Does Evil Exist?

[midniterider]

 

 

 

 

Evil is the willful intent to act contrary to God's will.

Apologies in advance if you're a liberal believer, but is "God" the genocidal, filicidal bully described in the old testament? (as Richard Dawkins aptly described him).

You misunderstand the Old Testament.

I read the OT as is, but you want to read your pre-conceived ideas about your imaginary friend into it. It's you that doesn't understand.

Or maybe God exists and He is who He says He is and you simply don't want to believe it to be so.

 

God hasn't spoken, so ummm.......

[midniterider]

 

 

 

OrdinaryClay,

 

"God" created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? That says that "God" knows what "evil" is. And "God" must know what it is since "God" is omni-everything. Nothing can exist without his knowledge. Nothing can exist except that "God" conceived of it first. Even if as you say, "God" did not create "evil" but created free will, then "God" created the ability to do evil.

Yes, God created free willed beings who could do evil.

 

>And since there could be no knowledge of what evil was except that Eve or Adam ate the fruit of the tree that "God" created then it must follow that "God" create

devil.

Evil is an act. God does not create the actions of free willed agents. God did not force Adam and Eve to sin. They chose to do so. They could have chosen otherwise. The act was theirs not Gods. So no, God did not create evil.

What a load of crap. Is there free will in the afterlife? If so, you'll lose your place in heaven sooner or later. One little slip up, one sinful thought, and you'll be gone. I'll save you a warm spot in the lake of fire.

We don't know many details of life after death, and it really does not matter. We know that 1) we are culpable for what we do and decide in this life, and 2) there will be judgement for the choices we make in this life. This is enough knowledge to allow us to live.

 

But the Lord answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her."

(Luk 10:41-42)

 

 

 

There will be no judgment.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

In any event, nothing you have said has allowed one to deduce that God created evil. This is what we know. God allows evil. God created free willed creatures who are capable of evil. Free willed beings are culpable for their own evil acts. This culpability is undeniable. We can't shift the blame.

 

You are correct, there is no deduction involved. "God" said it directly. Here is the statement, again, for your benefit:

 

>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaiah 45:7

 

You do believe in "God" and accept the Bible as his word, right? Or is this a case where one must infer the true meaning from what you apparently consider an allegorical passage?

 

Isa 45:7 was not referring to moral evil as was explained.

[OrdinaryClay]

What christians mean by "out of context" is that if the particular quote in question does not favorably and completely fit THEIR conclusions as to the meaning and theme of the

whole bible, then it is out of context. I'm not merely being sarcastic. THAT IS what

Xtians mean. They set up a "heads I win; tails you lose" standard of biblical

interpretation which they apply to no other document.

Context is important. No educated person disagrees with that.

 

 

 

They also think that they are making winning points in a debate about their myth, when

they use platitudes, like, "They can't save you. Only Jesus." And they think, "Well I

guess that settles that." bill

The truth of the Gospel is far to important to ever become a platitude.

[boftx]

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

[centauri]

centauri:

But the problem with your sweeping generalization is that God predestines certain decisions and roles for at least some people.

It's by his choice and his will, not theirs.

God also manipulates human decisions by stepping in and hardening their hearts, which ensures a particular outcome.

There is no way to know how much "free will" is allowed when it isn't a universal and constant condition, which the Bible clearly indicates it is not.

God declared that he creates evil in Isa 45:7, and the word "ra" includes ethical evil, not simply disaster.

 

OC:

I made no generalization.

 

God cannot force a free willed agent to make a choice of their own free will. That is a logical impossibility.

 

Yes, you did make a generalization.

You assert free will as a given, with constant application.

You haven't established that free will is a universal condition.

In fact, you blatantly ignore the scripture that clearly states God predestines some people to certain roles, conditions, and choices according to his will, not their will.

You also ignore cases where God engages in manipulation of a human in order to ensure they make a particular decision.

 

 >God actualized a world in which He knew with certainty many would choose evil. This is not the same as forcing them to make those choices. They freely choose to make the choices they make.

You don't know the degree of freedom that anyone has and your sweeping generalization contradicts scripture.

 

Deut 2:30(ESV)

But Sihon the king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, that he might give him into your hand, as he is this day.

 

Deut 2:30(NLT)

“But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to allow us to pass through, because the Lord your God made Sihon stubborn and defiant so he could help you defeat him, as he has now done.

 

This is direct manipulation of so called "free-will" to ensure the outcome that God wanted.

Predestination also ruins your universal "free-will" claim.

When someone is predestined to a condition, God is in control and it's his will, his plan, and his choice.

 

Culpability lies with the evil person. They cannot shift the blame and no such attempt will be accepted at judgement day.

 

If a person has been subjected to either manipulation or predestinaton (which the Bible clearly shows instances of), you have no way to assign blame to them.

God's sovereign purpose and choice trumps human will as God sees fit.

The roles of Jacob and Esau were determined by God before they were born, not based on anything they had done.

 

OC:

People cannot choose to revoke their free will. People have free will by virtue of what they are. I applied no generalization because the characteristic is inherent in us.

You've done absolutely nothing to prove that "free will" in inherent in all humans at all times.

Scripture says otherwise, which you ignore over and over again.

>

You blatantly ignore the vast amount of Scripture that clearly states humans have free will, we are incumbent to make choices, we are culpable for what we do. That is what an honest and open reading of scripture says to a seeking heart.  The entire book is fundamentally about our choices and their consequences.  Even your own proof text Deut 2:30 implies Sihon had a choice. You have attempted to fit your preconceived notions in deciding it means he has no free will.

You continue to pump the dishonest Christian myth about "free will".

The text of Deut 2:30 states that God directly intervened, ensuring the result he wanted.

The choice was directly influenced by God, resulting from an affirmative action on his part.

You've attempted to rewrite the scripture to fit your myths.

"I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

(Deu 30:19)

This is not free will but only a conditional choice.

Failure to make a particular decision results in curses and punishment.

"Go and speak to David, 'Thus the LORD says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I will do to you."'"

(2Sa 24:12)

 

"If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

(Jos 24:15)

 

You setup false dichotomies. The choice is not free will vs a hardened or obstinate heart. That is silly and illogical.

A hardened heart or an obstinate predisposition does not remove free will and the ability to choose otherwise. All the disciples had predispositions to sin before following Christ.

You wildly misuse words in an attempt to sell your Christian myths.

Those verses are not free will, they are only conditional choices.

Specifically, they are forms of an ultimatum.

Something isn't free when you get charged for it.

You're a silly apologist, not understanding the words you repeatedly use and dishonestly rewriting scripture to suit your agenda, pulling the same stunt you pulled a year ago on this forum.

The heart in Deut 2:30 was hardened by God.

It does not say God allowed his heart to be hardened but that he took an affirmative action to ensure the outcome that he wanted.

[midniterider]

 

 

In any event, nothing you have said has allowed one to deduce that God created evil. This is what we know. God allows evil. God created free willed creatures who are capable of evil. Free willed beings are culpable for their own evil acts. This culpability is undeniable. We can't shift the blame.

 

You are correct, there is no deduction involved. "God" said it directly. Here is the statement, again, for your benefit:

 

>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. - Isaia

h 45:7

 

You do believe in "God" and accept the Bible as his word, right? Or is this a case where one must infer the true meaning from what you apparently consider an allegorical passage?

Isa 45:7 was not referring to moral evil as was explained.

 

 

"I make peace and create evil" doesn't mean "I make peace and create evil."

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

Correct.

 

If there is no threat, no rescue is required.

 

But you need saving from the crisis that the eternal Multiverse puts your faith in - even if you'll go to your grave denying it.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible.

 

In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809095238

 

This means Creation had to of occurred.

 

[midniterider]

 

What christians mean by "out of context" is that if the particular quote in question does not favorably and completely fit THEIR conclusions as to the meaning and theme of the

whole bible, then it is out of context. I'm not merely being sarcastic. THAT IS what

Xtians mean. They set up a "heads I win; tails you lose" standard of biblical

interpretation which they apply to no other document.

Context is important. No educated person disagrees with that.

 

>

 

They also think that they are making winning points in a debate about their myth, when

they use platitudes, like, "They can't save you. Only Jesus." And they think, "Well I

guess that settles that." bill

The truth of the Gospel is far to important to ever become a platitude.

 

 

The context of the bible being an operating manual for uneducated bronze age sheepherders, not a guide for 21st century living.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Also, where in the Genesis story, is the serpent wrong? Didn't the serpent tell the truth? Of course it did, all the way through the story, from start to finish.

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Har har, and who in your mind created this serpent?  It's fine that you believe in evil and all.  But you should be honest with yourself and acknowledge that given the claims you make, it only points to the god you believe in creating evil. 

God created the demons and satan. He gave them free will. They then authored evil through their own choices. God did not force them to sin.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

I have said repeatedly that God created the world we find ourselves in. The serpent chose to disobey God. He made that choice of his own free will. God did not author this evil. satan did. satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary.

 

[midniterider]

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

 

Whomever commissions evil is evil as well.

[midniterider]

 

 

 

Also, where in the Genesis story, is the serpent wrong? Didn't the serpent tell the truth? Of course it did, all the way through the story, from start to finish.

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Har har, and who in your mind created this serpent?  It's fine that you believe in evil and all.  But you should be honest with yourself and acknowledge that given the claims you make, it only points to the god you believe in creating evil. 

God created the demons and satan. He gave them free will. They then authored evil through their own choices. God did not force them to sin.

 

 

 

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil.

 

 

Do you mean to imply that the serpent had Free Will? You must be. Otherwise the serpent, that particular one, was created by "God" to tempt Eve. If the act of tempting Eve (or actually telling her to disobey "God" as you put) is "evil", then if must follow that "God" created that evil for the serpent to perform.

I have said repeatedly that God created the world we find ourselves in. The serpent chose to disobey God. He made that choice of his own free will. God did not author this evil. satan did. satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary.

 

 

If an omniscient omnipotent being knowingly allows something bad to occur and then says, "Hey that's evil, I am going to punish you now" then He (God) is authoring evil.

 

If I tell my child not to play with the loaded handgun on my coffee table and the child walks out the door with it and kills three people, I am responsible for allowing that to occur.

 

If God gives people the means to do evil and doesnt stop them he is responsible for evil.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

Correct.

 

If there is no threat, no rescue is required.

 

But you need saving from the crisis that the eternal Multiverse puts your faith in - even if you'll go to your grave denying it.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible.

 

In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809095238

 

This means Creation had to of occurred.

 

 

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:28 AM

OrdinaryClay, on 05 Apr 2013 - 05:15, said:

 

raoul, on 04 Apr 2013 - 13:26, said:

The new evidence solidifies the singularity which is the creation point. All inflation was after the singularity. Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past. So yes there was still a creation point. The evidence is now even stronger for God.

 

False.

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly, Clay. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....gical_Principle

 

The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

Under the Cosmological Principle, all observers are of equal status.

Human's observe a singularity as the creation point of this universe and might conclude that nothing can precede this singularity.

We might also conclude that Chaotic Inflation can only proceed from the singularity onwards, into the future.

But, taking the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation into account, both of these would be false conclusions.

 

All observers will observe a singularity as the creation point of their respective portions of the greater Multiverse.

It would therefore be just as false of them to conclude that Chaotic Inflation began with them and extends only into their future.

Chaotic Inflation extends 'only into the future' for ALL regions of the Multiverse, no matter in which order these regions were inflated. 

 

In Chaotic Inflation, new regions inflate from previous ones and newer ones from them - eternally.  Chaotic Inflation is self-reproducing and once initiated, never ends.  Therefore, it is impossible to say where and when in this sequence our universe sits.

 

Therefore, our region (this observable universe) cannot be accorded the special status of the first region to be Inflated. 

Nor can we, as observers, be accorded the special status of being the reason why Chaotic Inflation was initiated in the first place.

Therefore, any claim that invokes a special status for us or for our portion of the Multiiverse, violates the equal status of all observers in the Multiverse.

Similarly, any claim that treats the 'our' singularity as the origin of all Chaotic Inflation, fails to take into account the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation.

 

All that can be safely said (within the remit of science) is that Chaotic Inflation exists, but the answers as to where, when, how and why it exists are... unknown.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Listen up, Clay!

 

The days when you could rely upon the cosmology of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin to support your Christian theology... are over.  

The days when you used of the 'past boundary' (singularity) in your arguments are now over.

Creatio ex nihilo and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are... over.

 

I did warn you that your time was running out... and here's the proof of it.

 

http://sci.esa.int/s...fobjectid=51551  

The latest results from the Planck satellite.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

"According to Planck's measurements, those fluctuations so far fit the predictions of the simplest model of inflation, invented by Andrei Linde of Stanford, to a T." 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf

Here's the paper constraining the parameters of Cosmic Inflation and discounting the Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's model.

 

http://congrexprojec...13a11/programme

Which is why it was Linde who gave his keynote talk, Fundamental Physics and the Formation of the Universe' yesterday, in the Netherlands. 

And why he's talking there today about, 'Chaotic Inflation and Model Building'.

 

http://en.wikipedia....aotic_inflation

Which is why the science tells us that we are living in a fractal Multiverse. 

(This Wiki page will need to be updated to take into account the new Planck data, the failure of Guth's model and the success of Linde's.)

 

Now Clay, since you're on record as writing that... science always argues to the best explanation.

Will you hold to that and embrace the new, best explanation cosmological science has to offer?

 

Waxing theological for a moment...

 

The Bible fails at Genesis 1:1 because our universe required no Creator. 

 

No Creator = No God, the Father.

No Father = No Son.

No Son = No Christ.

No Christ = No Christianity.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly Clay and then factor in the Fractal nature of the current best explanantion, which is

Linde's model of Chaotic Eternal Inflation - this has displaced Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

 

Keep up!

 

[boftx]

I have said repeatedly that God created the world we find ourselves in. The serpent chose to disobey God. He made that choice of his own free will. God did not author this evil. satan did. satan is a liar and evil by choice. The serpent is satan - the adversary.

 

Was the serpent an animal or Satan? Let's see what the Bible has to say on that:

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? - Genesis 3:1

 

How does an animal have free will? For that matter, how could the serpent have had the knowledge of good and evil to choose from if such knowledge had not yet entered the world? Did "God" tell the serpent not to tempt Eve? If not, then how could any choice made by the serpent be wrong?

 

If the serpent was Satan, then please provide support for that statement in the Old Testament. Genesis 3:1 says otherwise.

[centauri]

 

"OrdinaryClay"
centauri:
Ra includes ethical evil, not simply calamity or disaster.

Ra-
adj bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) evil, displeasing bad (of its kind - land, water, etc) bad (of value) worse than, worst (comparison) sad, unhappy evil (hurtful) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) in general, of persons, of thoughts deeds, actions n m evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity evil, distress, adversity evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical) n f evil, misery, distress, injury evil, misery, distress evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical)

I just pointed out what the word means so repeating what I just said does not make your point stronger. The root Ra may mean moral evil but the context of the verse clearly portrays physical calamity.

The context of the verse is to show that God creates all things.
Trying to deny that doesn't make your point stronger.
Evil, including moral evil, did not spawn itself.

God did create all the circumstances we find ourselves in. He did foreknow exactly the way all of us would choose. He chose to create a world in which He knew how we would choose. This does not logicallly contradict free will. Moral evil emerges from free willed choices as demonstrated by Scripture, reason and logic.

Your form of reason and logic is to create reality through repetition.
And yet again you ignore scripture and contradict the Bible.
God does more than foreknow, he sets some things in place ahead of time.

Eph 1:11
In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

According to HIS will, not their will.

We went through all of this a year ago and in typical Christian fashion, you disappear for long periods of time and then come back and start the same preaching all over again.

Free will is a binary state. You either have free will or you don't. It is part of being human so all humans have free will.

Wishful thinking and denial of scripture doesn't make all humans have free will.
You have no idea how much God might have predestined people nor do you have any idea to what degree he manipulates behavior.
 
No amount of ignoring Scripture allows us to shift the blame away from ourselves. I have Scripture, reason and logic which tell me we are free willed beings who are culpable for our won actions with no excuse.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
(Rom 1:20)

Ignoring scripture is your specialty.
Paul trips you up in Eph 1, Rom 8, and Rom 9.
Predestine means to determine in advance.
When predestination is in effect, you don't have a choice.
The choice in those cases was made by God, who is sovereign over all.
The clay pot has no right to question the potter.

Furthermore, your use of the word "free" is not accurate.
The Christian God will punish an improper choice with damnation or some other torture.
In order for a choice to be given under truly "free will", there is no punishment for the failure to make a particular choice.
Free means without charge.
The Christian God does not give free will regarding salvation, but instead gives an ultimatum.
This is not free choice but a conditional choice where threats of punishment are used to coerce a particular response.

Your reasoning here is a non sequitur. Just because there are consequence for our actions does not mean we still don't have a choice. The world is rife with people who make bad choices while knowing the terrible consequences and repercussions  to their choices.

Try reading what I wrote before you make an inane charge like this.
I clearly stated that you are misusing the word "free".
I did not write that choices don't exist for some people.
I wrote that in order for a choice to be "free" it cannot be an ultimatum.
Christian salvation is an ultimatum.
You either comply or suffer punishment.
That's not a free choice.
 

[centauri]

The beauty of it all is that you don't have to pay for your own bad choices. Christ's sacrifice on the cross allows you to approach Him with no concern of who sinned.

That's contradicted by the Hebrew scriptures.

You do have to pay for your own sins.

The actual new covenant described in the Hebrew scriptures, rather than the revisionist new covenant of Christianity, states that each person will die for their own sin.

 

Jer 31:30

But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

 

This is further iterated in Ezek 18, where each person will die for their own sin and can save themselves by keeping the law and doing good.

There is no Jesus involved.

[RipVanWinkle]

OrdnaryClay RE #129 I did not say that context is not important. But Apologists frequently don't use the true context. They use something that does not put the Quote in context, but contend that is THE ONLY context. They choose something as their context on the basis of whether it will support their preexisting conclusion, not whether it was truly the

right context for the quote.

As typical, you didn't respond to my comment, but rather you responded to something I did not say. bill

[seeker001]

 

 

 

 

'snip

That's kind of the thing, most people have a functional working compass.  Humans can derive the difference between right and wrong on their own, because most people have a sense of moral decency and empathy. Unless they have something wrong with them (such as being brainwashed in your example) most people do not go out and cause mayhem without a good reason. Most people like to think they are good decent individuals and try to live a good decent life.

 

In your example, that dictator forcibly altered the peoples' sense of right and wrong. If those people in your example were not brainwashed they would find rape to be evil because it is a horrendous act.  For anyone to find rape to be acceptable would mean they must have something wrong with them.

Exactly, and more importantly even if every person were brain washed to think rape was right it would be still be wrong. It is wrong because it is objectively wrong. Evil is not a relative judgment.

It is, there is nothing in the natural world stopping humanity from deciding that rape is ok. It is because people have a sense of common decency that makes it not so. In the physical world, we are bound by the laws of nature that prevents us from taking certain actions. We can't touch fire for example, because fire hurts. We can't fly without some form of technological assistance, because gravity takes over. Humans can't naturally breath underwater, we drown and die. These are limitations that we are all subjected that no amount of wishful thinking can change.

 

Morality on the other hand is not bound by the physical world. For example, at one time suicide in was considered to be an honorable way to resolve dishonor in Japan, but the Japanese government is trying to change that. In the west, suicide is considered to be the cowardly way out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/03/japan-honourable-suicide-rate

 

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society. 

I agree, I don't think morality comes from the physical world either.

 

So to be clear, do you think rape would be okay if everyone in the world agreed to say it was? I don't. I think rape would be reprehensible even if the whole world said it was not.

In my opinion rape is never ok. Personally, I think anybody who finds rape acceptable has a broken moral compass, because it shows a lack of empathy and respect for others as well as causing physical and emotional pain. The people and society in your example may find it acceptable, but it is one that I would want nothing to do with.

 

edit:

People in real life, largely find rape to be repulsive. In your example for everyone to agree that rape would be ok, would involve taking away people's ability to think for themselves because otherwise not everyone in the world is going to agree. In fact, there is not one issue that everyone in the world is ever going to agree on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, there are some acts that humans can generally agree upon because most people want to live in peace. I'm not disagreeing with you that there is a good and evil, I just don't believe it derives from the natural world. It is something that is defined by humanity itself, and this capability is what allows us to form a civilized society. 

 

And so we come to Kant, Sarte, and my own favorite approach, Enlightened Self-Interest. Talk about a can of worms!

I haven't heard about Kant and Sarte, looks like I have something new to check out. Enlightened Self-Interest is exactly what I was getting into even if I didn't know the term until you mentioned it.

 

One man's heaven is another man's hell as the saying goes, I mostly noticed that everyone has an opinion on what makes a utopia and distopia. What is it that makes a place good to live? Everyone has their own cultural norms and ideas of what is and is not acceptable. I can't see anything in the natural world that sets the rules, so it must derive from people deciding for themselves.

Enlightened Self-Interest is foolishness.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you find it foolish?

[skepticalme]

Objectively, no.

 

Subjectively to the human condition, yes.  There are things that have negative impact on human existance, society and individual freedom/happiness, we describe those as evil.  Good and evil exist in the same way that hot and cold exist.  They have no absolute value but can be described in relative terms.

 

Something that complicates the issue is that these are all loaded terms.  Everyone has a personal datum that they measure from.  Some people emphasize the individual while others emphasize society.  People tend to line up in conservative and liberal camps respectively on issues accourding to what they emphasize.  Needless to say, there are often conflicts between the too.

[wanderinstar]

God encouraged rape, Moses and Joshua encouraged rape plus several others in the OT. Most Christians have better morals than their own God and prophets, and I am glad about that but many also preach that it is not rape if a husband forces his wife into sex. I personally am strongly against rape, and pretty much anything that involves one person dominating and controlling another but I also acknowledge that morals are not fixed and they can be relative. The psycho who raped me thought it wasn't a bad thing. He is clearly mentally ill and needs to be locked up because as it has been noted his moral compass has been screwed for whatever reason. 

 

My point is any Christian who tries to say we get our morals from God must say they accept what god endorses in the bible as moral; such as stoning homosexuals or children who disobey their parents. And don't give me that crap that that was for a different time and culture. If God is the same yesterday, today and forever then those are his standards. For little old me, raping and pillaging a village after taking it for territory in wartime was never ok. Humans should always be treated with dignity, not enslaved and abused.

[Astreja]

The beauty of it all is that you don't have to pay for your own bad choices. Christ's sacrifice on the cross allows you to approach Him with no concern of who sinned.

 

You have a disgusting and alarming idea of "beauty," OC.  Human sacrifice is a horror, and letting someone die in your place is so fucking cowardly I can't begin to find words to express how nauseated the concept makes Me feel.  You're asking us to lower ourselves to the level of your god, which is completely unacceptable.

 

The serpent told them to disobey God. This is evil. 

 

Since your alleged god is supposedly more powerful than the serpent and authorized it to be in the garden and to tempt Adam and Eve, your god bears 100% of the responsibility for the consequences.  There can be no responsibility without authority.

 

Furthermore, without prior knowledge of good or evil, Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing that they were doing anything wrong.  According to your mythology, it was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that gave them that particular insight.

 

And of course, if they did already possess knowledge of good and evil without eating from the tree, the ToKoG&E was a fake and they were framed by your god because, for whatever reason, your god wanted them to fail.  Your god also likes human sacrifices, and supposedly authorizes the torture of sentient beings for eternity.

 

And you worship that mythological S.O.B.?  You are morally incompetent, OC, and therefore a potential threat to the peace of civil society.  If you are currently working in an industry that requires you to make decisions in the realm of ethics and morals, I hope you lose that job and end up somewhere where you can't hurt anyone with your twisted ideas of right and wrong.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

Correct.

 

If there is no threat, no rescue is required.

 

But you need saving from the crisis that the eternal Multiverse puts your faith in - even if you'll go to your grave denying it.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible.

 

In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809095238

 

This means Creation had to of occurred.

 

 

Hello again Clay.

 

I'm now going to bring you up to date and correct the error you've made concerning which Inflationary theory is the correct one. Should this message provoke no response from you, I reserve the right to send it to you privately.  Having written this for all to see, all here will know that you know the facts.  After that, if you refuse to accept them, then everyone here will see that you are in denial of them. 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

NOW,  PAY ATTENTION!

 

These papers constitute the basis for your claim - that it has been mathematically proven that past eternal inflation is not possible.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178 Eternal Inflation and it's Implications, 2007.

This is Guth's work from 2007, where he concludes, "...some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region."

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404546

Guth's work from 2004, where he states, "Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region."

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Guth, Borde & Vilenkin's 2001 paper, which forms the basis of Vilenkin's comments in his book,

[inflating regions] "...must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions." 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004

This is Borde and Vilenkin's 1994 paper on the Impossibility of Steady-State Inflation.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9312022

This is another paper of theirs (from 1993) that covers much the same ground.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here are the latest results from the Planck satellite, dated March 21 this year. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf (See page 36.)

 

11. Conclusions

This paper establishes the status of cosmic inflation in the context

of the first release of the Planck cosmological results, which

includes the temperature data from the first 2:6 sky surveys.

CMB polarization as measured by Planck will be the subject

of a future release. We find that standard slow-roll single field

inflation is compatible with the Planck data. This result is confirmed

by other papers of this series.

 

So, the standard, slow-roll single field model of Inflation (as proposed by Andrei Linde) is compatible with the Planck data.  This fact is confirmed by other papers using the Planck data.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Slow-roll_inflation

"Slow-roll inflation

The bubble collision problem was solved by Andrei Linde^[41] and independently by Andreas Albrecht and Paul Steinhardt^[42] in a model named new inflation or slow-roll inflation (Guth's model then became known as old inflation). In this model, instead of tunneling out of a false vacuum state, inflation occurred by a scalar field rolling down a potential energy hill. When the field rolls very slowly compared to the expansion of the universe, inflation occurs. However, when the hill becomes steeper, inflation ends and reheating can occur."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Are we clear on this, Clay?

 

Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's papers outlining Old Inflation are NOT compatible with the Planck data!

Their model (Old Inflation) is NOT compatible with the latest findings of the Planck satellite!

Cosmic Inflation does NOT follow Guth, Borde & Vilenkin's model!

 

The Slow-Roll Inflation (New Inflation) model of Linde (Albrecht & Steinhardt) IS compatible with the Planck data!

Their model (New Inflation) IS compatible with the latest findings of the Planck satellite!

Cosmic Inflation DOES follow the model of Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt!

 

I will now tell you where this leaves you.

 

1.

You cannot invoke the work of Guth, Borde & Vilenkin to back up your claims.  Their work is no longer the best scientific explanation of this reality.  Their work has been disproved and is wrong.

 

2.

Therefore, your claim... 'Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible.' ...does not stand up under inspection.  That claim stands (and falls) on a disproven model of Cosmic Inflation - one that is not compatible with the latest data.

 

3.

You cannot claim to hold to the best scientific explanation of this reality, unless you accept the Linde, Albrecht & Steinhardt model of Chaotic Eternal Inflation.  Which means accepting ALL of it, without equivocation.

.

.

.

.

 

Therefore, your next move is to publically reject Guth, Borde & Vilenkin's disproven model of Cosmic Inflation, in favor of Linde, Albrecht & Steinhardt's confirmed model of Chaotic Eternal Inflation.

 

I await your confirmation of this.

 

BAA.

 

 

[seeker001]

Objectively, no.

 

Subjectively to the human condition, yes.  There are things that have negative impact on human existance, society and individual freedom/happiness, we describe those as evil.  Good and evil exist in the same way that hot and cold exist.  They have no absolute value but can be described in relative terms.

 

Something that complicates the issue is that these are all loaded terms.  Everyone has a personal datum that they measure from.  Some people emphasize the individual while others emphasize society.  People tend to line up in conservative and liberal camps respectively on issues accourding to what they emphasize.  Needless to say, there are often conflicts between the too.

Bingo

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

"OrdinaryClay"

centauri:

Ra includes ethical evil, not simply calamity or disaster.

 

Ra-

adj bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) evil, displeasing bad (of its kind - land, water, etc) bad (of value) worse than, worst (comparison) sad, unhappy evil (hurtful) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) in general, of persons, of thoughts deeds, actions n m evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity evil, distress, adversity evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical) n f evil, misery, distress, injury evil, misery, distress evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical)

 

I just pointed out what the word means so repeating what I just said does not make your point stronger. The root Ra may mean moral evil but the context of the verse clearly portrays physical calamity.

 

The context of the verse is to show that God creates all things.

Trying to deny that doesn't make your point stronger.

Evil, including moral evil, did not spawn itself.

>>God did create all the circumstances we find ourselves in. He did foreknow exactly the way all of us would choose. He chose to create a world in which He knew how we would choose. This does not logicallly contradict free will. Moral evil emerges from free willed choices as demonstrated by Scripture, reason and logic.

Your form of reason and logic is to create reality through repetition.

And yet again you ignore scripture and contradict the Bible.

God does more than foreknow, he sets some things in place ahead of time.

 

Eph 1:11

In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

 

According to HIS will, not their will.

 

We went through all of this a year ago and in typical Christian fashion, you disappear for long periods of time and then come back and start the same preaching all over again.

Free will is a binary state. You either have free will or you don't. It is part of being human so all humans have free will.

 

Wishful thinking and denial of scripture doesn't make all humans have free will.

You have no idea how much God might have predestined people nor do you have any idea to what degree he manipulates behavior.

 

No amount of ignoring Scripture allows us to shift the blame away from ourselves. I have Scripture, reason and logic which tell me we are free willed beings who are culpable for our won actions with no excuse.

 

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

(Rom 1:20)

Ignoring scripture is your specialty.

Paul trips you up in Eph 1, Rom 8, and Rom 9.

Predestine means to determine in advance.

When predestination is in effect, you don't have a choice.

The choice in those cases was made by God, who is sovereign over all.

The clay pot has no right to question the potter.

Furthermore, your use of the word "free" is not accurate.

The Christian God will punish an improper choice with damnation or some other torture.

In order for a choice to be given under truly "free will", there is no punishment for the failure to make a particular choice.

Free means without charge.

The Christian God does not give free will regarding salvation, but instead gives an ultimatum.

This is not free choice but a conditional choice where threats of punishment are used to coerce a particular response.

 

Your reasoning here is a non sequitur. Just because there are consequence for our actions does not mean we still don't have a choice. The world is rife with people who make bad choices while knowing the terrible consequences and repercussions  to their choices.

Try reading what I wrote before you make an inane charge like this.

I clearly stated that you are misusing the word "free".

I did not write that choices don't exist for some people.

I wrote that in order for a choice to be "free" it cannot be an ultimatum.

Christian salvation is an ultimatum.

You either comply or suffer punishment.

That's not a free choice.

 

 

Ordinary Clay, after you are finished answering BAA on the multiverse, I would appreciate your answering this question.

 

If it should turn out that the Calvinist - or even the Thomistic - position on God's sovereignty and human choices is the biblical one, will you reject Christianity?  As you have framed the issues over many months, you seem to hold your assumption of human "free will" as a necessary part of your apologetic.

 

If your answer is "yes," I congratulate you on acknowledging a point on which the Christian system can be rejected.  We can then go on to investigate the evidence for the "free will" assumption.  That assumption is NOT entailed by "choices" in the Bible except under viciously question-begging construals of "choice."

 

If your answer is "no," then you don't need your "free will" assumption and should drop it.