Thread: God doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

The Christian concept of free will vs. the Christian concept of an omniscient god. Similarly, the Christian concept of an Omniscient God coupled with the Adam story, vs. the Christian concept of a loving god.

Again, there is no issue of the Christian concept of "free will" vs. the Christian concept of an omniscient God if libertarian free will is not in play. That is, there's nothing at odds here if the ability to do otherwise than what you have done or will do is not a prerequisite for a choice to be "real."

As for the omniscient God/Adam story vs. the Christian concept of a loving God, again, that's the lapsarian debate. Go look up the various lapsarian positions (e.g. supralapsarianism, infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism). There is nothing at odds here unless you hold to a particular concept of what the "love of God" means (which has driven people to the heresy of Open Theism on this topic). The foreordination of the Fall is held by numerous theological camps and has been held by numerous theological camps for a while now. How the foreordination of the Fall relates to the decree of God is what is discussed amongst the camps.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yes, there is, because if the ability to do otherwise "the ability to do otherwise than what you have done or will do is not a prerequisite for a choice to be "real."" is necessary, or God was forcing Adam to eat the apple, and that conflicts with the whole "loving god" thing. Additionally, calling that "free will" is nothing short of word play. Christian free will is always presented as the ability to make choices, and the inability to actually make any choice except the one that you're predestined to make is exactly the same thing as having no ability to make a choice.

That would be the point, why is it necessary? That's what I've been trying to point out. You're assuming that libertarian free will is at play. I say it's not and if you're going to keep arguing this point then you need to be able to present an argument for libertarian free will. You saying that it is "the same thing as having no ability to make a choice" is really saying "the same thing as not having the ability to do otherwise than what I am going to do." However, again, unless you believe the future isn't real, you're going to run into that issue whether you are a theist or an atheist.

And you're also saying Christian "free will" is this and Christian "free will" is that. Who are you, a non-Christian, to say what Christian "free will" is? There are various positions on the free will/agency issue within Christian theism just as there are various positions on the free will/agency issue among atheists. Oddly enough, compatibilism, though non-theistic (still rooted in some form of determinism, though), is the most popular among the non-theistic.

The "forced to do X" is a common assertion made by those who think that the ability to do otherwise is a necessity for a choice to be "real." Funny thing is, have fun trying to prove that the agent doing "X" would have done otherwise than what he did.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Don't tell me to look up a debate. I'm not doing your work for you. If you've got a compelling argument, make it.

I'm not asking you to look up a debate. I'm asking you to look up the various position on the lapsarian issue so that you can stop saying it's a "problem" for Christians.

Tell you what, here's a table of the various lapsarian positions (click to enlarge):




This table is for the various positions concerning the order (logically speaking, not temporal) of the decree of God. I fall under the infralapsarian camp but I have sympathy for the supralapsarian camp. Do you see any issue(s) with either of those two camps and what you're saying is a "problem" for Christians? Well, I guess I should ask if you see any issues(s) outside of what you believe all Christians believe about the love of God.

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

That's exactly asking me to do your debating for you. Either make your points, with your words, or don't. I'm not going to sift through your sources and find the arguments that you want to make.

*sigh*

Fine, if that's how to want to do this. As a Reformed Christian, given my adherence to Reformed theology (especially my adherence to Reformed soteriology in this instance), none of these are an issue for me.

As I said in the previous post, I fall under infralapsarian camp in regards to the fall of Adam. That is, in the decree of God initiated by the act of the creation, the permission of the Fall was foreordained before the Fall ever occurred. It was a means to an end with the end being the glorification of God (His name, His attributes). The salvation of a particular people in Christ being the glorification of God's mercy and the damnation (through preterition) of all sinners not in Christ being the glorification of God's holiness and justice (see Romans 9:21-24). I could have probably said all that a little better but that will do for now.

If you find such a thing to contradict what you believe is the Christian belief concerning the love of God, then, as I mentioned before, that's your issue. I do not believe the love of God is what you are asserting it is. There is God's general love found in common grace and then there is God's particular love that He has for His people. He's not some giant hippie in the sky who's all about "love maaaaaaan."

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Also, I was raised Christian, went to church all throughout my youth, and attended a Catholic school, were we had classes on religion as a requirement. If you don't agree with my logic, then question that, don't claim that I'm not "Christian enough" to make my point.

The going to a Roman Catholic school may explain something then, given that my beliefs on these things may as well be the antithesis of Roman Catholic belief since I'm a Reformed Protestant. Yes, all of those things make sense if you believe that (modern) Roman Catholic, semi-Pelagian anthropology is actually Biblical anthropology. Were you also raised in a Roman Catholic home?

Meh. When you describe god like that Sosiego, he just sounds like such a huge prick. I can't understand wanting to worship that big of a douche even if you believe he's real.

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Meh. When you describe god like that Sosiego, he just sounds like such a huge prick. I can't understand wanting to worship that big of a douche even if you believe he's real.

He is who He is and I don't doubt that you can't understand. The Creator does as He pleases regardless of whether or not you like how He does it, though.

At that, though, which part of what I said makes Him sound like a "prick" and a "douche?"

Originally Posted by (2)manno

You realize that's all make believe right?

You are addressing who, Mr. Oldest Manno?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Yes, I was raised Catholic, and maybe that explains some of our differences. That said, that's a rather circuitous route for an all-powerful being to attain "glory." If he needs that kind of ego boost, why not just... make it so?

Go read Romans 9 again. As to why He did just not make it so? Well, it was His decision on how He wanted to go about accomplishing what His purposes, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by WickedTribe

Either way, yes, if that's your idea of "free will" (that there is no actual freedom or choice) it doesn't seem to contradict the idea of an Omniscient God.

No actual freedom or choice? Or no actual freedom to choose to do other than what you're going to do based on what you desire the most? Seriously, do you just not accept that there is no free will/agency other than libertarian free will?

Really, though, I still have found it slightly humorous that you have not addressed what I have repeatedly said concerning the free will issue from a naturalistic perspective. So, AGAIN, do you believe the future is real? If it's real, do you believe it's subject to change? If it's not subject to change, then can do other than what you are going to do in the future?