Believing Jesus is a real person and beliving Jesus is what the Christian religion says he was are two different things. There is proof that a person named Jesus existed 2000+ years ago. But some people may have issues accepting that Jesus is God's son. In fact, the 10 commandments tell us not to worship anyone but God, and yet the Christians worship Jesus and the Holy Trinity in direct defiance of that relgious law.
Where's everyone coming from
- Thread starter wartknight
- Start date
Believing Jesus is a real person and beliving Jesus is what the Christian religion says he was are two different things. There is proof that a person named Jesus existed 2000+ years ago. But some people may have issues accepting that Jesus is God's son. In fact, the 10 commandments tell us not to worship anyone but God, and yet the Christians worship Jesus and the Holy Trinity in direct defiance of that relgious law.
Free will explains the existence of evil though. God created everything to choose for themselves their path. I understand that you are saying why would he let them choose evil and that this goes against an all-loving God. All God requires from us to avoid separation from Him is for us to put our trust in Him and desire to be with Him. When Lucifer turned his back on God in the beginning and brought his crew of angels away from God, this started the presence of sin/evil. Once Lucifer (the Devil) realized his fate to be banishment from heaven and a future in the pit, he wanted to hurt God as much as he could in the meantime. The worst way that God can be hurt is to have His creations turn from him. Thus, the Devil has spent all of time trying to turn as many away from God as possible.
Because God gives us the right to choose, the choice is ours whether or not we will turn to God and do our best to sin no more, or away from Him and do as we please. The thing many people have a problem understanding/agreeing with is that some non-believers are "better people" than many believers, but still are not heading to heaven when they die in their current state. For example, in high school I worked extremely hard to model my daily behavior after Christ. I still screwed up, but I worked to fix these screw ups right away. In college, I strayed from my walk big time for a couple of years. I was as big a sinner as there was for a time. All the while, my non-believing roommate was a model citizen who was mild mannered and didn't do many of the sinful things I did. I am embarrassed to say that anybody who met us both during this time would have guessed he was the Christian and I was not. I am now pleased to say that he has accepted Christ since, and I have turned myself back around and am trying to live my life in a more Christ-like manner.
It's a hard pill to swallow that a good guy like that wouldn't have been saved when he died while a moron like myself would have been, but he still had heard the message and had not believed/trusted up to that point. All God asks is that we place our trust in Him and if we do that we should want to be as good an example as we can be for Him. We still screw up because that free choice thing never goes away, but God never wills for us to sin and be separated from Him either.
Actually it does work. Assume as a parent I'm all-good. With my children I could force them to make the right choices their whole lives. They would live under my roof and I could dictate all their actions. The other option is I could raise them in a way where I teach them right from wrong, but at some point allow them to leave home and choose their own path through life. I guess I would argue the latter is the "better" option.
The Holy Trinity represents the three ways in which God relates to the world. As the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are not three separates gods.
Actually, paradoxes are quite common in nature. IF you believe what science tells us about "how the world works." If you do not accept that paradoxical reality exists in belief, do you believe in science?
I would counter-argue that the logic used in that argument is linear and simplistic, in addition to being incorrect.
Do you believe in the existence of black holes or relativity? Neither one can exist, given the limitations of your logical proof.
I love this subject. I'm considering earning a PhD in History of Technology and Science at ISU.
Paradoxes are just stuff that seems contradictory to us. This is different than a logical contradiction. If two statements logically contradict each other they cannot both be true at the same time. Nature is filled with seeming contradictions, not actual contradictions.
I always figured simple was better. Why use a complex argument when you can use a simple one? I'm still curious how it is incorrect.
Yes, as the best evidence we have suggests such things. I'm very curious how this forces me into any logical contradictions though.
I am at a school affiliated with the University of Chicago in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago. I am studying systematic theology, but specifically the interaction of religion and science. Many people make it out to be creation vs. evolution or etc., but it is a real discipline with many facets and people of many ideologies. I am specifically looking at evil and sin and the mind. How the science of the mind relates to evil. I can say a bit more, but I am still narrowing the topic myself.
God didn't intend for it to work out this way.
In the beginning, it was just God and Adam (and later Eve) in the Garden of Eden. There was no such thing as sin the world... everything was perfect. It wasn't until the serpent tricked Eve into eating the fruit (because she would have knowledge of good and evil) that she and Adam disobeyed God and sin was born. And since God is perfect and Adam and Eve were now imperfect, there was a separation, which could only be bridged by a perfect sacrifice (Jesus, the only sinless man).
So, in a nutshell, it wasn't God, but man, that caused the need for God for salvation...
That sounds like a lot of fun. I would love to study that, but I already have too much to study right now...maybe after this PhD :wink0st:. Good luck with deciding.
Very interesting thread. I was raised Christian (Lutheran) but I am now atheist. I got there at some point while at ISU. There is (in my opinion) no proof of a higher being and I lacked the faith that such a being existed. Faith is not something that can be learned or forced onto someone. Either you have it or you don't.
Its the forcing of faith that turns people off of Christianity as a whole.
Personally, I have been far from a perfect person but have the faith that my relationship with Jesus means something. Not only for my life after this world, but in my life now there has been too many things go right to not believe my faith has had something to do with it.
Personally, I have been far from a perfect person but have the faith that my relationship with Jesus means something. Not only for my life after this world, but in my life now there has been too many things go right to not believe my faith has had something to do with it.
You're right, but faith can be found. I'd advise anyone (even believers) to keep searching for answers throughout his/her life.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
I very much agree. It doesn't hurt to spend some serious time thinking about it, getting other people's views, and reading. You may find nothing that ever speaks to you, but you may find something that changes your life.
That's not what the poster's sentence said. He's stating it defies reason that a person doesn't believe jesus was a real person.
Saying that he wasn't a savior is basically admitting he wasn't real to the church. I fail to see a difference. There have been Jesus' throughout history, but only one who was considered a savior. If he was an average joe, that's essentially the same thing as him not existing at all.
This is my “free will defense†response post. I had a nice long (through #2) response typed up and I lost it somehow, so this one is getting typed up in Word…grr. Anyways, this is where things get interesting. Here are some responses to the “free will defense.â€
1. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God (which I’m just going to call a tri-omni God from now on) could have created a world in which everyone freely chose to do the right thing. A common definition of all-powerfulness is having the ability to actualize any possible world. A possible world is one in which there are no logical contradictions. Thus a world in which there is a rock to heavy for God to lift is not a possible world. As there is no contradiction in a world in which everyone freely chooses to do the right thing, then a tri-omni God could have created such a world.
Some philosophers have attempted to draw a distinction between “logically possible†worlds and “actualizable†worlds. Their reasons are rather weak though for why a world in which everyone freely chooses to do the right thing is not actualizable.
2. Another argument is that the existence of a tri-omni God precludes the existence of free will. Here’s the argument in premise/conclusion form:
A.A tri-omni God knows everything perfectly, and hence perfectly knows, and cannot be wrong about, the future.
B.If the future is perfectly known then events can only unfold in one way, because for them to unfold otherwise would mean God was wrong.
C.In order for there to be free will it must be possible for someone to choose in more than one way.
D.Therefore, if there is a tri-omni God there is no free will because it would only be possible for people to chose in one way, that known by God.
This argument has plagued apologists for centuries and led Boethius and later Aquinas to conclude that God must be outside of time. This solution doesn’t work though because it would imply a static theory of time, from which similar conclusions can be drawn. William Lane Craig has taken a different approach to this problem, which as far as I can tell amounts to backwards causation.
3. The above arguments aren’t even the best ones IMO. My favorite comes from the nature of causation. If you are familiar with the theory of causal determinism this argument will sound familiar to you. However, I will also contend that the falsity of causal determinism doesn’t help the cause for free will either. The argument starts with the basic premise that:
A.For any event, there are either sufficient conditions to bring it about, or there are not sufficient conditions to bring it about.
An event is defined as any change over time. The above premise is necessarily true as it is of the form of “A or not A.†If there are sufficient conditions to bring about an event then that event must happen. If there are not sufficient conditions to bring about an event then it is at least partially uncaused. Either of these is rather damning to the case for free will.
If there are sufficient conditions to bring about every event (which would include a choice or action) then it would not be possible for anything to happen other than it does. Every action would be determined, thus why this theory is called determinism. On this worldview, one could also trace the responsibility for anything that happens back to God, as he would have been the one to set everything in motion. (Although if this theory is pursued to its logical conclusion even God’s actions would be determined.)
On the flip side, if there are not sufficient conditions for an event to occur, and yet it still does, then it was at least partially uncaused. Why did it happen? Who knows? The event just sort of randomly occurred. This is not to say that events of that type are not statistically predictable though (some theories of quantum mechanics would take this view). So, if an event (read choice) occurs without cause how exactly is that any more “free†than one which is determined? Additionally, how is it exactly that God would hold a person responsible for a choice that just randomly happened to be the way it was. Essentially, that person just got unlucky. Additionally, what about a world in which there is randomness would appeal to God such that he would create it that way?
4. This isn’t another argument, but I’ve given this whole spiel against “free will†and never defined it. In order to really discuss it I think free will needs to be defined. I usually say “Tell me what free will is and I will tell you whether or not we have it.†I think people’s intuition will attribute free will to someone who is unconstrained by outside forces (e.g. under the power of hypnosis or has a gun to their head) The way it is usually used by apologists is basically “that thing that shifts responsibility away from God and onto us.†Without more though, its not enough.
1. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God (which I’m just going to call a tri-omni God from now on) could have created a world in which everyone freely chose to do the right thing. A common definition of all-powerfulness is having the ability to actualize any possible world. A possible world is one in which there are no logical contradictions. Thus a world in which there is a rock to heavy for God to lift is not a possible world. As there is no contradiction in a world in which everyone freely chooses to do the right thing, then a tri-omni God could have created such a world.
Some philosophers have attempted to draw a distinction between “logically possible†worlds and “actualizable†worlds. Their reasons are rather weak though for why a world in which everyone freely chooses to do the right thing is not actualizable.
2. Another argument is that the existence of a tri-omni God precludes the existence of free will. Here’s the argument in premise/conclusion form:
A.A tri-omni God knows everything perfectly, and hence perfectly knows, and cannot be wrong about, the future.
B.If the future is perfectly known then events can only unfold in one way, because for them to unfold otherwise would mean God was wrong.
C.In order for there to be free will it must be possible for someone to choose in more than one way.
D.Therefore, if there is a tri-omni God there is no free will because it would only be possible for people to chose in one way, that known by God.
This argument has plagued apologists for centuries and led Boethius and later Aquinas to conclude that God must be outside of time. This solution doesn’t work though because it would imply a static theory of time, from which similar conclusions can be drawn. William Lane Craig has taken a different approach to this problem, which as far as I can tell amounts to backwards causation.
3. The above arguments aren’t even the best ones IMO. My favorite comes from the nature of causation. If you are familiar with the theory of causal determinism this argument will sound familiar to you. However, I will also contend that the falsity of causal determinism doesn’t help the cause for free will either. The argument starts with the basic premise that:
A.For any event, there are either sufficient conditions to bring it about, or there are not sufficient conditions to bring it about.
An event is defined as any change over time. The above premise is necessarily true as it is of the form of “A or not A.†If there are sufficient conditions to bring about an event then that event must happen. If there are not sufficient conditions to bring about an event then it is at least partially uncaused. Either of these is rather damning to the case for free will.
If there are sufficient conditions to bring about every event (which would include a choice or action) then it would not be possible for anything to happen other than it does. Every action would be determined, thus why this theory is called determinism. On this worldview, one could also trace the responsibility for anything that happens back to God, as he would have been the one to set everything in motion. (Although if this theory is pursued to its logical conclusion even God’s actions would be determined.)
On the flip side, if there are not sufficient conditions for an event to occur, and yet it still does, then it was at least partially uncaused. Why did it happen? Who knows? The event just sort of randomly occurred. This is not to say that events of that type are not statistically predictable though (some theories of quantum mechanics would take this view). So, if an event (read choice) occurs without cause how exactly is that any more “free†than one which is determined? Additionally, how is it exactly that God would hold a person responsible for a choice that just randomly happened to be the way it was. Essentially, that person just got unlucky. Additionally, what about a world in which there is randomness would appeal to God such that he would create it that way?
4. This isn’t another argument, but I’ve given this whole spiel against “free will†and never defined it. In order to really discuss it I think free will needs to be defined. I usually say “Tell me what free will is and I will tell you whether or not we have it.†I think people’s intuition will attribute free will to someone who is unconstrained by outside forces (e.g. under the power of hypnosis or has a gun to their head) The way it is usually used by apologists is basically “that thing that shifts responsibility away from God and onto us.†Without more though, its not enough.
I have to admit you lost me on this one. What is the contradiction? I agree God could create a world in which everyone freely chose to the right thing. Are you implying because there are people that don't choose the right thing that God is not all-good?
One argument is that God knows the choices we will make, yet allows us to make these choices due to his gift of free will. I for one do not believe in predestination. To me an omniscient God knows all in the present, but not necessarily the future. I guess it depends on how we define "all-knowing". If you define "all-knowing" to include knowldege of the future I would be inclined to agree.
Once there are sufficient conditions I'll comment on the third argument. :wink0st: (i.e. once I have more time)
You are making the assumption that "good" and "evil" are exact opposites. What if "perfection" involves the existence of both? A question: How would you define "good" without the existence of "evil". Short answer, you could not. There can be no "good" without the existence of "bad" or "evil."
The special theory of relativity can be demonstrated to contradict fundamental logic. Something cannot be both infinitely massive, infinitely foreshortened, and exhibit time dilation just based on frame of reference.
And can it be possible that a perfect God can exist, even if a puny man's tiny mind cannot grasp it? One of the problems with the dialectic, is that "the winner takes all." Use of "superior" logic in an argument is assumed to "prove" "right" and "wrong", when in reality, all superior logic infers is that the user is a better logician.
Last edited:
Very funny. :laugh8kb:An "omniscient" God, who, by nature of being "all-powerful" CREATED TIME, cannot see into the future? Predestination is a very short-sighted "work around" created by folks with a very limited view of God. It humors me greatly when humans attempt to force God into a small box that they can understand better. Why can we not be happy with the unknowable?
Dogmatic doctrine which limits what God can or cannot do, is just as bad as atheistic rantings about "belief."
