Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moonobserver

The illogic of the "devil"

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Masihi said:

With Adam’s sin our nature was changed.

1.  Do you agree that "sin" entered our nature because Adam and Eve ate the fruit?

 

2.  Do you agree that lying is a sin?

 

These are simple "yes/no" questions for you.  I don't need to know what St. Ignatius had to say on the subject, as he's not the person I'm attempting to conversate with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



2 hours ago, Masihi said:

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.

You mean like god telling Adam and Eve "Obey me or die"; or telling us today, "Accept jesus or go to hell"?  Is that the kind of cruel you're talking about?

Share this post


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

You mean like god telling Adam and Eve "Obey me or die"; or telling us today, "Accept jesus or go to hell"?  Is that the kind of cruel you're talking about?

Where are the words obey me or die, we are made in God’s image for he is he source of life, if we reject life we die, we are free to choose God doesn’t force us to do anything.

Share this post


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

Where are the words obey me or die, we are made in God’s image for he is he source of life, if we reject life we die, we are free to choose God doesn’t force us to do anything.

No.  We are not free to choose if the consequences/punishment outweigh the choice so overwhelmingly.  

Share this post


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

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

The consequences of sin is death and a sinful nature which is more sin, we hold the consequences of Adams  sin which is more sin and death and depravity. The cross frees us from death and the sinful nature of Adam. 

Share this post


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

No.  We are not free to choose if the consequences/punishment outweigh the choice so overwhelmingly.  

You can choose immortality or death.  You have free will.

Share this post


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

The consequences of sin is death and a sinful nature which is more sin, we hold the consequences of Adams  sin which is more sin and death and depravity. The cross frees us from death and the sinful nature of Adam. 

In other words, we bear the responsibility of Adam's sin; because we die and go to hell, not because of anything we did or didn't do, but because of what Adam did.

Share this post


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

You can choose immortality or death.  You have free will.

You can choose ice cream or broccoli; but if you don't choose broccoli, I will beat you until you're black, red, and blue.  You have free will.

Share this post


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

You can choose immortality or death.  You have free will.

 

12 minutes ago, Masihi said:

The consequences of sin is death and a sinful nature which is more sin, we hold the consequences of Adams  sin which is more sin and death and depravity. The cross frees us from death and the sinful nature of Adam. 

Did we really have a choice?  Or was death thrust upon us as a consequence of Adam's choice? 

Share this post


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

You can choose ice cream or broccoli; but if you don't choose broccoli, I will beat you until you're black, red, and blue.  You have free will.

That’s not a correct statement as it’s the effect of your choice that havens you not the person giving you the choice. You can choose broccoli or ice cream, but if you choose ice cream you’ll get cavities and your teeth will rot.

Share this post


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

In other words, we bear the responsibility of Adam's sin; because we die and go to hell, not because of anything we did or didn't do, but because of what Adam did.

We don’t bear personal responsibility for his sins, but we suffer he effects of his mistake and sin, this happens in the real world so why you even arguing against it? If we die in our current state we die of the effects of Adams sin as death is not natural to our original nature, and we suffer due to us dying in it sins in the after life. We don’t bear any responsibility for his personal sins, just like how drug addiction can be inherited, obviously the person who is born this way will suffer without having personal responsibility for it however he receives the consequences of it.

Share this post


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

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.

 

If god knows everything in advance, then that means that he knows not only every possible way things can play out, but which specific way WILL play out. You can't get away from the fact that Lucifer was created in full knowledge that he WILL rebel, that he will take sin to earth, that earth will fall, and that it will end with the devil, death, and grave being thrown in to a lake of sulfur, after which, there's no mention of the possibility of sin ever returning again, ever. God knew all of this and created lucifer anyways. 

 

How does that NOT make god an accomplice to satan's evil???

 

 

Share this post


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

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.

     Yeah, yeah...I'm making all sorts of unfounded claims...<yawn>

 

     No.  It's not miraculous.  But I've worked in IT so I guess I'm not so easily impressed?

 

5 hours ago, Masihi said:

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. 

     Again, a tiny fraction of many billions of planets.  I limited myself to the possibility of intelligent life on one planet in each galaxy.  If that's not a small fraction of all planets in the entire universe then I don't know what is?  It still amounts to billions of planets.

 

5 hours ago, Masihi said:

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. 

     Oh, naturally.  Now who's making unfounded claims?  The only thing that you can demonstrate (and this word is used very loosely of course) by your texts is jesus flew up into the clouds.  Then what happened?  *poof*  It's magic.

 

     Jesus violates nature because there is no other explanation.  This is called magic.

 

5 hours 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 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.

     So god could have simply willed for none of this to happen?  Since god is the sovereign in heaven and his will is always done (according to the Lord's Prayer).  But god apparently willed for Satan to be prideful (Satan cannot create pride, he's not a creator being, and there was no Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil for Satan to eat from in heaven).  All the rebellious traits would have had to had come from god for these reasons.  Free will cannot create what does not exist.  The only reason, we're told, that Adam and Eve ate the fruit was the serpent (later interpreted as Satan) tempted them.  Who served this purpose for Satan?  Who led him astray?  The only one with the will to do so was god itself.  I believe you even said god had a reason and it was because of a plan that god already had.  It wasn't that god could have stopped Satan it was that god required Satan to become a patsy in order to carry out a plan that god had already committed the universe to before he even created it.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


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

That’s not a correct statement as it’s the effect of your choice that havens you not the person giving you the choice. You can choose broccoli or ice cream, but if you choose ice cream you’ll get cavities and your teeth will rot.

Hell is the consequence of not choosing jesus.  god created hell and god made hell the consequence of not choosing jesus.  No different from me making a beating the consequence of not choosing broccoli. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A ~ B

A

15 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

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.

B

15 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

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.

 

You asked for the possibly of a creator being uncaused to be demonstrated. 

 

Logic reasons that if  A = B then B = A is probable.

 

You assert that even thought no plausible hypothesis can be articulated to form a basis for abiogenesis to occur doesn't mean it didn't occur.  While that has nothing to do with the topic I will agree, merely because someone can't demonstrate how living matter arose from non-living matter doesn't prove it could not happen.  After that is what good science is all about, right?

 

Logic concludes A = B  then B ≠ A is not probable yet possible

 

 

So if the existence of God has yet to be proven, just as abiogenesis hasn't been proved, then does that discount the possibility of God's existence?  So unless something is proven conclusively then it would seem to me to be unreasonable to deny it's possibility, until it was reasonably improbable.   

 

But since you brought it up, is your doctrine of science based upon faith, or proof? 

 

However, anyone who tells you that living matter can not arise from non-living matter doesn't know what they are talking about because you know it can, you just can't prove it can. So if someone believes God said no man comes to him but by faith the then where is your faith in science if you have no proof of what you believe?

 

Logical discerns A = B  then  A ≠ B is improbable yet possible

 

Kinda like my answering your question, there is no way you are going hear what I am saying because even if I prove it you wouldn't believe it, see what I am saying.  Since abiogenesis is based upon non-living matter rising into living matter has one fatal flaw, matter is neither living or non-living, it is inert which is capable of animation only by an outside source.  

 

Since atoms are inert it  would require some source of force to produce the motion of the atoms from their rest state.  But even then the animation of matter does mean it is a living thing, a rock rolling down a hill is not a living thing but a living system can turn the roll of a rock into a great song.   

 

While I understand that those of you who subscribe to scientism don't like to be confused with facts so I will just conclude that if man is the highest living system in the universe then did Steve Hawking say there was no God?  I know Helen Keller didn't tell him to say that.   You can't make this stuff up.....

Share this post


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

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 crue

 

So there is no happy medium? Its either free will and allow all hell to break loose or its no free will and we're completely restrained?

 

As a parent I figured out how to give my kids free will - within certain boundaries. I allowed them to do what they wanted and to learn from their mistakes within reason. I sure as hell didnt let them do whatever they wanted, especially if it was guaranteed to cause harm. So I'll rephrase my statement: Not only am I morally better than your Bible-God, I'm a better parent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good thoughts here, Justus, and some eyebrow raising thoughts

 

12 hours ago, Justus said:

 

A ~ B

A

B

 

You asked for the possibly of a creator being uncaused to be demonstrated. 

 

Logic reasons that if  A = B then B = A is probable.

 

You assert that even thought no plausible hypothesis can be articulated to form a basis for abiogenesis to occur doesn't mean it didn't occur.  While that has nothing to do with the topic I will agree, merely because someone can't demonstrate how living matter arose from non-living matter doesn't prove it could not happen.  After that is what good science is all about, right?

 

Logic concludes A = B  then B ≠ A is not probable yet possible

 

 

I agree with the above.

 

Quote

So if the existence of God has yet to be proven, just as abiogenesis hasn't been proved, then does that discount the possibility of God's existence?  So unless something is proven conclusively then it would seem to me to be unreasonable to deny it's possibility, until it was reasonably improbable.

 

Here's where you and I differ. Abiogenesis, if true, is simply a chemical reaction. We agree on this? And I also assume we agree that it is a fact that chemicals react, and when you break down biology we are really just chemicals - highly complex chemicals with complex chemical reactions happening inside us.

 

We also know that chemicals react with one another under certain conditions. It is therefore not a stretch to suggest abiogenesis is a possibility

 

However we are contrasting this with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, timeless, spaceless immaterial mind capable of creating the universe.

 

Is this possible? We can't say that it is. All evidences we have of minds require a physical medium - the brain. Have we any reason to suggest a mind can exist absent a body? No. Contrast this with the facts about chemicals outlined above and you may understand why I say that abiogenesis is possible, but we cannot say if God is possible. 

 

Another example is do I think unicorns are possible? (Either on earth, or a planet like earth). Yes. They are simply horses with horns on them. We know horses exist, and that many related animals have horns so its not outside possibility. Now do I think that there is an elephant creature that lives in space? Well I'm not sure that's even possible. Everything we know about elephants require that they breathe air, live in warm climates, and eat vegetation - none of which exist in the void of space.

 

Quote

But since you brought it up, is your doctrine of science based upon faith, or proof? 

 

*Eyebrow raising part* I don't have a doctrine of science therefore your question makes no sense. Perhaps you'd like to elucidate?

 

Quote

However, anyone who tells you that living matter can not arise from non-living matter doesn't know what they are talking about because you know it can, you just can't prove it can.

 

You seem to be presenting this as if its my position not a generic position therefore I will answer as me. This is categorically wrong. I do not know living matter can arise from non living matter. I think it has been demonstrated to be at least plausible, however I have no position on abiogenesis as there is not enough evidence to conclude that its probable. So how do I think life arose. I'll be honest, I don't know. I'm not afraid of those three words that seems to strike fear in the religious persons heart.

 

Quote

 So if someone believes God said no man comes to him but by faith the then where is your faith in science if you have no proof of what you believe?

 

*Another eyebrow raising part* Another question that makes no sense. I don't have faith. I accept tentative conclusions based on evidence. If there is not sufficient evidence I don't believe it. Refer again to my position on abiogenesis for an example.

 

Quote

Logical discerns A = B  then  A ≠ B is improbable yet possible

 

Kinda like my answering your question, there is no way you are going hear what I am saying because even if I prove it you wouldn't believe it, see what I am saying.  Since abiogenesis is based upon non-living matter rising into living matter has one fatal flaw, matter is neither living or non-living, it is inert which is capable of animation only by an outside source.

 

I think there might be a flaw in your logic here. One I have an issue with Something is either living or non living yes? It can be either or, but it cannot be neither. For example a rock is made out of matter. It is non living. I am made out of matter - I am living. At least I think so. But neither I nor the rock are neither living or non living. Inertness has nothing to do weather something is living or non living. 

 

However, your point as I see it, is that non living matter (chemicals as previously discussed) is inert and therefore cannot do anything of itself. However we have shown that chemicals interacting with each other can cause reactions, and as far as an outside source the early earth environment could well have provided this 'animation'. Again placing God in there is simply God of the gaps.

 

Quote

Since atoms are inert it  would require some source of force to produce the motion of the atoms from their rest state.  But even then the animation of matter does mean it is a living thing, a rock rolling down a hill is not a living thing but a living system can turn the roll of a rock into a great song.

 

I don't think anyone has ever observed an inert atom before. I might have my physics wrong, but I understand atoms are interaction and causing reactions with other atoms all the time. Not sure on you point here, though I agree with the last line.

Quote

   While I understand that those of you who subscribe to scientism don't like to be confused with facts

 

*Another eyebrow raising moment* WTF is scientism? Is that even a word? Is anyone around here a scientismist? I certainly don't subscribe to it. There are few things I 'subscribe' to. One is methodological naturalism which is not the same as scientisim.

 

Quote

so I will just conclude that if man is the highest living system in the universe then did Steve Hawking say there was no God?  I know Helen Keller didn't tell him to say that.   You can't make this stuff up.....

 

Well I disagree with the idea that man is the highest living system... but we'll leave it at that. As for the rest of that portion...???? :shrug:

 

 

PS - I am not a biologist so if I've made any errors please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2019 at 4:29 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

Abiogenesis, if true, is simply a chemical reaction. We agree on this?

 By chemical reaction I take it you mean two atoms bonding right, forming a new molecule right?  

But would you again would you agree that the creationist are right if that is what is written in Genesis?  Why not since both sides are riding on the same ship going to the same destination as it tosses all aboard both to and fro on the sea of hyproc.  The even wrote a song about the ship called the Logical fallacy. 

On 10/4/2019 at 4:29 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

Another question that makes no sense. I don't have faith.

Faith is the articulable reasons which are used to affirm one's position. 

On 10/4/2019 at 4:29 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

I think there might be a flaw in your logic here.

Logical discerns A = B  then  A ≠ B is improbable yet possible,  
I know, it isn't my choice either but if it isn't true then I am screwed.  It's like microwaving ice.
On 10/4/2019 at 4:29 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

I don't think anyone has ever observed an inert atom before.

Never seen a inert atom?  I haven't either but I still plug away but can't say I haven't got close with the third eye if you know what i mean. 
 
Funny seeing that the inert atom is describable. 
  • With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert atoms or molecules, a lot of energy is involved before it can combine with other elements to form compounds.
  • In chemistry, the term chemically inert is used to describe a substance that is not chemically reactive. Most Group 8 or 18 elements that appear in the last column of the periodic table (Helium, Neon, Argon, Krypton, Xenon and Radon) are classified as inert (or unreacs tive).
You can find one in a womb, but you have to imagine a vagina though, what do you scientism guys call it, icky icky pugh? anyways it is called a gamete, I know it'a cell and a cell isn't a atom, but saying a cell is a life form makes mass murderers out of us all at one time or another  :jerkit:
I know I got it wrong again, I twisted what you said, well your turn,,,,
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me----I don't mean to complain, but I started this discussion about the existence of a devil. Isn't there some other thread where the abiogenesis debate could go and live?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Excuse me----I don't mean to complain, but I started this discussion about the existence of a devil. Isn't there some other thread where the abiogenesis debate could go and live?

Probably yes. We got sidetracked. Apologies. We will cease the discussion. I'll be kind and let Justus have the last word there. 

 

Back to the devil folks. I'm still waiting for evidence this devil actually exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes the scenario even more implausible is the claim that the first rebel angel coaxed a third of the other angels into following his irrational course. It all sounds too much like a typical battle between nations on earth for me to think that it was patterned after anything more than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2019 at 7:57 AM, Moonobserver said:

Excuse me----I don't mean to complain, but I started this discussion about the existence of a devil. Isn't there some other thread where the abiogenesis debate could go and live?

 

You're absolutely right, I do apologize,  I don't believe either Logical fallacy or myself had any intent to derail your thread, we just go sidetracked and thank you for pointing that out.

 

Regarding the topic of satan. Consider the following verses:

 

 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.  Deut 4:35

 

Since we are here, you are here, I am here and anyone who is reading this are here, we are not imagining the fact that we exist.  From the short time man has existed on earth relative to the time of the earth's existence, it is obvious that things which do occur are the result of things which did occur and things which do exist are formed from things which did exist. 

 

 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Deut 4:39
 

So in conclusion, the living know the number of their days but the dead know not anything. 

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.