Atheists?

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

You trivialize atheism greatly with your questions. Atheism is simply the lack of a theistic belief, a belief in the existence of god(s). ...

I personally am surprised there aren’t more atheists here; after all, most scientists are atheists, and ChiefDelphi is a breeding ground for young scientists.

lots of good points in your post. I guess one would have to define what God is in order to state their opinion on whether that being exists or not.

I dont agree with your take on eastern religions - they do have a belief in god, but the difference is that we can attain that status ourselves - we can tap into cosmic conscousness, and achieve an equal participation, like buddah did.

If you toss creation into the mix then it opens up problems. Eastern religions teach the universe has always existed, so there was no creation, therefore no creator - Science has shown the universe is expanding from a single point, at an accelerating rate, so it will never collapse back on itself - therefore the big bang was the creation of the universe. At first there was nothing, then it exploded

what exploded? nothing did!

dont think about that too long or blood will gush out of your nose :^)

What am I getting at? I guess creation must be at the core of God with a capitol G, right? in that sense an alien with abilities and power that we would perceive as supernatural would seem god-like to us - and if one came here he could easily claim to be god, and many would follow him. But unless he could create matter and energy and life, and time itself, out of nothing, he could not have created the universe. so he would fail the 'god test' on that point.

I dont know that I agree that we are able to understand everything about the universe. Its very likely there are aspects to the universe that we have neither the senses or the intellectual capacity to understand, or even to observe. Try to explain color to a blind person. They can learn the words, but they cant experience it or understand it, not really. And you certainly cant paint a landscape if you cant see the sky or the paint.

Your assertion that most scientists are atheists, I think that most young scientist might be atheists (college students) - but the more you study physics, esp astro and quantum physics, there are things there, if you really grasp it, that lead us to believe the universe cant be real.

How was it put? its as if the universe is only a simulation in the mind of God. One famous scientist (I forget his name at the moment) was so disturbed by the paradoxes in quantum physics that it literally blew his mind, and tragically he ended his life. He could not accept the idea that the universe might not be 'real' at all.

Personally I try to keep an open mind.

[Andy A.]

Just as a very religious friend of mine (girlfriend, to be precise) can't imagine living in a world with out God, I can't imagine living in a universe that has secrets that humans will never be able to figure out. The notion that humans are just not cut out to understand the 'really tricky stuff' bothers me.

I still maintain that, with enough time and effort, humanity can understand any aspect of the universe. The analogy of explaining color to a blind man is a good one. But then, even now there are rudimentary artificial eyes that allow the blind to see light and even simple shapes. So, instead of trying to explain light to a blind man, we are on the verge of giving him the sense its self. It's pretty cool medicine, and I think also analogous to how humanity will deal with all the 'really screwy' problems of the universe that are simply beyond our ape brains. We'll invent a better brain.

It'll take some time, but we'll get this universe figured out. I can't think of any reason why we can't.

-Andy A

[KenWittlief]

the example of color and blindness only works because blindness is a handicap - people who can see do understand color

so we can grasp the difference of what the one person experiences compaired to a blind person. 'Fixing' the blind person is cheating.

one simple example. we understand things by creating a mental model. If we can build a model in our minds we can grasp it

but our minds are finite

Remember when you first learned of infinity? Our minds cant grasp it. How can the universe go on forever in one direction?

actaully, it cant. Before the big bang there was no time and there was no empty space either! We think of space as being nothing, but there was no nothing!

as the universe expands that boundary between 3 dimensional space, and the nothing-nothing outside it expands - time does not exist outside that boundary

how can that be? My mind cant grasp the idea of empty space not being there beyond the edge of the universe

but thats what the laws of physics require.

I dont think we can understand everything. That doesnt mean we should not try to grasp as much as we can.

[Mike Ciance]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

I can't imagine living in a universe that has secrets that humans will never be able to figure out. The notion that humans are just not cut out to understand the 'really tricky stuff' bothers me.

I think the progress of science is a continuous reminder that there is more out there to understand than can ever be understood.

As far as atheism, I'm atheist. I was raised catholic (and still am) but in recent years i've passed through different levels of agnosticism and now i am almost purely atheist. I think the matter of "what atheist is", which has been discussed a lot in this thread, is more complicated than defining "God". I also believe that a person can be atheist in certain ways, but not others.

For example, although I highly doubt the existance of an all-powerful spirit that created the universe we live in, I do not rule it out. It may not comply with scientific laws, but the concept makes sense.

I am 100% convinced that no afterlife exists - at least not in any way remotely resembling that which is depicted by various religions. I find that the existing ideas about an afterlife do not comply with logic. I use this arguement to pick apart the common idea of an afterlife:

• the common idea of an afterlife is that when we die our "spirit" move on to another life, but what is our "spirit"?
• if a spirit is supposed to be everything non-physical about us
  • how would our memory be transfered, since our memory is stored as physical information in our brain?
  • our personality is also the product of what is in our brain, would we lose that too?
  • since everything that makes us "us" is stored physically in our brain, would our "spirit" just be a blank slate consisting of nothing but our stream of consiousness?
  • if so,
    • how could the supposed "final judgement" be passed upon all of these theoretically identical entities?
    • would this even count as an afterlife, or is it just "recycling" the soul?
• if a spirit is supposed to be an imprint of our mind, rescued from our body before death
  • what happens to the brain-damaged? are they eternally cursed to a less enjoyable afterlife?
  • what about those who are braindead entirely? would they be able to experience their afterlife at all?
  • what about people who die because their brain is destroyed? are they lost too?

i personally think that people believe in an afterlife because they are afraid of ceasing to exist when they die. i don't think that is really something to be afraid of.

i can tell you one thing: when i no longer exist, i won't care much, will i?

[KenWittlief]

computers make the quetions of body and mind and spirit a little easier to grasp.

I think your soul is like the SW that runs on a computer. If I take a blank CD and weigh it, then put $1000 worth the SW on it, and weigh it again, the CD weight is exactly the same

therefore, SW has no mass - therefore SW is not confind by the laws of physics. It can travel faster than the speed of light (mass = 0) and it is eternal. The embodiement of it in our physical world is not eternal, but we can make copies of copies of copies, and that SW can exist forever without being changed or diminished in the slightest 'bit'

likewise our souls.

Our bodies then are the HW. You install SW on a computer and it controls what that computer will do, within its HW limitations. You put WORD on a 186 and it will run slow, but it will be the same SW as if you put it on a 1G Pentium

The HW limits what the 'soul' can do, but the character of what it wants to do is the same.

Memories - I can use WORD for years and build up a lot of doc files on a hard drive. Erase the HD and all those files are gone, but I can reinstall the SW (WORD) on a new machine, and it will be the same WORD that was on the old one - it just wont remember all the papers that had been written with it.

Spirit is a little more tricky. People use spirit and soul interchangably, but I think that is a mistake. I think our spirit was the counterpart to our phycial bodies, that we interacted with the spiritual world through. our soul connects to the physical world through our body, and our soul use to interact with the spiritual world (Gods domain) through our spirit

and that is unique about the christian religion - that our spirits were lost back when Adam messed up, and to be the way we were intended, our spirits must be 'born-again'

reconnecting us with God - like hooking up the network cable again.

Thats my take on it - I could be totally out in the woods, but if I am, its kinda nice out here in the woods :^)

I think there are things about us, our souls, that control who we are, that control our character - Christianity teaches that we will be given new bodies (a HW upgrade) in the afterlife, we wont be disembodies souls floating around - When Jesus was ressurected He didnt simply come back to life in His old body, He was different - so different that people didnt recognize Him.

how much of this current life experience will be uploaded into that new body? I dont know.

[jonathan lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

I think your soul is like the SW that runs on a computer. If I take a blank CD and weigh it, then put $1000 worth the SW on it, and weigh it again, the CD weight is exactly the same

therefore, SW has no mass - therefore SW is not confind by the laws of physics. It can travel faster than the speed of light (mass = 0) and it is eternal. The embodiement of it in our physical world is not eternal, but we can make copies of copies of copies, and that SW can exist forever without being changed or diminished in the slightest 'bit'

likewise our souls.

I like your analogy; it's a very interesting argument, but I take issue with the first premise. A CD is encoded with a series of physical bumps that represent zeros in binary. A CD burner uses the heat from a laser to chemically change the translucency of CD-R dye via phase shifting. These are both physical and observable changes, just as how a floppy disk is magnetized. In any case, mass is not a measure of how substantial something is (just as how software's alleged ability to "travel faster than light" doesn't make it any less grounded in the laws of physics). You can't weigh, for example, an idea, or a concept, such as "dignity" (nor can you draw dignity, to which Simpsons fans will attest). A CD (or similar storage device) is not magically imbued with information; it is physically changed in a manner devised by engineers such that it can be read by a machine devised by engineers. While I'm sure a lot of people on this forum would like to equate engineering with god, I personally don't buy it. Therefore your conclusion that software -- and therefore a soul -- gets to forego the laws of physics is fallacious.

The bottom line is this: Mike -- in addition to pointing out that our thoughts are as far as we know the simple product of neurons firing -- raised some philosophical questions of a religious nature that both religion and science will never be able to answer to any reasonable degree of epistemic satisfaction. Based on this information however, I think it's easy to see his position on why there isn't enough information to justify the existence of a soul.

Like Karen however, I would like to know what Mike meant about still being a Catholic, whether he meant it in an ethnic sense, I suppose in the way Robert Novak is a Jewish Catholic.

[xzvrw2]

Well it looks like this thread has gotten kind of back on track.

I am not an atheist but then again I don't like to consider myself in any religion. I like to think I am in my own little religion. I believe that God created evolution for one instance.


My opinion on atheists are just like any other religion or race, they all have their goods and bads, but all in all its just another brick in the wall...wait wait wait wait....i mean all in all they are all just people.

[Jaine Perotti]

Ok, I have held off on joining this discussion long enough. Generally, I steer away from the political/controversial threads. However, since this thread seems to be keeping relatively calm (considering the topic that is being discussed), I think I will share my opinions with the CD community. Keep in mind that my experience with religion is mostly of a Christian background - I do not claim to make accurate judgments of other world religions. In this case, I will be using Christian examples for the most part.

I am an agnostic, meaning that I believe that one can never know for sure whether there is or is not a God or gods, and that I do not deny or endorse the existence of a higher power(s). I used to be a Christian - I was raised as Christian, and both of my parents are Christian, although they belong to different denominations. In my eighth grade year, however, I started to question my beliefs in God shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Number one, I simply could not believe that God could have allowed the attacks to take place, and kill so many people. I had never questioned this aspect about God before, because all of the violence in the world that I would hear about on the news seemed so distant.

When 9/11 struck, however, I felt that my world had been turned upside down, and all of a sudden, violent death and destruction was only 2 hours away from my house. I did not understand why a being with so much power could allow innocent people to die - ruin the lives of thousands of husbands, wives, children, and loved ones. At age 13, I was beginning to mature more and more intellectually, and it led me to think about the rest of the world - all of the wars, people starving to death, children dying - and I wondered to myself... "If I were God, I would never EVER let people have to suffer, or die unjustly, or allow the preconditions to exist in the FIRST PLACE to let those things happen!" This was the beginning of the loss of my faith.

The other thing that led me to lose my faith was the sermons that were being preached shortly after 9/11 in my mother's church. The pastor in my church viewed the events of 9/11 and the war in Israel as signs of the second coming (the end of the world according to Christians). Now, let me tell you, [1] having your world turned upside down by the 9/11 attacks and struggling to comprehend them, PLUS [2] being told that the world was about to end, was a very stressful thing for a child. Everything I knew as being true - the stability of knowing that the world was going to stay here, and knowing that people are basically good, and believing that life in general is basically good - was being challenged by these events in my life. I did not want the world to end, and I was terrified of it every day. I wondered how God would create a world he was only going to destroy - my world, the only thing that I have - and give people free will only so that they can choose to kill each other, and allow terrible things to happen and ruin people's lives.

One of my main problem with the Christian religion (I am not very knowledgeable of other world religions) is this idea of God's "gift" of free will to human beings. Why did God choose to give Adam and Eve free will, knowing that they would choose to eat from the Tree of Knowledge? Yes, he HAD to know, because according to the Bible, God is omnipotent. Why on earth did he choose to put an evil thing in the garden of Eden, with the full knowledge that it would spell destruction of the world and would cause millions upon millions of people pain and suffering? How can Christians claim that God is all-loving, when he spelled out our own fate to suffer upon the earth that he created? It is almost like putting a chocolate bar in front of a two-year old, telling them not to eat it because it is bad for them, and then walking away - later coming back to find that the two year old had eaten the chocolate bar, and deciding not only to banish them from your home, but banish all of their future descendants as well. Yes, the analogy is extreme, but is it really all that different from what God chose to do to Adam and Eve? Does not sound very nice or loving or forgiving AT ALL to me.

The other problem that I have is the idea of the coexistence of good and evil according to Christianity. According to the Bible, God made everything in the Universe - the angels, the earth, humans, flora and fauna. According to the Bible, God is also perfect. So wouldn't all of the things he created also be perfect? However, the things that God created were not perfect - in fact, so flawed that one of his own angels, Lucifer, decided to rebel against him and ultimately was banished to hell and become known as Satan. If you follow this logic, then technically God created evil. He also created evil when he chose to place the Tree of Knowledge and the serpent in the Garden of Eden. How can an all-loving, perfect God create evil? Create the very thing that causes pain and suffering in this world? How is God therefore perfect? How can we trust him? Why did he create evil in the first place, if he knew that it would cause so many iniquities and terrors in the future? Why does he banish people to hell for acting in the way that he created them to act? None of this is fair!

I have problems not only with the Christian religion, but organized religion as a whole. Lets look at it this way:

The most difficult people you will encounter in life are those who believe that they are inarguably, unquestionably, right. In the work place, the most difficult coworkers you will find are going to be the ones who wont listen to you, or have an open mind about any other ideas besides their own. If you are an engineer, and you are working on a design project, you will not want people on your team who will be so steadfast about what they think, that they are absolutely unwilling to let their ideas be modified or not even used at all.

In the same way, organized religion creates factions of people who believe that they are unarguably, unquestionably, right. This simple fact is what leads to the religious wars that have occurred throughout history and are continuing still today. It is what has lead to the unnecessary, unjust killings of thousands and thousands of people in the past, and unfortunately, will kill many in the future.

Not only is organized religion responsible for many of the wars throughout history, but it also pronounces unfair judgment against those who it believes are immoral or just plain wrong. It allows for very little ability to accept other religious beliefs or ethics - this is almost unarguable, because those who do not believe in God's law are not to attain salvation and are instead doomed to go to hell. When I was a Christian - and I am very ashamed of this - I used to prejudge people who did not believe in God or were not Christian. I know I do not speak for all Christians when I say this - I am merely reporting my own experiences. For example, I remember that I would never go out with a guy who was not Christian, and I would have somewhat of a distrust for non-Christians. I am very embarrassed about this fact, but this is the effect that organized religion can have on people, particularly young children, as I was. I did not realize that there are good, ethical people in this world who are not Christian. Now, I strongly dislike the fact that Christianity says that all non-believers will go to hell, because I know that there are many good people in this world who are non-Christian, and certainly do not deserve to go to hell. How can God send good people to hell? Again, this does not seem remotely fair to me, especially because God is claimed to be just and forgiving.

As much as I dislike organized religion and Christianity, I do see why people choose to practice religion. Not everything about religion is bad. I think the main reason that people turn to religion is because of their desire to feel comfortable with the world around them, and have an explanation for the things that they don't understand. Religion also functions as a guideline for how you conduct your life. Most religions have certain rules about how one is supposed to behave. All of these rules have to do with improving your life, and other people's lives, and consequently the world. Most religions concern themselves of ridding the world of evil. Therefore, religions exist as a means for human beings to acquire happiness - something all human beings are constantly striving for.

I also want to maintain my happiness and improve the world. However, the difference between me and a religious person lies in where I derive the "rules" of my life from, and what sources I use to gain a greater understanding of the world. I derive my ethics from what I feel and observe about people, and what I see as being right and wrong. A religious person instead follows what the religious leaders or texts say should be considered moral behavior. I rely on empirical observations and scientific knowledge to explain the world and the universe, while religious people see the universe in a more religious context - finding ways to link what they see with what they believe.

Well, now that I have written practically a book for everyone to read, I will leave it at that. Please respond in any way you wish. I hope that I have not offended anyone by the statements I have chosen to make. In fact, I SINCERELY, DEEPLY hope that I have not offended anyone. One of the hard things about making controversial posts is the possibility of losing respect of those within the FIRST community. Sometimes, when I read these threads, I am like... no... no don't say that! I respect you, I don't want to know your religious or political affiliation because it may cause me to judge you or respect you differently! In that way, I almost wish that these types of threads were not allowed, but I do enjoy a good intellectual discussion. Along with many people on these forums, I am not sure whether or not this type of discussion should be allowed. I guess that is a decision we all need to think about now.

-- Jaine

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

"If I were God, I would never EVER let people have to suffer, or die unjustly, or allow the preconditions to exist in the FIRST PLACE to let those things happen!"

Why does he banish people to hell for acting in the way that he created them to act? None of this is fair!

How can God send good people to hell? Again, this does not seem remotely fair to me, especially because God is claimed to be just and forgiving.

-- Jaine

Wow Jaine - you hit on a couple of the most often raised issues of religion

you sorta brushed over the answer to all these questions - freewill, or freedom. As humans our freedom is our most cherished right, and it is also the thing that gets us into the most trouble.

When you have children the hardest thing of all is knowing when to stand in their way, and when to let them go

but at some point you have to let them go completely, or there is something seriously wrong with you as a parent. Imagine if your parents went with you to summer camp? If your parents went with you to your prom? On your honeymoon?

The old adage: if you love something, let it go.... if its comes back to you...

I think there must be some aspect of our character that God cherishes above all the pain and suffering we experience in our lives, and that our personal freedom and freewill to choose is somehow inter-twined with it

if Adam had no way to sin, no way to rebel againts God, then he was not free. If I flip a coin a hundred times and everytime it comes up heads, you can be sure that coin has two heads, it is not free to come up tails.

As for God sending people to hell, it sounds like most of the situations you have listed are things other people have told you, not something God told you. Go back and read the ten commandments. There were specific punishments for people who broke them, and in many cases specific ways people could repent and make offerings to have their crimes forgiven

but none of those punishments say "though shall not kill, or God will send you to hell" - seriously, look it up yourself.

I think part of the problem young people have with understanding religion in our time is that so many people interpret or simply make-up their own version of what it means to be a christain, or how other religions are followed - its a real mess.

A genuine spiritual search takes many years, research and study, compairing many religions and sources of information - its not something that can be left to someone else, not something you can trust to someone else to figure out for you - its a path we all have to explore on our own.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

As humans our freedom is our most cherished right, and it is also the thing that gets us into the most trouble.

When you have children the hardest thing of all is knowing when to stand in their way, and when to let them go

but at some point you have to let them go completely, or there is something seriously wrong with you as a parent. Imagine if your parents went with you to summer camp? If your parents went with you to your prom? On your honeymoon?

The old adage: if you love something, let it go.... if its comes back to you...

This is a very good analogy which allows me to understand your perspective much clearer. However, this analogy is based on a very key assumption - the assumption that freedom is good. As humans, you are correct - we do cherish freedom and the power to make our own decisions. However, here is another associated philosphical question:

Is the freedom that we enjoy good to have in the first place? How much freedom is too much?

Would you knowingly give freedom to a person you knew would commit a crime, or would cause others to commit crimes?
In this way (another somewhat extreme analogy, but it illustrates my point), this would be similar to allowing a criminal to roam free, instead of being put in jail, in the hopes that he would come back and "return" to what society deems as moral conduct. Not all freedom is good. Not all criminals (in fact, very few) would return to ethical behaviors on their own accord. In the same way, God should have known (because he is omnipotent) that not all people would return to him. He should not have allowed it in the first place.

if Adam had no way to sin, no way to rebel againts God, then he was not free.

I think that if God was truly benevolent, then he would not have made us to love freedom (which according to you, seems to be the reason which necessitates the granting of free will). That way, he could have kept complete control over us, nothing bad would happen, and we would still be happy. Adam should not have been given free will in the first place, nor should he have been given the desire for freedom. This would have been the most logical way for God to solve the problem of wanting to keep his people happy, and still keeping the world a safe, wonderful place. I still view the granting of free will as cruel, because God gave us a trait that we could in turn use to violate the laws he set before us to follow - and consequently punish us for these reasons.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

As for God sending people to hell, it sounds like most of the situations you have listed are things other people have told you, not something God told you.

I am not talking purely about the Ten Commandments, although I do see your point when you use them as an example.

However, in the examples I listed, I was talking about those who belong to a non-Christian religion, or those who have no religion at all. I believe that somewhere in the Bible it says that not believing in God is a terrible sin. (OK, that was a bit sarcastic - I KNOW that in the Bible, not believing in God is a terrible sin.) In the Bible, it states that those who do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as their Savior will be cast into a lake of fire at the Second Coming, while those who are followers of Jesus will be taken into heaven. I believe that this is unfair because, in my opinion, just because you do not profess faith in Christianity does NOT mean that you are a bad person who deserves to be tortured for eternity. I know many people whom I admire and respect who do not profess a faith in Christianity, and I know that they are good people because of the personal standards of ethics that they hold and believe in. This is what I was talking about when I wrote about the injustices of sending good people to hell. Those who hold different beliefs about ethics and religion are rejected by the Christian God, even though they may be good people. I am a strong believer in understanding other religions and cultures, and I find it offensive to judge them in a manner that is so "black and white."

I hope this clarified some of my statements.

-- Jaine

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

Is the freedom that we enjoy good to have in the first place? How much freedom is too much?

I feel that unless we are free our lives are meaningless. If I am forced to act only in one way, then of what value am I as a person? I have no choice.

If I have to wake up everyday and say "hey God I love you" or He will strike me dead, then do those words I say everymorning mean anything at all?

I can program my computer, so that everytime I turn it on it writes on the screen "I love you Ken, Im so thankfull for all the things you have done for me, and I cant tell you how happy I am to be your computer!" do you think I would get a warm feeling every morning when I hit the power button?

but if I have a son or daughter, who I raise to be independant, and they accomplish many great things in their life, and when they are 30 they come to see me and say "I love you dad, Im so thankfull....."

!

I think you are missing the flip side of freedom. So many incredible acts of love and kindness have been done by humans. I cant even begin to list them all - if we had no choice, then those things would be meaningless.

I can only conjecture that what we do really means something to God - our actions and our feelings are important to Him.

As for fairness - I dont know how God will deal with everyone - I can only hope He will be fair as only God can be, that He wont treat people the way we treat each other when we are at our worst.

[KarenH]

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

Is the freedom that we enjoy good to have in the first place? How much freedom is too much?

Would you knowingly give freedom to a person you knew would commit a crime, or would cause others to commit crimes?
In this way (another somewhat extreme analogy, but it illustrates my point), this would be similar to allowing a criminal to roam free, instead of being put in jail, in the hopes that he would come back and "return" to what society deems as moral conduct. Not all freedom is good. Not all criminals (in fact, very few) would return to ethical behaviors on their own accord. In the same way, God should have known (because he is omnipotent) that not all people would return to him. He should not have allowed it in the first place.

Want another extreme analogy?
Years ago, I read a news story about a group of parents belonging to some way-out religious group. A "prophet" told them that their children would grow up to be monstrous criminals (robbers, murderers, and such), so they threw their babies into the ocean to ensure that such a horrible thing would not happen. They did with their children what you seem to be suggesting that God should have done with people: total prevention of evil.

Somehow, I have to insist that my judgment of that religious group as being "way-out," and that prophet as being a false, evil prophet is reasonable. I think our government judged those parents as being murderers (I didn't see any follow-up news stories, so I'm merely assuming the parents went to prison, based upon the usual laws governing our society). Even if a mother is certain her child is going to make bad decisions in life, she has no right to utterly prevent those bad decisions by preventing her child's becoming an adult (either by outright murder, or by being a "control freak").

What about known criminals (and other wrongdoers)?
When I was 14 years old, I did a terrible thing. My parents were shattered when they learned what I had done. We had to make a decision about how to deal with the situation. I am sorry to say that we made the wrong decision, and I wound up adding wrong to wrong. My bad decisions cost my parents a lot of money, too. Many parents, after having their trust violated in this way, would put their daughters on restriction forever. They would never want to let their daughters out of their sight! However, my parents told me that even though I had violated their trust, they had decided to trust me again. They felt I had made a mistake, and learned from it. They did not punish me.

If you put a criminal in jail, one day you will have to let her out, unless she committed a very serious felony. Her parole board has reports on her behavior in prison, but they do not know how she will behave in society. (Prisons are not known as places where criminals reform.) Currently, the news media are filled with stories about sex offenders. Many people believe that this class of criminals is bound and determined to commit crimes again. Yet the law requires that they be released back into society when they have met the requirements of their sentencing. Should their neighborhoods be plastered with flyers warning that a Very Evil Person lives there? Should we lock them up and throw away the key? Easier still, why not just put them to death? Or is there hope that they could change?

If God chose not to "lock us up and throw away the key" (at least, not in this life), is he behaving any worse than one of our parole boards? Would you call our parole boards evil for releasing a felon who has "done her time?" Would you call parents evil if they decide to hope for the best for their wayward children?

[KenWittlief]

one of the problems with this is the concept that God is all knowing.

Does that mean God knows everything about the present state of the universe, including people

or do we include the future? Does God know what we are going to do, before we do it?

I dont think He does, because that also negates our freewill. If God knows what we will do as individuals, before we decide to to those things, then we are programmed and we have no real choice - no freewill.

I think God knows what we are capable of doing, both good and bad - He knows what our limitations are - we cannot sprout wings and fly, one man cannot grow enough food to feed the whole world - one man cannot care for all the sick and elderly

and I think God is able to interact and deal with any situation that we might create

but I think we really are free - that God does not know what we will do until we decide ourselves.

[Ryan M.]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

or do we include the future? Does God know what we are going to do, before we do it?

I dont think He does, because that also negates our freewill. If God knows what we will do as individuals, before we decide to to those things, then we are programmed and we have no real choice - no freewill.

I believe that God does know what we will do in advance, but I also believe that we have free will.

There are two basic camps on this issue. The first side is predestination, which says that God knows everything because he set it up and decided what would happen. According to that viewpoint, there is no freewill. The other idea is known as foreknowledge. The basic idea from here is that God knows everything which will be done, but he didn't script it.

One possible way that God could see the "future" is through dimensions. If time is the 4^th dimension, then what if God was "in" the 5^th? Just as a (3D) sphere appears to the beings of flatland (a 2D world) to be a circle, our time appears to us as a single point where it intersects our dimension, even though it may extend infinitely in other directions which do not intersect with the 3^rd dimension. Therefore, if God was in the 5^th or higher dimension, he would be able to see all of time. The knowledge the "future" that God possesses wouldn't really be the future for him, because he isn't contained by time.

But I suck at philosophical arguments, so I'll be an engineer...

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by KarenH

Want another extreme analogy?
Years ago, I read a news story about a group of parents belonging to some way-out religious group. A "prophet" told them that their children would grow up to be monstrous criminals (robbers, murderers, and such), so they threw their babies into the ocean to ensure that such a horrible thing would not happen. They did with their children what you seem to be suggesting that God should have done with people: total prevention of evil.

...

Even if a mother is certain her child is going to make bad decisions in life, she has no right to utterly prevent those bad decisions by preventing her child's becoming an adult (either by outright murder, or by being a "control freak").

I think the most fundamental problem that both you and Ken are having with my opinions is the fact that you are both making your opinions based on the premise that God and humans have a relationship exactly parallel to that of a parent and child. I can see why you would make this assumption - God created us, just like our parents created us. However, I do find that there are distinct differences between humans and God, and a child and their parents.

I don't believe that I ever said that God should have behaved in a way similar the irresposible actions of the parents you described above. I most certainly do not believe that God should have killed Adam and Eve. However, I think that God should have set up his relationship with Adam and Eve in a way much fairer than he did. I am not, as you seem to be suggesting, proposing that the only option that God had to prevent evil was to kill the human race, or "lock them up and throw away the key", as you said in your corollary to the analogy I made about criminals. I am suggesting that God should have done something entirely different. Human beings should have been created differently from the onset, which is what I stated earlier:

Originally Posted by BurningQuestion

I think that if God was truly benevolent, then he would not have made us to love freedom (which according to you, seems to be the reason which necessitates the granting of free will).

Read on for my explaination, because I guess it was not clear enough the first time.

According to the Bible, God created everything; the heavens and the earth. Because God was all powerful, he chose to make all of his creations in the exact way that he wanted them. He could choose exactly how he would create us. Ken, as a human being, loves freedom, and describes this sentiment below:

your life would have no meaning. You would have to do what you were told and your personal freedom would be gone.

In general humans place a high value on personal freedom.

God obviously created humans to be lovers of freedom. However, with a parent and their child, a parent has no control over the exact nature of their child. Their child will be born human, and therefore a lover of freedom and a possesor of free will - this is a fact, and the parent has no control over this matter. The key difference between God and a parent lies in how much they have control over their creations - God chose to make us lovers of freedom. Parents do not control whether or not we desire to be free, but God does.

I can see how you would think I was being too extreme if I had said that God should never have given us free will, even though we desire freedom (this is NOT what I sais, although I believe this is how you interpreted my words). If God did not give us free will, and we wanted to be free, then yes, I can see how our lives would have no meaning to us, because it would be impossible for us to pursue any personal goals and fulfill what we felt to be our purpose. In that case, I agree with you.

However, I think you missed what exactly I was questioning with my earlier statements about Christianity. I asked the question: Why did God create us to want freedom? Why couldn't he have made it so that we do not want freedom? He had the power to determine our likes and dislikes, so why couldnt he have done this? If he had made it so that we did not want freedom, then our lives would still be purposeful if he did not grant us free will. We would be happy that way, and it would be impossible for us to commit any evil. Humans happy + No Evil in World = Good in the Eyes of God.... right? It seems only fair to me that God would have created us in a way that would allow us to be kept under control, yet happy at the same time.

Can you see now the difference between God and a parent? A parent can not choose whether or not to create their child to desire freedom of will. You are correct that a parent who is over-controlling of their child, or even kills their child, for the purpose of preventing them from harming others - has serious problems and is being unjust - just as God would be being unjust if he did not allow us to have free will, but still gave us the desire for freedom.

However, since God has alot more control over the nature of humans than a parent has over the nature of their child, he should have made us differently!! He should have come up with a different way to make us feel that our lives have purpose - other than freedom of will. Parents have no control over what will make their child happy, but God does. He should not have made us to love freedom in the first place; instead he should have made us love some other aspect of life that would make us feel happy and complete. Freedom of will is extraordinarily dangerous, and God should have known that! Why did he create us to love it so much? Why did he make it so that if he were to rescind our free will, we would be unhappy? It should be the opposite - God should have given us a means to obtain happiness other than by making our own choices; something that would not be the cause of the death, torture, and unhappiness that has plaugued millions upon this planet.

Originally Posted by KarenH

Many people believe that this class of criminals is bound and determined to commit crimes again. Yet the law requires that they be released back into society when they have met the requirements of their sentencing. Should their neighborhoods be plastered with flyers warning that a Very Evil Person lives there? Should we lock them up and throw away the key? Easier still, why not just put them to death? Or is there hope that they could change?

If this analogy were truly representative of the condition that exists between humans and God, then God would not have created the preconditions for the aforesaid criminals to be criminals in the first place. God would never "lock them up" or "put them to death", because these people would never have had the option to commit those crimes in the first place (this is if God had chosen to create humans in the way that I feel he should have - if he really wanted to make people happy and live in an evil-free world). Furthermore, this thread is primarily concerned with religion, not the ethics of this country's legal system. I personally believe that criminals should be given a chance to change. We as humans have the option of change. However, I have a problem with the Christian interpretation of God when it comes to the issue of having these choices in the first place.

I don't understand why God would have created us in a way that allows people to commit terrible crimes against one another. I think that he should have made human nature differently, in a way that would not be harmful to other people, and would still leave us satisfied. The solution I proposed above is just one of many options that I feel God could have had when it came to designing human nature. Another one might be that he could have made us to have free will, but not have made it a part of our nature to believe that killing anther human being is OK. He could have made us more tolerant of those who are different, and could have made it unnatural for humans to fear what they are not familiar with - such as people with a different skin color, religion, or sexual preference. Can you imagine what this world would be like if God had not given humans the ability to hate? What if God had given humans all of the attributes that we have today, except for the one which allows us to hate? It would have saved so many people's lives if he had done that! If I were a God who cared about my creations, why would I design them in such a way that they were susceptible to hatred and violence? Why would I make them capable of killing one another? Why couldn't God have made humans peace-loving creatures, who would rather die themselves than kill another person?

This, I do not understand. This is the problem I have with Christianity.

-- Jaine