Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moonobserver

The illogic of the "devil"

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Masihi said:

Where does it say we’re all personally responsible for our parents sins? Also very nice of you to ignore the rest of the post and only deal with the issue which you thought you could pick at.

Mighty cordial of you to throw a strawman at me, also.  My argument is not, never was, that we're all responsible for our parents' sins.  god holds us all responsible for the "sin" of Adam and Eve.  That is the entire point of christianity.  Go back and read what I actually wrote; then we'll talk about what the bible says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thus saith the Dave our Mod. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See also Deuteronomy 5:9

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Deuteronomy 5%3A9

 

Exodus 20:5

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Isaiah 14:21

"Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter Because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth And fill the face of the world with cities."

Job 21:19

"You say, 'God stores away a man's iniquity for his sons.' Let God repay him so that he may know it.

 

Quote

 

     5 hours ago, Masihi said:

Where does it say we’re all personally responsible for our parents sins?

 

 

So there is a running concept that the children are punished for the sins of the fathers.

Can't wait to hear the apologetics for this one.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So there is a running concept that the children are punished for the sins of the fathers.

Can't wait to hear the apologetics for this one.

     Nuh-uh! :devilfinger:

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Masihi said:

That’s the dictionary definition of omnipotence, I asked can you understand omnipotence and understand what it is to be omnipotent, do you know what it is like to know every detail of the universe in past, present, and future in every small detail with noting escaping your eternal intellect, or how an uncreated being can bring everything into existence from nothing in seconds, if you or any of us understood it we’d be able to explain how such a thing would be scientifically possible, when on a human level it isn’t. None of us can understand how such a thing works or how such a thing could be logically possible because it’s above human logic, thus nobody and nothing can understand omnipotence fully except the omnipotent itself.

I'm not denying the existence of the Omnipotent; I'm just pointing out the impossibility of any sane being thinking it possible to defeat the Omnipotent, and that INsanity means not guilty by REASON of insanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Can you demonstrate that its even possible for a creator being to exist uncaused?

 

Since all the living that is known and observed to exist in this physical world reflects a life cycle that has two distinct points, a beginning and end, then do  you realistically expect that the nature of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts?   Since the universe itself demonstrates that it has a mortal nature, as evident by the living systems within it which all share a common pattern in their life cycles, that being a beginning and end then what basis do you conclude that this known and observed universe has existed in perpetuity?

 

If the universe has not existed in perpetuity then it would have a point of beginning where it came into existence since it would be impossible for anything which had not existed in perpetuity to have not had a beginning of existence.   Thus, if the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning, until you can demonstrate how it is possible for the universe to exist uncaused then the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Justus said:

 

Since all the living that is known and observed to exist in this physical world reflects a life cycle that has two distinct points, a beginning and end, then do  you realistically expect that the nature of the universe is greater than the sum of its parts?   Since the universe itself demonstrates that it has a mortal nature, as evident by the living systems within it which all share a common pattern in their life cycles, that being a beginning and end then what basis do you conclude that this known and observed universe has existed in perpetuity?

 

If the universe has not existed in perpetuity then it would have a point of beginning where it came into existence since it would be impossible for anything which had not existed in perpetuity to have not had a beginning of existence.   Thus, if the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning, until you can demonstrate how it is possible for the universe to exist uncaused then the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. 

 

That's a long way round to answering "no" to my question then simply repeating the afore mentioned fallacy.

 

To specific points:

 

Quote

"that being a beginning and end then what basis do you conclude that this known and observed universe has existed in perpetuity?"

 

I might have lack of memory or something... can you please point to where I concluded that the universe has existed in perpetuity? 

 

Quote

"If the universe has not existed in perpetuity then it would have a point of beginning where it came into existence since it would be impossible for anything which had not existed in perpetuity to have not had a beginning of existence. "

 

I'm not sure if you have kept up with our cosmological discussion about universes from nothing etc? One of the ideas is that what we observe is merely a presentation of the local universe - one of many. It is however possible that the cosmos (So assuming the many worlds interpretation is correction, Cosmos includes everything) has existed in perpetuity. And no I haven't "concluded" this - so resist the urge to attempt an "ah ha, gotcha - you contradicted yourself!" moment. I'm merely pointing out current thinking on the subject. For example we know that in a quantum vacuum you can have particles popping in and out of existence uncaused.

 

Quote

"Thus, if the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning, until you can demonstrate how it is possible for the universe to exist uncaused then the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. "

 

No your logic here is flawed. Lets say we can never explain how the universe came into being. You don't get to jump to therefore a creator to fill the gap. That is literally god of the gaps. It's like if we can never find out the process of abiogenesis. One, that does not discount that abiogenesis happened and we simply do not know the process, and two you don't get to insert god in there simply because we don't know the answer.

 

There is no sound logical argument in which you can jump from the premise "...the universe and every thing which exists within it had a beginning," to the conclusion "the existence of a creator being is simply ipso facto. " It is not simply by the fact thereof. It does not follow. You are trying a poor version of the KCA and it's flawed.

 

P1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause

P2 The universe exists

C) Therefore the universe has a cause

 

That's the logical argument.

 

What you then do is insert some assertions in there with no justification

 

P3) This cause must be timeless, spaceless and uncaused etc 

P4) The cause must be a personal creator having a mind

C) Therefore God. 

(Derived from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/)

 

But these are merely theological assertions without evidence. If God, an all powerful complex something can exists uncaused, then why not the cosmos? Inserting complexity into the argument doesn't solve it. It's simply God of the gaps to any educated observer.

 

The only logical argument we can actually state with any confidence without making any logical fallacies is thus:

 

1) Every state of the universe derives from an initial state of the universe
2) We cannot yet explain the initial state of the universe
C) We don't know if the universe required a cause or not

 

(Obtained from this discussion http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2012/06/william-lane-craig-and-kalam.html)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Mighty cordial of you to throw a strawman at me, also.  My argument is not, never was, that we're all responsible for our parents' sins.  god holds us all responsible for the "sin" of Adam and Eve.  That is the entire point of christianity.  Go back and read what I actually wrote; then we'll talk about what the bible says. 

That’s exactly the same point rephrased and directed at Christianity and that’s not what Christianity teaches:

 

In the Orthodox teaching we are subject to sinful tendencies, sickness, suffering and death as the result of our descendence from Adam. With Adam’s sin our nature was changed. Our goal now is to overcome these fallen tendencies with the help of the Holy Spirit and the way of Christ so we can gain union with God and live in harmony with him in Paradise.

 

http://stgeorgegreenville.org/our-faith/catechism/the-ofall/original-sin

 

God doesn’t hold us personally accountable for Adam and Eve’s personal sin, as no son suffers responsibility  for the sins of his fathers personal sins, he only inherits it’s consequences just like in the every day world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, webmdave said:

It’s the same thing I told TheRedNeck professor. We suffer the consequences of of our parents sins not personal responsibility see Ezekiel 18:20. God does not hold us accountable for our parents sins, but we still suffer there consequences.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

See also Deuteronomy 5:9

 

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Deuteronomy 5%3A9

 

Exodus 20:5

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,

Isaiah 14:21

"Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter Because of the iniquity of their fathers. They must not arise and take possession of the earth And fill the face of the world with cities."

Job 21:19

"You say, 'God stores away a man's iniquity for his sons.' Let God repay him so that he may know it.

 

 

So there is a running concept that the children are punished for the sins of the fathers.

Can't wait to hear the apologetics for this one.

I don’t even need to do apologetics on this one, all you need to do is read the passages in context. Nine speak of personal sin in it itself, but speak of personal sin having consequences that effect later generations. A persons children suffer the consequences of his mistake, while not being personally held accountable in of themselves, see Ezekiel 18:20. Also read my previous comment, I said where are we held personally responsible for our fathers sins, not if we suffer from the consequences of their sins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Moonobserver said:

I'm not denying the existence of the Omnipotent; I'm just pointing out the impossibility of any sane being thinking it possible to defeat the Omnipotent, and that INsanity means not guilty by REASON of insanity.

Keep in mind your original argument was that a being who understands omnipotence and how it works would be insane too oppose an omnipotent being. Unfortunately no one really understand how omnipotence functions or works or how it even exits on a logical basis, so Satan would merely be opposing God out of ignorance of his true power or true capabilities, even if he was not ignorant, Satan would know his place and final destiny thus as I said his goal is to take as many of us with him as possible. Satan however knows he can’t defeat God, so defeating us and is his only goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, mwc said:

     No it's not.  You're making a lot of unfounded assertions here.

 

     The fine-tuned universe is a lot of garbage.

 

     There is nowhere that is more hostile to life than the universe.  Period.

 

     As to how many planets hold life?  As of now we know of one.  How many have we actually explored?  In person?  Just one.  With probes?  A handful around our star.  Beyond that?  Zero.  We've taken a peek and inferred some things with our telescopes but what that should tell you is there are billions of planets out there.  The odds of life existing other than our own is quite high.   Even if there is only one, just one, life form even similar to our own in intelligence in each galaxy.  That leaves billions of aliens.  Or are we the aliens?  I guess it's all perspective.  Billions of us alone, in our own galaxies, yet not actually alone.

 

     Keep in mind.  The universe is huge.  You believe that jesus flew up into heaven.  But heaven is some magical realm.  Because if he was to fly to a real place, even at the speed of light, he still hasn't left the Milky Way galaxy (and he's probably pretty darn cold by now).

 

     Anyhow, that aside, by your own admission god wanted the rebellion to happen.  Could Satan have not rebelled?  Does Satan have full autonomy?

 

          mwc

 

There’s slot of unfounded claims on your part, if anything you just confined my point, the universe is so hostile towards life, and it’s pretty much dead set on not allowing life, yet here we are, not only existing, but have excelled to the point where we invented hand held devices capable of communicating with anyone in the world just as we are doing now. Pretty miraculous isn’t it.

 

As to how many planets may hold life, according to most scientists only a tiny fractions of all planets that do exist may be capable of holding life, much less contain intelligent life. 

 

God being an immaterial being in nature and metaphysical isn’t bound by any worldly limitations, Jesus being God in Christian belief, naturally can go to multiple places in the universe at the same time at a speed faster then light. Since God is limitless. So he could go any where at any time, at any pace. 

 

I will repeat my earlier point to you, Satan has free will and choose what to do just as we can, however if God decided to stop him mid way he could have or he could have created with without any free will. Satan has as much autonomy when it comes to will as we do, he only difference is in class of being, he’s just a more advanced being then we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Masihi said:

It’s the same thing I told TheRedNeck professor. We suffer the consequences of of our parents sins not personal responsibility see Ezekiel 18:20. God does not hold us accountable for our parents sins, but we still suffer there consequences.

 


 

Typical apologist cherry-picking and/or crearive interpretation (read alternate truth). However, in your defence, these are really the only ways to get around the plain language of these obviously conflicting and so-called infallible texts. 

 

"he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Masihi said:

I will repeat my earlier point to you, Satan has free will and choose what to do just as we can, however if God decided to stop him mid way he could have

Well, then, that makes God an accomplice to Satan's evil deeds and morally worse than Satan. How do you find it possible to worship such a sadist? If I were god, I would have never allowed that. I guess that makes me more compassionate than your bible-God.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masihi said:

and that’s not what Christianity teaches

Yes it is.  It is called "original sin".  god could have immediately forgiven Adam and Eve in the garden and made the world perfect again.  Instead, he went on a Trump-twitter and started cursing everything and everybody.  Then, he resorted to his shoddy-ass Plan B, which was to kill himself (temporarily) in order to forgive a select few because, and this is quite evident from the bible, he holds us all responsible for Adam and Eve eating the fruit.  If he did not hold us responsible for "sin", he wouldn't have needed to bother with the rest of it.  Without sin, the cross is meaningless.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes it is.  It is called "original sin".  god could have immediately forgiven Adam and Eve in the garden and made the world perfect again.  Instead, he went on a Trump-twitter and started cursing everything and everybody.  Then, he resorted to his shoddy-ass Plan B, which was to kill himself (temporarily) in order to forgive a select few because, and this is quite evident from the bible, he holds us all responsible for Adam and Eve eating the fruit.  If he did not hold us responsible for "sin", he wouldn't have needed to bother with the rest of it.  Without sin, the cross is meaningless.  

I just posted this on my previous post:

 

 

In the Orthodox teaching we are subject to sinful tendencies, sickness, suffering and death as the result of our descendence from Adam. With Adam’s sin our nature was changed. Our goal now is to overcome these fallen tendencies with the help of the Holy Spirit and the way of Christ so we can gain union with God and live in harmony with him in Paradise.

 

http://stgeorgegreenville.org/our-faith/catechism/the-ofall/original-sin

 

God doesn’t hold us personally accountable for Adam and Eve’s personal sin, as no son suffers responsibility  for the sins of his fathers personal sins, he only inherits it’s consequences just like in the every day world.


Also Saint Athanasius deals with your very objection:

 


(7) Yet, true though this is, it is not the whole matter. As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What—or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.

 

page 13 of On the Incarnation by Saint Athanasius

 

http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/incarnation_st_athanasius.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masihi said:

Keep in mind your original argument was that a being who understands omnipotence and how it works would be insane too oppose an omnipotent being. Unfortunately no one really understand how omnipotence functions or works or how it even exits on a logical basis, so Satan would merely be opposing God out of ignorance of his true power or true capabilities, even if he was not ignorant, Satan would know his place and final destiny thus as I said his goal is to take as many of us with him as possible. Satan however knows he can’t defeat God, so defeating us and is his only goal.

I remember my original argument; it's what I'm reminding you of, but you're continuing to make the same assertion with no argument to back it up. If Satan was rebelling out of ignorance of God's omnipotence, then he must not have had even the level of human intellegence I suggested in my earlier post, much less the super intelligence of an angel. And how could he have been the one who said in his heart that he would exalt his throne above the stars of God in Isaiah 13:14 if he knew "his place and final destiny"? Such wanton self-destructiveness would again indicate insanity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, webmdave said:


 

Typical apologist cherry-picking and/or crearive interpretation (read alternate truth). However, in your defence, these are really the only ways to get around the plain language of these obviously conflicting and so-called infallible texts. 

 

"he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation."

Nice of you to not respond to anything I wrote, it’s not cherry picking because the text are talking about two different situations, so there not conflicting. Numbers 14 is talking about God punishing the nation of Israel for its rebellion against him and their unbelief. Ezekiel 18 talks about personal violations of the law and personal sin and what happens if a person violates the covenant and the commandments of God. I don’t need to get around anything, I only need to quote both passages to you in context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moonobserver said:

I remember my original argument; it's what I'm reminding you of, but you're continuing to make the same assertion with no argument to back it up. If Satan was rebelling out of ignorance of God's omnipotence, then he must not have had even the level of human intellegence I suggested in my earlier post, much less the super intelligence of an angel. And how could he have been the one who said in his heart that he would exalt his throne above the stars of God in Isaiah 13:14 if he knew "his place and final destiny"? Such wanton self-destructiveness would again indicate insanity. 

Correction---Make that Isaiah 14:13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Moonobserver said:

I remember my original argument; it's what I'm reminding you of, but you're continuing to make the same assertion with no argument to back it up. If Satan was rebelling out of ignorance of God's omnipotence, then he must not have had even the level of human intellegence I suggested in my earlier post, much less the super intelligence of an angel. And how could he have been the one who said in his heart that he would exalt his throne above the stars of God in Isaiah 13:14 if he knew "his place and final destiny"? Such wanton self-destructiveness would again indicate insanity. 

Again you never addressed what I said, do we understand omnipotence on a rational or logical level much less how it can logically exist or function. We as people can’t fully comprehend omnipotence, nor can any created being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, freshstart said:

Well, then, that makes God an accomplice to Satan's evil deeds and morally worse than Satan. How do you find it possible to worship such a sadist? If I were god, I would have never allowed that. I guess that makes me more compassionate than your bible-God.

So because God gives Satan free will to choose good or evil and he chooses evil then it makes God an accomplice to Satan’s evil? The only way not to allow that is to not allow free will which wouldn’t make God just and would make him cruel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Masihi said:

Again you never addressed what I said, do we understand omnipotence on a rational or logical level much less how it can logically exist or function. We as people can’t fully comprehend omnipotence, nor can any created being.

I believe I described omnipotence on a rational, logical level. You yourself called it a "dictionary definition". There again is your unsubstantiated claim that we can't understand what we clearly DO understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Masihi said:

Nice of you to not respond to anything I wrote, it’s not cherry picking because the text are talking about two different situations, so there not conflicting. Numbers 14 is talking about God punishing the nation of Israel for its rebellion against him and their unbelief. Ezekiel 18 talks about personal violations of the law and personal sin and what happens if a person violates the covenant and the commandments of God. I don’t need to get around anything, I only need to quote both passages to you in context. 

 

Yes yes yes!  Context! When there is clearly unexplainable contradiction, pull the context card! Apologetics 101! Excellently done!

 

And don't forget... When all else fails, throw down the Dispensational gauntlet! The OT doesn't count anymore, except when it does. Works every time! :jesus:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Masihi said:

In the Orthodox teaching we are subject to sinful tendencies, sickness, suffering and death as the result of our descendence from Adam. With Adam’s sin our nature was changed. Our goal now is to overcome these fallen tendencies with the help of the Holy Spirit and the way of Christ so we can gain union with God and live in harmony with him in Paradise.

 

If we are not held responsible for sin, what was the purpose of the cross?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.