What do those who believe in a singular creator generally think their creator was doing before he started creating?
Just floating in space, going mad.
ending destroying
>>479800
>before
There is no before.
There is no after either.
Atleast, not for God.
>>479886
I dont understand. Dont they believe that god has always existed? He has to have existed before he could create something
>>479886
Apologist jargon.
>>480028
Not that guy.
But most religious people who think about these things believe that god exists outside of the basic four dimensions.
So he is outside of time and does not exist in a linear plane.
So to god there is simply no before and after, just the whole of existence as a single tapestry before him.
>>480127
Yet those same people have hard time believing time and matter came to existence in a big bang?
>>480127
This makes a lot of sense tbqh
>>480144
You are acting like all religious people are some kind of hive mind. People have different opinions, besides, the Big Bang was first proposed by a priest and from my experience at least, a lot of Catholics believe in the Big Bang, they just don't think this disproves God, more likely it is how God's creation of the Universe manifested.
Protestants on the other hand are a little more "crazy", and make up the majority of young Earth creationists.
>>480127
To add to this, God is in a constant super position of every thing, giving him his knowledge and wisdom of every thing. when God intervenes in our dimension, he collapsed into one wavelength and is able to do what he does.
>>480727
And to add to this guy, that's how he can be Jesus, holy sp'irt, and God at once. he's every where and every when.
>>480742
Why worship an omnipresent, omnipotent being who is content with allowing its creations to suffer and doesn't seem to care if they ignore it? Why devote your precious hours to something that doesn't acknowledge your devotion?
>>480762
What understanding of 'worship' as a concept prompts these questions?
>>480762
I'm not even religious, but I can help you understand.
God will provide to those that are faithful. If you are faithful to him, and truly believe what is right, he will deliver you from hardships. If you don't have faith in him or question him like you have, then you will have this harder times. God recognizes the righteous.
>>480762
Suffering is inherent to existence
>>480781
>God will provide to those that are faithful. If you are faithful to him, and truly believe what is right, he will deliver you from hardships.
Also not religious, but this is a narrow answer that only captures certain strands of certain faiths (eg prosperity theology). Devotees of other strains of Christianity won't tell you that faith and devotion to God will deliver you from hardships in the sense of preventing them, but will rather enable you to cope with them. These are the people who, when you get a terminal disease, pray for you, not for a miraculous recovery, but that you and your family will find peace with what's coming (and maybe come to Jesus etc).
>>480806
>These are the people who, when you get a terminal disease, pray for you, not for a miraculous recovery, but that you and your family will find peace with what's coming (and maybe come to Jesus etc).
I'd pray for both tbqhwy
>>480781
The three most faithful people I've known respectively died of a drug overdose at thirty, froze to death at twenty three, and by the knives of a Catholic-oriented gang at nineteen.
>>480805
So again, why spend any time acknowledging God?
>>480813
Well, sure, no harm asking I guess lol.
>>480830
I've coped with my hardships just fine without these things, and managed to move past them to self sufficiency.
>>480848
Great stuff. So what?
>>480127
If such is so, then the whole notion of "free will" is bunk right?
>god exists outside of time and knows everything about existence in all directions of time/dimension
Yet christians believe there is free will. Is the particular exception due to issues with justice/resposibility?
>>480818
Hey, I don't believe in the religion, I just argue for it. If you brought that up to a believer they would say it was their time. If it was their time, God would just let them pass in their sleep or something.
>>480869
>Middle knowledge is so named because it comes between natural and free knowledge in God's deliberations regarding the creative process. According to the theory, middle knowledge is like natural knowledge in that it is prevolitional, or prior to God's choice to create. This, of course, also means that the content of middle knowledge is true independent of God's will and therefore, He has no control over it. Yet, it is not the same as natural knowledge because, like free knowledge, its content is contingent. The doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge). Thus, the content of middle knowledge is made up of truths which refer to what would be the case if various states of affairs were to obtain.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/
>>480879
>If it was their time, God would just let them pass in their sleep or something.
Actual believer here. Only inbreds who listen to Joel Osteen think this.
>>480762
Its the concept of free will. God created US to live our live the way we want. He cant make us do anything because of that. He can however give you an inspiration or strenght if you are able to make a contact by being similiar in your ways of action. That is way people want to find Him so that they can be closer to His perfection
>>480869
Free will is bunk yes, its all just hormones influenced by electron patterns, influenced by life experiences. Nothing is our own idea. This post was made by electrons and chemicals. It's a bunch of little things making what seems to be one thing.
>>480886
No fuck Joel Osteen, universalist faggot who can't cover controversial topics bc of his liberal christian following.
>>480894
>kek
That is innate to the doctrine, yes. Believing otherwise would negate the entire purpose of such a category.
>>480894
Alright dude, way to not listen to anything I said just bc u don't want to hear it.
>>480890
You sir are a tard. Are you awarie that science has agreed that classic determinism is false? Now i call quantum physics that say that the future is influenced by chaos. We are the chaos. That is what you all science fags miss. The knowledge you used to deny God is now the proof of our free will
>>480919
A) Bohmian QM preserves CD. It is out of favour but by no means disconfirmed.
B) His post does not necessitate classical determinism.
I'd go easy on dishing out 'tard' labels in your position.
>>480919
We can't use quantum mechanics to argue this yet, we don't fully understand them and never really will. Please don't point to science and then call science fags bullshit.
>>480897
I wasn't complimenting him
>>480932
Sry I wrote that like a tard, I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you.
>>480901
Just do a thought experiment,image yourself being determined. Pro tipsy. Feels pręty much line dreams doesnt it?pro tip. In your dreams you are not yourself (aside grom LUCID dreaming) BECAUSE you are determined by the proceses in your brain. Your mind, or whatever it is that make you is absent
>implying the creator is not the creation
>>480938
I know what thought experiment u are referring to but holy hell.
Now the experiment itself does not prove free will, dreams are controlled by again, electrons, which operate on a pattern and hormones.
>God allows suffering to occur
>Therefore it doesn't exist
Not even slightly religious, but that is a fuck-awful argument.
Why would you make the absolute assumption that a hypothetical deity, not constrained by any boundaries of space or time, would be possible to judge on the basis of human morality? Fuck, even human morality isn't internally certain as ethics vary from culture to culture. Trying to guess at the thought process of a God would be like amoebae trying to figure out humanity; they physically don't have the mental capacity to do so.
>>480979
>Not even slightly religious, but that is a fuck-awful argument.
Which is why no philosopher makes it.
If you're actually interested in the real problem of evil, evidential or logical, try reading some books.
>>480968
I dont know what your point is. My point is that there is a diference between you in your dreams and real you. Its not that you make odd decicions or thinking weird stuff. I talk about some other state of mind i cant describe, which makes me feel dislocated from the me from dreams. I feel more like an observer.
>>480997
Gotta agree, just bc some high schooler who hates sunday school looks at the easy argument he had to have pointed out to him, goes on 4chan and says basically IF GOD EXISTS, WHY DOESNT GOD EXIST?, Doesn't mean this is the argument that every aetheist makes.
>>480979
>God is good, powerful, allknowing.
>Suffering exist
>God is 2 of the three, not all at same time.
>>481016
What is your point, and where on the spectrum did you pull that last bit.
>>481016
God cant be allknowing. It makes no sense. He gave us freedom, made us similar to him. Therefore he cant know the future bc it would mean future is one and set.
>>481055
Thats a good case against an All Knowing god.
But what about suffering? There is no freedom of choice in not getting killed by a bomb dropped by someone from 10,000 miles away and 5000 feet up above the clouds.
There is no choice in getting aids as a newborn or deformaties.
He also couldn't be considered powerful(assuming a good/just god wouldn't allow such atrocities).
Or maybe is is powerful, but is not a good/just god. This would explain why suffering exists.
>>481075
He just threw us into this world. He made the firat move (or few of them that added up) and then left the creation with some laws of logic and maths. Then he made us similar therfore we are able to make our moves in this world (control the speed of rising ebtropy). Humans can hurt humans. He lets us do what we want and stays faithful to this rule. And because he made laws by which the dead matter behaves now he cant (or doesnt want to) save you from a natural catastrophies.
>>481075
Suffering (on Christianity) has two possible causes: The free-willed action of a third party (bombs, murder) or the separation between humans' souls and the Holy Spirit etc aka the Fall (disease etc).
A quick note on the 'omni-' prefixes. To say that God is omniscient is only crudely understood as saying "God knows everything" (and hence that if there is a thing God does not know, God is not omniscient). Rather, God knows everything that it is possible to know. The existence of things that it is not possible to know does not therefore disprove God's omniscience.
Ditto with omnipotence; God can do all things that it is possible to do. The existence of things that it isn't possible to do (make a Euclidean triangle whose interior angles don't sum to 180 degrees) does not disprove God's omniscience.
>>481114
So god suffers logical limits. Aka limitations set by human thoughts.
If you examine your words and your rational, you should see how plainly human the god of your definition is. A projection of human.
>>481120
Logic is not a human invention. We observed it.
>>479800
>before
>>481134
>Logic is not a human invention. We observed it.
>>481118
>God creates evil. Therefore also suffering.
God creates creation; creation entails suffering, yes. Not sure what you're getting at.
>>481120
>So god suffers logical limits. Aka limitations set by human thoughts.
Well, we might say that God isn't constrained by logic. What then? We would find that God can defy the laws of logic, and furthermore can do so without defying the laws of logic (it is only the principle of non-contradiction that suggests otherwise).
We then conclude that there is in fact no positive statement we can make about God, including any value judgement rendered on the act of creation, the state of affairs governing creation, the conditions we endure within creation etc.
So, we either accept that logic is a limitation on God's actions *within the sphere of creation*, that logic is an actual artifact of the mind of God, or that there is literally nothing we can say about God that is actually true (up to and including "God does not exist" since God can plainly both exist and not exist if he is not bound in some sense by logic, however we phrase it).
Also, 'logic' is not a limitation set by human thoughts. Logic is a boundary human thought encounters.
>>481151
>God creates creation; creation entails suffering
Creation only entails suffering because God made it so.
It would not exist if he did not will it. As the example from Isaiah I used illustrates.
God must've in some sense wanted the Holocaust to happen, else he would've stopped it, wouldn't he?
In other words, God either don't exists, is indifferent to us, or is neither benevolent or omnipotent.
>>481172
>Creation only entails suffering because God made it so.
God is a necessary but not sufficient cause of suffering, on Christianity. It's free will that renders suffering possible.
>God must've in some sense wanted the Holocaust to happen, else he would've stopped it, wouldn't he?
No, this is basic preference theory, honestly. Let's imagine I'm the richest person in the world and am running for President. I know that many people plan not to vote for me, and I know that I can afford to bribe all of them to vote for me anyway. If I do not choose to bribe them to vote for me, this does not suggest that I do not, in fact, want them to vote for me. It only suggests that the course of bribing them is less preferable to me than the course of not bribing them. It is still certainly true that I want them to vote for me.
>>481134
kek please be more educated before posting
>>481151
>there is literally nothing we can say about God that is actually true
I believe thats what the gnostics and some other christian groups tried saying in the past and couple other radicals, since thats the only real conclusion we could make about a hypothetical god. But human limitation is used because it creates a personal connection and makes it easier to enforce a ruler's personal views.
>Also, 'logic' is not a limitation set by human thoughts. Logic is a boundary human thought encounters.
As above, the problem is, logic is a human creation. The basics of mainstream logic are laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. If you read up a bit on modern philosophy, you'd know that there are many facets of logic. Fuzzy logic, indian logic, etc. The axioms we know as "laws of thought" is only a popular set of axiom that we know of. There are other logic axioms that don't accept or are completely opposite of the popular one.
>>481172
>hasn't heard of 'permissive will'
>>481190
Yes but free will does not explain suffering that only God can be responsible for, such as the fact that a million children die from disease before they reach the age of 5 years old.
And besides, free will(in the religious sense of the term) is a completely retarded concept in the face of everything we know about humanity through biology.
>>481200
>It's completely okay that stuff like the Holocaust happens, because I'll settle that score in the after-life
wew lad
>>481204
god isn't responsible for humanity taking on the nature of sin. suffering only occurs in sin
>>481207
what is your point?
>>481209
You didn't answer my challenge.
>>481216
My point is that some, and I would argue most, suffering is completely meaningless and almost always unfair, and I think it's retarded to simply dismiss it with some bullshit theologian rhetorical device about God's nature(which none of these theologians can know anything about anyway).
>>481199
>I believe thats what the gnostics and some other christian groups tried saying in the past and couple other radicals
Possibly. I believe it's reasonably sympathetic to eg Spinoza.
>>481199
>As above, the problem is, logic is a human creation.
The system referred to as 'formal logic' and certainly the notation system of 'symbolic logic' are human creations, yes. But this is akin to saying that the laws of physics are human creations. There is a sense in which that is indeed true, but there is also a sense in which the laws of physics are merely descriptive of reality.
In this larger sense of describing reality, I don't believe there are people who believe that, for example, the Moon might both be the Moon and simultaneously not be the Moon, or that 2 + 2 might simultaneously both equal and not equal 4. In fact, I'm not sure that there are sane people capable of believing those things.
There's no "before" when you're eternal
>>481204
>Yes but free will does not explain suffering that only God can be responsible for, such as the fact that a million children die from disease before they reach the age of 5 years old.
I told you, mate. That's the state of separation from God entailed by the Fall, which was itself freely-willed.
>>481232
So because a rib-woman 10000 years ago ate an apple she wasn't supposed to, it's totally fine for millions of people to die in extreme agony.
Your whole post proves why religious people are literally delusional and insane.
>>481226
your challenge was based on the premises that god is responsible for suffering which is not true. satan is responsible
yes suffering is meaningless and unfair. god is meaningful and fair. sin is suffering. if anything, the suffering should turn you and those who suffer to god, escaping sin and ending suffering.
that is the biblical response. no, it's not the same as your humanist perspective, but that's it. you can't go around claiming that the bible has no answers when it does. whether you choose to accept them or not has no bearing on their existence.
>>481238
>So because a rib-woman 10000 years ago ate an apple she wasn't supposed to
It's only a story, pal. Very few people regard it as literally true, and you shouldn't expect all Christians to answer for the minority that do.
>>481238
If all souls are immortal, and God controls their circumstances such that they experience total bliss for 99.999999 percent of their existence, then perhaps God considers it valuable that they experience a fraction of their time without His interference.
We know suffering from our perspective as short-lived beings bound to our reality. I imagine it would seem much less significant to an immortal higher-dimensional being, especially when you consider that it only happens for a tiny, tiny fraction of our existence.
>>481134
wow. kek
>>481260
Yes, but your answer is 100% supernatural, and no one can know if anything supernatural even exists.
But keep it, I don't care. But it's just white noise to me.
>>481238
poor paraphrasing. there's no point in anyone arguing with you if you're just going to flip out every time someone gives you a response
>apple
betrays your poor understanding of the bible
>totally fine
what are you talking about
>>481278
>i give you a challenge
>(explanation)
>I DON'T CARE
you have a lot of integrity
>>481285
But it's not a fucking explanation dude.
I could've said that the suffering is caused by a genie in the Arabian desert and if you just throw holy water on the Wall in Jerusalem the genie will die.
Now would you believe that story if I told you? Would YOU accept that as an explanation for the suffering in the world?
No you wouldn't you fucking faggot.
>>481264
I'm pretty sure the Fall of Man is entirely dependent on the account of Adam and Eve.
If not, why are we fallen?
I'm personally glad you don't take it literally, but saying "Very few people" do, is weasel words, because a lot of people DO take it literally. Too many people at that.
>>481295
i'm sorry, were you expecting some sort of explanation that didn't involve god when you literally based your premises on the existence of god?
you're a fucking fraud. get out of here
>>481295
>Now would you believe that story if I told you?
Not him, but it doesn't matter if you believe it or not. No-one expects that you will "believe it" in the sense of regarding it as actually true (ie, becoming a Christian).
I'm an atheist, for example, but I've been arguing with several other people who are presumably also atheists ITT, because I reject the strong form of the argument from evil. None of the explanations I've offered ITT are things I actually believe, since I'm not a Christian nor even a theist. They nevertheless stand as Christian/theist responses to the arguments presented.
>>481311
>i'm sorry, were you expecting some sort of explanation that didn't involve god when you literally based your premises on the existence of god?
No, I'm saying that your supernatural explanation for why things are what they are, are not real.
>>481319
>because I reject the strong form of the argument from evil
What do you mean "the strong form" of the argument?
As far as I know there is only one argument and that is that a deity cannot be simultaneously omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient in a world that has hurricanes and tsunamis, and sickle cell anemia.
>>480968
But why are you such a faggot
>>481309
>I'm pretty sure the Fall of Man is entirely dependent on the account of Adam and Eve.
Oh, well if you're PRETTY SURE... lol.
Let's suppose I say that Genesis is an allegorical account of the evolution of humanity. Specifically, of whatever tipping-point led us to the point where we could look around us and wonder "Why?" etc. We wouldn't then expect Genesis to reflect the literal reality of those events, while we can still argue that it captures the essential points of them *for religious purposes*.
And I don't know about weasel words etc. "A lot" and "Too many" seem fairly weaselish themselves, no? The point however being, that many Christians don't take the story literally and you're only going after the low-hanging fruit by attacking versions of Christianity which do take it literally. There's no argument you can muster against a non-literal interpretation that won't capture a literal one, is there? But there's a lot of arguments against a literal interpretation that a non-literal one simply needn't respond to. The latter seems like a waste of your time, then. Doesn't it?
>>481322
>free will does not explain suffering that only God can be responsible for
>god isn't responsible for suffering ... here's why
>GOD DOESN'T EXIST
>Creation only entails suffering because God made it so
>god didn't entail suffering through creation
>GOD DOESN'T EXIST
what is your argument then, if you mentioning god was actually a subtle way to imply that god was in fact irrelevant to the discussion?
>>481331
The form you identify, which attempts to establish that such a deity cannot logically exist given that state of affairs.
There is a weaker form, going to plausibility, which suggests that while such a deity is logically possible, its actual existence strains credulity past breaking point. Perhaps all of these highly fine-grained qualifications are not logically possible, but they are very, very difficult to accept and, in concert are considerably less elegant as explanations than "There is no god".
I have no problem at all with the weaker form and indeed I cheerfully endorse it.
>>481361
>Perhaps all of these highly fine-grained qualifications are not logically possible
*not logically IMpossible
>>481346
>and you're only going after the low-hanging fruit by attacking versions of Christianity which do take it literally.
Yes, but the low-hanging fruit is the one that actually believes this shit.
If you don't, I am not talking to you. If you don't believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that every jot and tittle of the Bible is true, than in what sense are you a Christian?
Seems to me that it's less about low-hanging fruits as it's more about people having their own versions of a religion, and whenever arguments are put forward they can always evade answering them by claiming they don't believe that specific doctrine or part of the Bible.
>>481347
Yeah, this keeps happening. Fucking fedoras making us look like idiots.
>>481369
>Yes, but the low-hanging fruit is the one that actually believes this shit.
Well yes. That is what makes them low-hanging fruit; that they believe things fairly trivial to falsify, sometimes even empirically.
Not trying to be a dick, but you're playing in the kiddie-pool, imo.
>>481347
The point is that you can't answer those things, and I can by saying god isn't real and religion is bullshit.
You can't. You have to create some elaborate scheme where you excuse God for everything that he presumably is responsible for, such as the fact that millions of people die from disease every day.
And I'm saying to you, that it's not necessary to have this scheme in your head.
>>481383
You clearly didn't read the rest of my post, and you're just interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points I guess.
Fine by me m8.
>>481389
>The point is that you can't answer those things
just as you can't claim god is responsible for suffering. that is unless you're offering the 'problem of evil' that directly attacts the christian conception of god -- that is, the attributes he has as directly written in the bible -- but not be able to accept the bible as any further explanation as why the problem of evil isn't a sufficient problem at all
There is no time with God. God simply is.
Trying to argue against the extratemporal nature of God with "low hanging fruit" rhetoric is just another weakness of new atheism.
>>481422
why is the bible only relevant for your argument and not mine? here's a line of reasoning you may agree with:
god didn't create evil because god doesn't exist
>>481444
>god didn't create evil because god doesn't exist
Indeed. But you don't believe that.
>>481422
God creates evil? No, God creates everything, and just as there is no time with God, all things to God are viewed in the eternal sense - e.g., with mind only for the eternal/final results.
Further, suffering is not necessarily poor. Pain and suffering is the capsule which often encloses our understanding. That isn't even religion, that's just conventional wisdom, bro.
>>481464
I literally gave you a Bible quote where God says he creates evil.
>>481460
you can't speak for my beliefs because i have not shared them with you. i have only suggested that the problem of evil is a poor argument, which it is. it's irrelevant to what i believe.
regardless, if you want to use the bible for your argument, you have to accept that there is a biblical explanation for suffering and that god doesn't directly cause it. suddenly saying that god doesn't exist actually negates your position that he causes suffering.
also no, saying he 'created evil' is not the same as 'causes suffering'. from his creation came evil when satan fell from heaven. satan now is the cause of suffering evil. he directly interfered with god's creation (man) and caused him to ingest sin. sin causes evil. god isn't sin -- sin is separate from god. do you understand? there was no suffering before the fall of man. the garden of eden wasn't a place of suffering
>>479800
nah
>>481431
>Exactly.
But it's not necessary for you to believe they are true, only for you to accept that, if true, they address the argument you're making. Nobody cares if you're an atheist.
>>481431
>Your claims are literally incoherent
No, they are entirely self-consistent. The fact that you don't believe them to correspond with reality is considerably less important than you seem to think.
>doesn't make sense to anyone who does not believe in religion
They make sense to me and I'm an atheist. So where is your god now?
>>481443
>Trying to argue against the extratemporal nature of God with "low hanging fruit" rhetoric
Who are you talking about?
>>481499
Yeah I understand. But I think it makes a whole lot more sense to say that germs cause diseases, and some humans are psychopathic, than it makes sense to say that Satan is real and is flying around fucking with people.
>>481474
Not all versions of the Bible say that. There's such thing as corrupted versions of the Bible
>>481535
http://biblehub.com/isaiah/45-7.htm
Most versions do.
>>481474
And what I said does not contradict that in any way, shape, or form.
Most of this is not at all even trying to answer the OP
>>480742
>>480727
Wouldn't that just be light / photons? Since photons travel at the speed of light, time does not exist for them. Therefore you could argue that there is only 1 photon in the entire universe that is everywhere all at once. Then consider that most early religions worship the sun and light tends to represent "good". Also, light is the metyhod by which we see which is the main way we experience our reality.
Idk this is just ranting because I saw that connection and wanted to add it.
>>480144
The Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic priest.
>>480144
You haven't actually studied the Big Bang theory, you only have a pop culture notion of it.
>>480117
Apologist jargon? Are you serious? No, that's just biblical doctrine.
>>479800
I don't know. I hope to be permitted the opportunity to ask, at some future time.
