an omnipotent, all knowing being cannot possible define something which has yet to exist accurately. And for God to come up with such an absolute upon creation, he would have to be absolutely sure of an existance of evil, or at the very least a neutrality (which still cannot exist without evil, as a middle ground only exists when there are two opposite sides). And if the world was his first creation there would of had to be a manifestation of something other than good somewhere within it for his statement to be the absolute that it is.

But because he is all knowing he knows the future and all that will and can exist. Why does god need to wait for it to happen if he already knows all about it before defining it? This would mean that he has to create evil later, and then perhaps destroy it, but that's preferable to having evil for all of time.

Originally Posted by OrAclE View Post
To the second statement, just because you have free will does not mean God has to agree with your choices. The world is essentially isolated from God's judgement, he can see all you do but he will do nothing about it. It's only until you leave the world that God can reward you for your devotion or punish you for your sins. Compare it to this: suppose you have the choice to get drunk everyday and you do. You have the free will to decide whether or not to get drunk, but that does not mean you are exempt from the judgement of your peers. With God it is exactly the same scenario, except on a much larger scale and with greater consequences.

But god knows all - even the future - and because he knows what will happen, only that can happen, thus free will is gone.
tl;dr: deprived is spergin'
Originally Posted by OrAclE View Post
To the first statement, anybody can define something they know nothing about, or might not even exist, but it doesn't mean they are right. Even an omnipotent, all knowing being cannot possible define something which has yet to exist accurately.

Firstly, what do you mean by "right"?
Then, people define things that don't exist in objective reality all the time.
We summon concepts out of thin air, and give them very definitive properties. For example, i just imagined and defined a 5000 pound sentient space cube which eats dark matter. It's just a concept and it most likely doesn't exist in objective reality, but hey. I defined it.


And if the world was his first creation there would of had to be a manifestation of something other than good somewhere within it for his statement to be the absolute that it is.

This rests on your above (imo erroneous) assumption.

To the second statement, just because you have free will does not mean God has to agree with your choices. The world is essentially isolated from God's judgement, he can see all you do but he will do nothing about it. It's only until you leave the world that God can reward you for your devotion or punish you for your sins. Compare it to this: suppose you have the choice to get drunk everyday and you do. You have the free will to decide whether or not to get drunk, but that does not mean you are exempt from the judgement of your peers. With God it is exactly the same scenario, except on a much larger scale and with greater consequences.

How can we have free will when our every move is executing divine plan of omnipotent creator? Moreover, how can we have free will at all? Sentience and a decent ability to analyze the world doesn't mean we are not bound by the laws of causality to behave in a precisely certain way. That aside - god has no valid reason to punish me or anyone else because we are all exact manifestations of his imagination. We and all our actions are what he wanted to happen, assuming he is omnipotent and omniscient.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 22, 2009 at 03:42 AM.
Originally Posted by Deprived View Post
But because he is all knowing he knows the future and all that will and can exist. Why does god need to wait for it to happen if he already knows all about it before defining it? This would mean that he has to create evil later, and then perhaps destroy it, but that's preferable to having evil for all of time.

But god knows all - even the future - and because he knows what will happen, only that can happen, thus free will is gone.

Originally Posted by Odlov View Post
Firstly, what do you mean by "right"?
Then, people define things that don't exist in objective reality all the time.
We summon concepts out of thin air, and give them very definitive properties. For example, i just imagined and defined a 5000 pound sentient space cube which eats dark matter. It's just a concept and it most likely doesn't exist in objective reality, but hey. I defined it.

This rests on your above (imo erroneous) assumption.

How can we have free will when our every move is executing divine plan of omnipotent creator? Moreover, how can we have free will at all? Sentience and a decent ability to analyze the world doesn't mean we are not bound by the laws of causality to behave in a precisely certain way. That aside - god has no valid reason to punish me or anyone else because we are all exact manifestations of his imagination. We and all are actions are what he wanted to happen, assuming he is omnipotent and omniscient.


I'm stumped on how to reply to the first statements.

Second statements, being predicted and being controlled are two different things. The ability to predict what you will do and the consequences of your actions does not mean he is controlling your actions, but merely foreseeing what you will do. To say that because he sees at the moment he looked into the future, that you would do such and such, that you are bound to do such and such when the time comes is just giving up on your free will.

To say that a God gave free will and has ONE master plan is hypocritical, but who's to say that he has only one plan? If he is capable of predicting the future and all possible outcomes like any omnipotent being, he would have not one plan, but an infinite amount all based on what the indivduals decide to do with their free will. To say though that God has an infinite amount of plans happening at once would be false. He would be choosing between the infinite plans according to what happens in the present, and based on those changes would have at any given moment only one plan in action.


Now on what Odlov says on right to judge, what valid reason then does God have to define what is good or evil if he has no right to judge you on your actions? If he has the right to define what is good and what is evil, why is it then he cannot judge you based on the principles defined? If he created you, does he not have the right to judge his work? Is the creator supposed to create his miracles, but never witness them?

Utlimately, I cannot dispute your claim of what gives God his right to judge without proving first that God has something that actually needs judging. So until then, I'll leave off where I am now.
nyan :3
Youtube Channel i sometimes post videos of other games
Originally Posted by Odlov View Post
You sure like William Craig don't you?



Hey now- limited time calls for limited effort in response quality and lazy paraphrasing. ^.^

But who better than to quote the man himself, after all I think he provides the best explanation and a good basis for the discussion.
Originally Posted by OrAclE View Post
Second statements, being predicted and being controlled are two different things. The ability to predict what you will do and the consequences of your actions does not mean he is controlling your actions, but merely foreseeing what you will do. To say that because he sees at the moment he looked into the future, that you would do such and such, that you are bound to do such and such when the time comes is just giving up on your free will.

That WOULD be true if we were talking about someone who is omniscient but merely an observer - not a designer of all that exists. Since god has created initial condition he set the pendulum of our existence in motion how he wanted it, precise to a cat's sneeze. He knew that Odlov would be typing about bible being contradictory on toribash forums even before he manifested his concept and created first humans.

Furthermore, your idea of "awareness" of multiple possibilities actually negates his omniscience, because to be all-knowing you have to know exactly would would happen, not what could happen. But i think you understood that.

Now on what Odlov says on right to judge, what valid reason then does God have to define what is good or evil if he has no right to judge you on your actions? If he has the right to define what is good and what is evil, why is it then he cannot judge you based on the principles defined? If he created you, does he not have the right to judge his work? Is the creator supposed to create his miracles, but never witness them?

The premise goes that god has a right to classify things into right and wrong due to his absolute perfection and knowledge. Of course, it's contradictory that he would make us in such a way that we would go against his definition of good, and then be punished for it eternally (which would go against our definition of good). He essentially designed certain people for eternal torture.
Doesn't sound very good to me.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 22, 2009 at 05:04 AM.
Aahh. Yet again the forums have come up with ANOTHER religious discussion (which for some reason seem to center on Christians a lot). Anyway, I don't think this can be answered because a lot of people have a different opinion of "Evil". Personally I think "good" and "evil" are merely human concepts which don't really exist in a sense. Because often people do not commit an act of evil and consider it evil. On the other hand there are also good acts which can be considered evil by certain people.
yungmoney has just robbed your bank account for 18 toricredits
Why choose the path involving evil acts if he is inherently good? He could do without them, being all-powerful.

Yes, he could have. But what we know is that he obviously didn't. And whatever reasons we may have that suggests things he could have done better are hopelessly moot, as limited as we are in knowledge relative to an omnipotent god.



So say, if i have a set of rigid moral boundaries which I made for myself (and others) and consider any act which goes outside those boundaries bad....I can't really cross them if I want to still fancy myself morally flawless?.

I only agree that God cannot go against his nature. That's all. (some sly and dubious word choice in your quote)


My argument still holds: no one has ever been able to show that God and evil cannot logically coexist.
Last edited by BlakNWyte; Oct 24, 2009 at 04:01 AM.
Originally Posted by BlakNWyte View Post
Yes, he could have. But what we know is that he obviously didn't. And whatever reasons we may have that suggests things he could have done better are hopelessly moot, as limited as we are in knowledge relative to an omnipotent god.

Hehe, i love how you still hold on to the idea.
Yeah, He obviously didn't. And yet, he is hailed "all-loving"....and could make everyone eternally happy in a blink of an eye. Love is expressed by ensuring well-being and happiness of those you love, yet we don't have to look far to see miserable and robbed people (all of whom are supposedly loved by god). This to me, sounds like 2+2=5.

If god (who sports all biblical properties) could prevent evil, then he would.

So either "all-loving" or "omnipotent" property has to go.




I only agree that God cannot go against his nature. That's all. (some sly and dubious word choice in your quote)

Cannot go against his 'nature', much like me.
Except I am not supposed to be omnipotent, heh.

My argument still holds: no one has ever been able to show that God and evil cannot logically coexist.

Epicurus did thousands of years ago.
At least if we assume that words 'love' and "evil" retain their original definitions.
And if they don't, then we ought to call biblical god "all-malevolent" or "all-adamant" or something to that effect.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 24, 2009 at 05:12 AM.
In my opinion (I'm not saying anyone else is wrong or right) people who murder don't necessarily have to be evil.
If (for example) someone were to kill someone who had done them wrong, who had caused a lot of pain or done wrong themselves, isn't an evil act.
If said person A were to do it because said person B had provoked them, if Person B was in a group with their knowledge or without, causing person A to go to breaking point is doing an evil act themselves.

Person A would have never done the evil act if not provoked.

(I am not bringing up religion because religion does not always play on good or evil)
Last edited by Vernaq; Oct 24, 2009 at 01:38 PM.