The Problem Of Evil

[FloatingHome 0]

Good points and I will give you my thoughts.When I say this statement: "All a Christian has to do to be accepted into heaven is accept Jesus and confess his/her sins" I do not mean it is easy and I do not mean one can fake it. But if one has sinned immensly in their life before "finding Jesus," those sins can be forgiven by this act. Now, it must be a real feeling and true, one must truly feel repentance for this to be accepted. And, one must then change their lifestyle from the sinning ways...so no, it is not simple, but it is less of a requirement than other religions require.Your change runs into another significant problem. If we take what you posit:"1. God is all-powerful2. God is loving and just3. Evil exist in opposition to God"The question now is, if Evil exists in opposition to God, how can God be all powerful. For God to be all powerful, then He/She must have the ability to smite evil--otherwise, God would not be all powerful. The fact that at a later date God can sort out evil from good would make God a fair and just judge. It does not establish any way one can show that God is all powerful.Regarding philosophy--if you are still in school, take a philosophy 101 course. Essentially, philosophy is a system of thinking within logic. If you appraoch it with an open mind, it should truly challenge your religious belief structures and allow you to better understand the difference between faith and logic, and what God truly asks of one to have faith...just my opinion.

[Mattnxtc 0]

The question now is, if Evil exists in opposition to God, how can God be all powerful. For God to be all powerful, then He/She must have the ability to smite evil--otherwise, God would not be all powerful. The fact that at a later date God can sort out evil from good would make God a fair and just judge. It does not establish any way one can show that God is all powerful.

well said..it does bring up a situation that we need to set a premise for. 1. God is all-powerful2. God is loving and just3. Evil exist in opposition to God4. God allows man free will to decide between the two. The 4th statement comes directly from the fact that God gave man the ability to choose upon creation whether to follow God or the serpent. I think we could have implied it with God being all-powerful as He could allow this..but stating it clears it up...Let me know what you think of this adjustment

Regarding philosophy--if you are still in school, take a philosophy 101 course. Essentially, philosophy is a system of thinking within logic. If you appraoch it with an open mind, it should truly challenge your religious belief structures and allow you to better understand the difference between faith and logic, and what God truly asks of one to have faith...just my opinion.

Yeah I took an Intro to Logic already so i got the introduction and I might take a Intro to Philosophy or possibly jump it Theory of Knowledge.

[FloatingHome 0]

Okay--now you have added the fourth piece which creates the true paradox for Christians. No matter how much you attempt to get around this paradox it will always exist if God has the power of being all knowing...You already understand the problem of evil and have come back with the conclusion that humans have free will. Humans choose to commit evil--this still leaves us with two problems. We can solve one or the other, but never both:1. God is not all powerful if He created creatures that choose evil. God relinguished this power to allow humans the ability to choose beyond what She would demand (I switch pro-nouns because it really seems rather discriminatory to assign human sexuality to God, yet that is how our language exists).2. God relinquishes the ability to be all knowing when he gives humans the ability to have free will.The first point I don't think we need to discuss--before you agreed with this conclusion, I believe. The second point is purely logical: If any event is known before it has happened, it is predetermined. Even if the participants in the event think they are doing something, since it is known, there is only one possible outcome.Let's apply this to a sport. If it is known with 100% confidence that when a batter steps into the batters box, he will hit a homerun, what other outcome can happen. Though it seems to be a less likely outcome than the batter making an out, the home run is the only outcome possible.Using another example: if God knows that when I come to a fork in the road I will choose to go right with 100% certainty, then even though I believe I have a 50/50- choice, since God knows with 100% certainty that I will choose one way, I ultimately do not have a choice.There are many other problems with free will outside of God as well. One philosopher I read, Althuzar (sp), makes a very compelling case for the idea that even eliminating God, most people do not have free choice in everyday life--our societal and mental training eliminates choice from almost all actions one makes. For example, if you are walking down the road and hear your name called behind you, you turn around. Did you make a choice or simply react? If you reacted, then how did you turning employ free will. There are complex ways to get around this, but free will is one of the most difficult aspects of life to prove or understand.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Using another example: if God knows that when I come to a fork in the road I will choose to go right with 100% certainty, then even though I believe I have a 50/50- choice, since God knows with 100% certainty that I will choose one way, I ultimately do not have a choice.

I am glad you made this argument mainly b/c i wasnt sure of how to take this from my head to typing it out. I am hoping the rest comes out in some coherent form. Lets look at the argument more closely. For this very decision at this very moment we can deduce 2 things: From God's eyes:We have 0% chance of goign left. 100% chance of going right. So from His eyes at the moment He knows our exact choice. This is the defintion of omnipresence. Which is what christianity would say is the truthFrom Man's eyesThe choice is still 50% left and 50% right. In our mind we still can still go left. Now given the choice at this moment in time we will always freely choose to go right. If we introduce some game theory we can say that whatever factors are affecting us at that moment will always make that the dominate decision for us at that very moment. But what is key is that at that moment in time, we will always freely choose to go right because at that moment it is always better for us based off of our factors. Now if we introduce external factors then we can make the case for different choices. I know it may be incoherent. but i was combining some logic and game theory...hopefully you can see the 2x2 in your mind to understand the dominate strategy theory

[FloatingHome 0]

"The choice is still 50% left and 50% right. In our mind we still can still go left. Now given the choice at this moment in time we will always freely choose to go right. If we introduce some game theory we can say that whatever factors are affecting us at that moment will always make that the dominate decision for us at that very moment. But what is key is that at that moment in time, we will always freely choose to go right because at that moment it is always better for us based off of our factors. "The little I know about game theory rests on known outcomes, or at least the ability to logical conclude the best solution based on logical evidence. I don't see how this relates to this point. Three real issues with this:1. Game theory does not guarantee that all people will make the same decision--it is a system to show what the optimum decision is in any situation. That decision is based on many outside influences--what does the person know, how much knowledge do they have about each decisions outcome, and what loical reasoning skills do they posses to come to the optimal decision, among others. Since no two people posess the same ability in each skill associated with game theory, they make different decision based on that knowledge. There may always be a correct and incorrect decision, but it does not mean we have the ability to deduce that at the moment we make a decision.2. Even if you think you have a choice, the fact that there is a 100% guaranteed outcome, essentially means that the choice is an illusion. It is not a concious illusion, but since there is no other possible outcome, there can be no choice. In you writing you accept that a person will always choose to go right--if that is the outcome everytime, what is the original choice? For example, if you weighted a coin so it landed on heads 100% of the time, does it have a chance to land on tails? No--although, creating a coin that lands on heads is 100% of the time is probably a poor example since it may not be able to be done--the idea is the same. If it has no chance of ever landing on tails, when you flip the coin the fact there two outcomes exist is an illusion, since you already know there is only one possible outcome.3. I am not sure that any one makes the best decision everytime. We may believe it is, or think it is with the information we have--but man, if that was the case I surely would never play a hand that gave me a statistical disadvantage. Unfortunately for me, many poker players are better at calculating math or have Poker Tracker installed to assist them...so you are always limited by your personal knowledge, when there is typically more knowledge available that is unknown to you.

[crowTrobot 2]

2. Even if you think you have a choice, the fact that there is a 100% guaranteed outcome, essentially means that the choice is an illusion. It is not a concious illusion, but since there is no other possible outcome, there can be no choice.

good luck getting him to see that. i just wasted a whole thread trying.

[Mattnxtc 0]

1. Game theory does not guarantee that all people will make the same decision--it is a system to show what the optimum decision is in any situation. That decision is based on many outside influences--what does the person know, how much knowledge do they have about each decisions outcome, and what loical reasoning skills do they posses to come to the optimal decision, among others. Since no two people posess the same ability in each skill associated with game theory, they make different decision based on that knowledge. There may always be a correct and incorrect decision, but it does not mean we have the ability to deduce that at the moment we make a decision.

I wanted to expand on this....Yes game theory is based on the theory that people will play optimally in any situation based on the factors that he has. The most basic one that i can think of is tree roll back...where a person takes in to account his own personal utility into making his decision. Yes it is assumed that a person will choose optimally but that should be a given. For example...You might like chinese and mexican equally. But at this moment some factor inside you says chinese is the right choice today. Logically you would assume that at that moment everytime you would always choose chinese. Therefore while you were free to make any choice, b/c of the factors pertaining to you at that time, you will always choose chinese.I think this explains though the concept as it applies to the rest of your comments and to the assumption of God. Game theory applied to logic actually takes God out of the equation. Our choices would be made based off of this line of reason free from outside interference. Then we add in God as somebody who has knowledge of all these factors we have and therefore can logically say exactly what choice we will make at that time everytime

[FloatingHome 0]

Yes it is assumed that a person will choose optimally but that should be a given. For example...You might like chinese and mexican equally. But at this moment some factor inside you says chinese is the right choice today. Logically you would assume that at that moment everytime you would always choose chinese. Therefore while you were free to make any choice, b/c of the factors pertaining to you at that time, you will always choose chinese.

I like the examples you are using and enjoy the conversaton--but again, I have to disagree. There are two problems with the portion of your statement that I see:1. You make a very big assumption that has no real way of being known. There is no way for us to test whether the same decision will be made at the same moment in time--so you rely on a logical conclusion. Yet, logical conclusions are never 100% certain, they are just the best conclusion one can make given the situation. Since we can not know whether that is always true, we can't accept any conclusions drawn from it to be absolute.2. If we do accept the assumption you make, you have argued that free choice does not exist. God is no longer a part of the discussion in any way--if your assumption is true, humans never make a decision, since in any situation there is only one possible outcome. To use my example of the weighted coin--if it lands on heads 100% of the time, then even though there are two sides to the coin, there is no chance that it can lands on tails. Therefore, the end result of the coin is that it will always perform in one way--it will always follow a pre-determined decision. If humans will always make the same choice, then our choice is pre-determined and we do not have any choice to make. Like the coin, there is an appearance that it could do something different, but the reality is that the second option, tails for the coin, is impossible.

[Mattnxtc 0]

1. You make a very big assumption that has no real way of being known. There is no way for us to test whether the same decision will be made at the same moment in time--so you rely on a logical conclusion. Yet, logical conclusions are never 100% certain, they are just the best conclusion one can make given the situation. Since we can not know whether that is always true, we can't accept any conclusions drawn from it to be absolute.I would argue that this isnt necessarily true. (Im an econ major and am involved in some game theory classes). Based on a persons factors, a person should and will always make the decision that is best for him based on the present factors. So in the chinese vs mexican dinner scenerio. Though he may be indifferent to either, based on the factors that exist in that moment, he may always pick chinese. Now this isnt necessarily able to be repeated since we cant always create the exact scenerio over and over. But we can assume that when all the factors are at that level, they will always pick chinese. Just as in another situation, the utility for mexican may be higher, and so at that point he would always go with mexican. It is hard to repeat as they are all going to be personal choices at that very moment. But I think if you look at past decisions you have made you will see that there were always factors leading to the decision you made. 2. If we do accept the assumption you make, you have argued that free choice does not exist. God is no longer a part of the argument in any way--if your assumption is true, humans never make a decision, since in any situation there is only one possible outcome. To use my example of the weighted coin--if it lands on heads 100% of the time, then even though there are two sides to the coin, there is no chance that it can lands on tails. Therefore, the end result of the coin is that it will always perform in one way--it will always follow a pre-determined decision. If humans will always make the same choice, then our choice is pre-determined and we do not have any choice to make. Like the coin, there is an appearance that it could do something different, but the reality is that the second option, tails for the coin, is impossible.To carry this on a little more. If the factors available mainly the coin is weighted to land on heads 100% of the time, Then yes the optimal choice is always to say heads. BUT that does not mean you arent able to play tails also. You have that choice, but based off the factors available you would never play tails. Now i want to make something clear...When i talk about this. I am saying that at that moment with those factors our choice should always be clear to us. We would have free will obviously, but we should logically play one choice above the other always. But thats not to say that we wouldnt play a different choice in the same situation if even one factor was different. That brings me to my point about God. Now assume He is able to see into you to see all those factors. He then knows based off of every factor available exactly what you will do in that specific situation. If you changed one factor then your situation would change, but God would be aware of that. So in the weighted coin situation, we would have something along these lines:1. The coin is weighted so 100% heads2. It is known to you that the coin is weighted heads3. You will always play optimally 100% of the time4. God has complete information of your play and of the coin5. Therefore God knows that in this situation you will always play heads So based off of 1-4 we can conclude that God knowsPS i really do enjoy these...I am workin to think more along logical lines of thinking so this is great

[FloatingHome 0]

1. You make a very big assumption that has no real way of being known. There is no way for us to test whether the same decision will be made at the same moment in time--so you rely on a logical conclusion. Yet, logical conclusions are never 100% certain, they are just the best conclusion one can make given the situation. Since we can not know whether that is always true, we can't accept any conclusions drawn from it to be absolute.I would argue that this isnt necessarily true. (Im an econ major and am involved in some game theory classes). Based on a persons factors, a person should and will always make the decision that is best for him based on the present factors. So in the chinese vs mexican dinner scenerio. Though he may be indifferent to either, based on the factors that exist in that moment, he may always pick chinese. Now this isnt necessarily able to be repeated since we cant always create the exact scenerio over and over. But we can assume that when all the factors are at that level, they will always pick chinese. Just as in another situation, the utility for mexican may be higher, and so at that point he would always go with mexican. It is hard to repeat as they are all going to be personal choices at that very moment. But I think if you look at past decisions you have made you will see that there were always factors leading to the decision you made.

I agree that there are always factors that influence decisions--but from a logical reasoning stand point, the only way something can be known as absolute is through testing and experiencing the same outcome multiple times. For example, the only reason humans accept 2+2=4 is because everytime we test this, the result is the same. If there was only one opportunity for humans to experience 2+2=4 in life, it would not be accepted as absolute (of course, we may find out one day that this is not absolute, but that is a different conversation). Therefore, while the logical conclusion you come to is the most likely outcome, it can not be considered, it can not be shown that it will always happen. With out testing and more substantial proof, to believe that the outcome will always be the same requires faith. To believe that the outcome will always be different requires faith--there is no way to logical conclude with certainty, that one or the other will happen.

2. If we do accept the assumption you make, you have argued that free choice does not exist. God is no longer a part of the argument in any way--if your assumption is true, humans never make a decision, since in any situation there is only one possible outcome. To use my example of the weighted coin--if it lands on heads 100% of the time, then even though there are two sides to the coin, there is no chance that it can lands on tails. Therefore, the end result of the coin is that it will always perform in one way--it will always follow a pre-determined decision. If humans will always make the same choice, then our choice is pre-determined and we do not have any choice to make. Like the coin, there is an appearance that it could do something different, but the reality is that the second option, tails for the coin, is impossible.To carry this on a little more. If the factors available mainly the coin is weighted to land on heads 100% of the time, Then yes the optimal choice is always to say heads. BUT that does not mean you arent able to play tails also. You have that choice, but based off the factors available you would never play tails. Now i want to make something clear...When i talk about this. I am saying that at that moment with those factors our choice should always be clear to us. We would have free will obviously, but we should logically play one choice above the other always. But thats not to say that we wouldnt play a different choice in the same situation if even one factor was different.

You mis-understand my point--I am not trying to imply that the goal is to predict or guess the outcome. Of course, one could pick heads or tails. I am using the coin as a metaphor for human choice--Perhaps if we compare the weighted coin to a non-weighted coin it will become more clear.If free choice exists when a coin is flipped it has a 50/50 chance of landing on either side. The outcome is random--there is no way to know with certainty which side the coin will land on. There are statistical advantages and disadvantages that happen within testing and probability theory, but every time the coin is flipped, it either lands on heads or tails (removing the possibility it lands on an edge and stands upright for this discussion). Once the outcome is known by God, the coin becomes weighted--there is no longer a 50/50 chance it lands on either side, it must land on the side God knows. No doubt, God knows the strength you flipped it at, knows the speed it will spin, knows the angle it will hit the floor, etc... So while you or I may still believe it has a 50/50 chance of landing on one side or the other, the end result is that it can only land on the weighted side, or the side God knows it will land on.

That brings me to my point about God. Now assume He is able to see into you to see all those factors. He then knows based off of every factor available exactly what you will do in that specific situation. If you changed one factor then your situation would change, but God would be aware of that. So in the weighted coin situation, we would have something along these lines:1. The coin is weighted so 100% heads2. It is known to you that the coin is weighted heads3. You will always play optimally 100% of the time4. God has complete information of your play and of the coin5. Therefore God knows that in this situation you will always play headsSo based off of 1-4 we can conclude that God knowsPS i really do enjoy these...I am workin to think more along logical lines of thinking so this is great

I think this conclusion is based off of the assumption the point of the coin was to predict the outcome. I think my description above will help make my point a little more clearly.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I agree that there are always factors that influence decisions--but from a logical reasoning stand point, the only way something can be known as absolute is through testing and experiencing the same outcome multiple times. For example, the only reason humans accept 2+2=4 is because everytime we test this, the result is the same. If there was only one opportunity for humans to experience 2+2=4 in life, it would not be accepted as absolute (of course, we may find out one day that this is not absolute, but that is a different conversation). Therefore, while the logical conclusion you come to is the most likely outcome, it can not be considered, it can not be shown that it will always happen. With out testing and more substantial proof, to believe that the outcome will always be the same requires faith. To believe that the outcome will always be different requires faith--there is no way to logical conclude with certainty, that one or the other will happen.

Well we can use cascading to say that once we know that he is more likely to pick X that he will always pick X. True we cant say with absoluteness but we dont have complete knowledge. Christianity assumes God does have completely knowledge and therefore can make absolute statements where as we cant.

You mis-understand my point--I am not trying to imply that the goal is to predict or guess the outcome. Of course, one could pick heads or tails. I am using the coin as a metaphor for human choice--Perhaps if we compare the weighted coin to a non-weighted coin it will become more clear.If free choice exists when a coin is flipped it has a 50/50 chance of landing on either side. The outcome is random--there is no way to know with certainty which side the coin will land on. There are statistical advantages and disadvantages that happen within testing and probability theory, but every time the coin is flipped, it either lands on heads or tails (removing the possibility it lands on an edge and stands upright for this discussion).Once the outcome is known by God, the coin becomes weighted--there is no longer a 50/50 chance it lands on either side, it must land on the side God knows. No doubt, God knows the strength you flipped it at, knows the speed it will spin, knows the angle it will hit the floor, etc... So while you or I may still believe it has a 50/50 chance of landing on one side or the other, the end result is that it can only land on the weighted side, or the side God knows it will land on.

I definately agree with you about this but I think there are 2 different view points to remember:From Gods View:He knows all the factors, He knows whether it will be heads or tails based off of all the factors. He is going to have complete information of all factors and of man's knowledgeFrom man's View:Man doesnt have complete information. Therefore based off of these factors man will make a decision. In the case of the coin, some crazy factors could influence his decision. What is key is that man will make a decision. It may or may not be the correct one. Man may choose X and have it come up Y. What i think is key to point out is that just b/c God knows the answer is Y, that doesnt mean man will choose Y, Just b/c God knows that man will choose X doesnt mean He will make X correct. All that I have ever said is that God will know man's choices b/c God would have complete and absolute knowledge (which is what limits us from making absolute statements)

[FloatingHome 0]

"Well we can use cascading to say that once we know that he is more likely to pick X that he will always pick X. True we cant say with absoluteness but we dont have complete knowledge. Christianity assumes God does have completely knowledge and therefore can make absolute statements where as we cant."All this proves is that the person is most likely to pick X. Even if the odds are 99 to 1 that the person will pick X, humans can never know. Yes, Christianity posits that God does know. We will talk about this more with your next statements."From Gods View:He knows all the factors, He knows whether it will be heads or tails based off of all the factors. He is going to have complete information of all factors and of man's knowledgeFrom man's View:Man doesnt have complete information. Therefore based off of these factors man will make a decision. In the case of the coin, some crazy factors could influence his decision. "We both agree to this--this is the crux of our discussion. The only point I wish to clarify that in the case of the "weighted coin" nothing can influence what side the coin lands on. I am not discussing "calling sides" I am merely talking about the coin itself. In one example the coin can land on side a or side b, in the other example, it can only land on side a. It is not a question of whether someone will guess what side it lands on, only what side it actually does land on."What is key is that man will make a decision. It may or may not be the correct one. Man may choose X and have it come up Y. What i think is key to point out is that just b/c God knows the answer is Y, that doesnt mean man will choose Y, Just b/c God knows that man will choose X doesnt mean He will make X correct. All that I have ever said is that God will know man's choices b/c God would have complete and absolute knowledge (which is what limits us from making absolute statements)"Two different concepts we need to parse out of this:1. It is not a question of whether one will choose correctly, only that one will make a choice. I believe we can agree that if the choices one is presented with are X and Y, then one will choose either X or Y. For the sake of this discussion whether X or Y is a better choice, or a correct choice is irrelevant. Therefore, the fact that God won't make the choice correct is also irrelevant for the purpose of this conversation.2. I understand that what you are saying is that God will know ones choice--that is not what this discussion is questioning. What we are discussing is if God knows ones choice, then does that person have free will...There are two flaws with free will and what you present in your above statement:1. If God has absolute knowledge and humans do not, than we can not be certain that free will exists. That is pure logic--which I also believe you will respond that we can know because the Bible says it is. Yet, the point I am trying to make is that to believe in the Bible, is to have faith even though humans are unable to prove.2. This is the concept I think you are struggling to understand, which I can understand because it presents a contridiction in the Bible. So let me state that just because a contridiction exists, it does not disprove the Bible, it merely shows what the requirement of faith is--belief in something that one can not prove. Or, as I said before, it may be belief in something that one can not prove yet--perhaps at some point we will have all the knowledge and evidence to prove it, but as of yet, we do not.Basically, you state that God knows what decision one will make in a situation. Logically, if one is presented with a choice where the outcome is already known, then there can be no decision. Again, you feel like you make a decision, you know that you make a decision, yet, even though you personally go through all the mechanics to make a choice, if God knows that choice, you were predestined to make it. So the process you go through is also predestined to happen, as long as the result is know ahead of time.Essentially, what I am saying is that since God will always know the decision one makes (which you agree with), then for any decision there can only be a single outcome. When that happens, there is no decision, just an event.Let me use my math example again--since we can agree that 2+2=4, when presented with the question what does 2+2=. are you making a decision. No, you are performing a calculation of which there is one, and only one result. You can not choose to make 2+2=5 or 2+2=3, it will always equal 4. You, nor anyone, makes that decision, it just is. (I realize we could have a whole different converesation about this--but I am just using it as an example to try to show a point).Since God knows what you will decide, it works this same way. If you are choosing between Mexican or Chinese food, and God knows that you will choose Mexican, you don't have a decision. It is the same as 2+2=4...Once an answer is definate, the idea of free will is removed. There is no free will in determining what 2+2=...unfortunately, there is no free will in your personal decisions if God already knows what you will decide. Unless there are factors outside of what humans know, in which case, that would be faith...This is the reason philosophy and religion are at odds so often--philosophy attempts to draw conclusion based on logical reasoning and there are items in the Bible that do not hold up to this type of critique. This is an example of one. To defend religion in this method, one is forced to make exceptions to the strict words in the Bible. Unfortunately, these contridictions exist and will most likely always exist. This does not disprove the Bible or ones belief in the Bible, though some people try to say it does. Religion is about your personal relationship to your higher power. I hope this helps you understand the contridiction more clearly...of course, I will be happy to answer any more questions you have.

[Mattnxtc 0]

Hey man it really has been a great discussion...Its nice to know that people are realy exploring higher levels of thinking. Its been encouraging to me to talk to you about all this fun stuff....Now to your comments

We both agree to this--this is the crux of our discussion. The only point I wish to clarify that in the case of the "weighted coin" nothing can influence what side the coin lands on. I am not discussing "calling sides" I am merely talking about the coin itself. In one example the coin can land on side a or side b, in the other example, it can only land on side a. It is not a question of whether someone will guess what side it lands on, only what side it actually does land on.

I would agree this is though I would add a little something to it. We both agree that on the weight coin side a will come up. But I think we can also say that the coin wasnt "predestined" to fall on a but instead that the factors on the coin at this very moment cause the only logical choice for the coin to be a. If you change a factor you change the decision.

here are two flaws with free will and what you present in your above statement:1. If God has absolute knowledge and humans do not, than we can not be certain that free will exists. That is pure logic--which I also believe you will respond that we can know because the Bible says it is. Yet, the point I am trying to make is that to believe in the Bible, is to have faith even though humans are unable to prove.2. This is the concept I think you are struggling to understand, which I can understand because it presents a contridiction in the Bible. So let me state that just because a contridiction exists, it does not disprove the Bible, it merely shows what the requirement of faith is--belief in something that one can not prove. Or, as I said before, it may be belief in something that one can not prove yet--perhaps at some point we will have all the knowledge and evidence to prove it, but as of yet, we do not.

O no I think the fact that we are online affects our ability to be clear in our words. I absolutely agree that faith is the necessity of religion. The bible makes that extremely extremely clear that faith is the only way. FAith is presented as the only way to salvation. What I want to do is present to people the fact that logically it is very possible that the way the bible presents God and and man is in fact correct. As you said yourself:" If God has absolute knowledge and humans do not, than we can not be certain that free will exists"I dont disagree with this. But the key is that it is possible. And from a christian standpoint we would say that the fact that God does present it this way makes it more than possible.

Since God knows what you will decide, it works this same way. If you are choosing between Mexican or Chinese food, and God knows that you will choose Mexican, you don't have a decision. It is the same as 2+2=4...Once an answer is definate, the idea of free will is removed. There is no free will in determining what 2+2=...unfortunately, there is no free will in your personal decisions if God already knows what you will decide. Unless there are factors outside of what humans know, in which case, that would be faith...

I would still argue that this is mixing 2 ideas. If God has complete knowledge, He knows exactly what we will choose...but on the same concept. Man knows exactly what he will choose also. Even if there are 2 things that man is indifferent to, there is still a choice that he will deem "best". That is simple economics. I dont think this concept ignores free-will. It just says that for each situation, 1 choice will always be logically better than the others. I think if you look for one day at decisions you make you will see how this is true. When deciding between what you want to eat. You may havin the craving for chinese, but that doesnt mean you cant run through 10 other choices in your mind. But what you will find is that logically you will always want chinese at that moment. This choice was made based off of your own desires at that moment not on an external force.

This is the reason philosophy and religion are at odds so often--philosophy attempts to draw conclusion based on logical reasoning and there are items in the Bible that do not hold up to this type of critique. This is an example of one. To defend religion in this method, one is forced to make exceptions to the strict words in the Bible. Unfortunately, these contridictions exist and will most likely always exist. This does not disprove the Bible or ones belief in the Bible, though some people try to say it does.

with this I would disagree as well. The best apologetics out there are usually well rooted in philosophy. JP Moreland is a great example of an apologetic who has a masters in Philosophy yet is a very very strong christian. At the higher level, philosophy and christianity can and do co-exist. Now by no means do I want anybody reading this to think I have anything more than an intro level understanding of philosophy

[FloatingHome 0]

"I would agree this is though I would add a little something to it. We both agree that on the weight coin side a will come up. But I think we can also say that the coin wasnt "predestined" to fall on a but instead that the factors on the coin at this very moment cause the only logical choice for the coin to be a. If you change a factor you change the decision."You are right that the factors of the coin are what determine it to fall in a particulare way--that was how I set-up the example. If any of the factors change, the outcome changes. Because of how the example was set-up, it is impossible for these factors to change.The word you keep using that confuses me is "choice." With the way I set-up the example, there is not choice. As you say, if the factors change, the outcome can change--we both agree to this. However, because the factors on the coin can't change, there can be no choice, no other outcome...this may just be a misunderstanding due to language, so I am trying to understand.I said: " If God has absolute knowledge and humans do not, than we can not be certain that free will exists"You replied: "I dont disagree with this. But the key is that it is possible. And from a christian standpoint we would say that the fact that God does present it this way makes it more than possible."This is the point I have been trying to make. Yes, it is possible. However, up until know from what I have seen, you have presented this concept as the only possibility. If you accept that this is possible, you can also imagine that it is not possible. Just because you imagine that it may not be possible does not mean you believe that it does not exist. But it does allow you to understand how another person may believe differently from yourself. "I would still argue that this is mixing 2 ideas. If God has complete knowledge, He knows exactly what we will choose...but on the same concept. Man knows exactly what he will choose also."The problem is that the only example we have used is a choice...let us extend this to an event and see if this holds up. You are playing baseball and are are the next batter. There are two outs in the ninth inning, so if the current batter gets out, you do not bat. If the current batter gots on base, you do get to bat. From your statement, God knows whether you will get to bat or not. You have no way of knowing. There are two potential outcomes, either you get to bat or you don't...If God knows that you will bat, suddenly there is only one outcome, not two--though since you can not know this, you still believe there are two outcomes. Do you understand how once it is known, the outcome is predetermined?"with this I would disagree as well. The best apologetics out there are usually well rooted in philosophy. JP Moreland is a great example of an apologetic who has a masters in Philosophy yet is a very very strong christian. At the higher level, philosophy and christianity can and do co-exist. Now by no means do I want anybody reading this to think I have anything more than an intro level understanding of philosophy"I never meant to imply that there were not religious philosophers--just that in many cases the philosophers who support religion are at odds with the philosophers who do not support religion. I can also conclude based on my readings of philosophers, from Anselm of Canterbury who wrote "The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God," to Thomas Aquinas and even Thomas Jefferson, who all wrote defending Christianity and God in different ways, that the philosophers on the other side, people like Paul Kurtz, David Hume, and John Hick have presented a stronger logical case for problems. To sum up the majority of problems for Christian philosophers it is this--to defend one portion of God's powers, for example the existence of evil vs. an God being all good, they have to concede another one of God's powers--in this case, either that God is all knowing or that humans have free will...But the best writer I ever read about this particular paradox was an Argentinian short story write, Borges, who ultimately concluded that this paradox was unsolvable. Onc can continue to discuss this for ever because there is no way for logic to handle faith or for faith to be contained in logic. Therefore, while it is a fun mental exercise, one only can conclude if they have faith to believe outside of this, or if they choose not to have faith and to believe in logic.Also, it should be noted that atheists also have faith--they have faith that the human ability to determine facts through the scientific method, through logic, and through reasoning is the best way of concluding a truth. This also has many problems, since science is always evolving any single explanation today may turn out to be wrong in 20 years, or 100 years. The easiest example of this was the original thought of the world being flat--for how many thousands of years did humans believe this--only to one day find out that it was wrong. Faith exists in all people, it is just a matter of where they choose to place their faith. That is why I am against absolutes--there can be no absolutes, since factors and knowledge will always change. Chaos theory would support this belief I think--though it is a theory I have not had enough time to study yet.But the reason we have been having this discussion is because you have presented the Bible and God and the powers of God as the only possible outcome until your last post. I believe the most important thing to remember as a Christian is that God makes it very clear, no Christian has the right to judge another person. One has the right to show what a Christian is through action and to discuss their beliefs--but not to judge. When you present a situation as having only one possible outcome, you have, most likely unintentionally, judged another to be wrong. The only judge that one has depends on ones own belief of what happens in the afterlife--be it reincarnation in an attempt to become an enlightened being, or acceptance into heaven, or simply, that death is the end.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The only reason humans accept 2+2=4 is because everytime we test this, the result is the same. If there was only one opportunity for humans to experience 2+2=4 in life, it would not be accepted as absolute (of course, we may find out one day that this is not absolute, but that is a different conversation).

No. Humans accept 2 + 2 = 4 because it is a priori and can be proven. It is not an experimental result. It is based on logic and proofs, like all of mathematics. 2 + 2 will never not be 4. It makes no sense to even consider this as a possibility.

[Mattnxtc 0]

This is the point I have been trying to make. Yes, it is possible. However, up until know from what I have seen, you have presented this concept as the only possibility. If you accept that this is possible, you can also imagine that it is not possible. Just because you imagine that it may not be possible does not mean you believe that it does not exist. But it does allow you to understand how another person may believe differently from yourself.

This is where statements can be a bit more tricky. From a philosophical standpoint, statements made can differ from what some religious people statements will be...From a philosophy standpoint, without absolute knowledge, I have to concede that I may be wrong. I avoid making statements like this b/c those who dont understand philosophy will see this as me having a lack of faith. But its merely just a statement b/c of lack of absolute knowledge. This doesnt change the fact that I believe I am right, but I will always concede that there is always the possibility I am wrong.

The problem is that the only example we have used is a choice...let us extend this to an event and see if this holds up. You are playing baseball and are are the next batter. There are two outs in the ninth inning, so if the current batter gets out, you do not bat. If the current batter gots on base, you do get to bat. From your statement, God knows whether you will get to bat or not. You have no way of knowing. There are two potential outcomes, either you get to bat or you don't...If God knows that you will bat, suddenly there is only one outcome, not two--though since you can not know this, you still believe there are two outcomes. Do you understand how once it is known, the outcome is predetermined?

the problem with this is that from the standpoint of you, you never actually have a choice. We can say we have a choice but we dont. Whether we bat or not is not dependent on anything we do. God may know..but He would know that based on the factors of the batter in front of us. Not on anything we know. Heck even if we decide on one or the other there is no way of actually putting our choice into motion. Just b/c we "choose" to bat doesnt mean we will get to if the guy in front of us strikes out. Therefore this isnt a situation where we have any choice. Therefore the decisions just move from us to the batter in front of us and the same concepts apply to that batter that would apply to us in that situation. The rest for the most part I agree on. I think you will also agree that until we have absolute knowledge, We make conclusions that will or wont be right later on. Only point I have wanted to make is that a possible scenerio is that God can exist in this line of reasoning

[FloatingHome 0]

I am glad we had this conversation and I believe we have come to an agreement. I realize my example of the event doesn't corresepond exactly to a choice--but I thought it illustrated the point well.One final thought that I hope you will take to heart as something I learned in the last 10 years--do not be afraid of those who disagree or do not understand your intent and meaning. All you can try to control is that you express yourself in the best way you can. Ten years ago, I did not have the patience or tolerance to carry on a conversation like this--it would have deteriated to an argument of one or the other...with time I have found that I have the confidence in my beliefs and the patience to understand that people must find their own solutions, in their own time. I hope you find this understanding as you continue to grow.Thank you for having this conversation. This discussion is one that I have had with myself and friends for the last thirteen years, and continue to questions to this day, as you can see. All you can try to do is find a way to be comfortable with yourself and your faith. If you would like to discuss other topics, let me know--you can always send me a private message if you are struggling with any questions.

[Mattnxtc 0]

FloatingHome - It was good talkin to you. It was enjoyable to have a discussion that stretched beyond common thought. I look forward to having more of them with you later. I know you have your views as well as me having mine. One of us is going to end up right, one isnt. One last thing i want to add in is some thoughts of Gregory Koukl. He runs a website called www.str.org .... it is an awesome website and I highly recommend it to all of yall. He is a christian apologetic located out in California, who runs a radio show where he will take calls from anybody and discuss anything christian related. He is a brilliant philosopher and theologian. While reading his blog he made mention of an article that almost relates directly to the subject of Evil in this world. I thought it would be very beneficial. It is a semilong read but well worth it The Strength of God & the Problem of Evil Gregory Koukl What makes you think the ability to take away evil from the world has anything to do with God's strength?I was thinking about this issue of the problem of evil. I've read a number of books on it. I've done a whole teaching on suffering, evil and the goodness of God. I wrote an article called Sophie's Dilemma which we'll have in our journal coming out in July called Clear Thinking . We had Doug Geivett on four weeks ago, who has written a whole book on the problem of evil and we talked about the ins and outs of the issue.I was thinking more about this the other day. I often try to think through some of these issues to see if there is a shortcut to the solution that won't undermine the argument, that won't rip the guts out of it.When we talked to Dr. Geivett, he spelled out the classical objection to the problem of evil, the most damaging objection, potentially, to Christianity. That objection is this: there is something inconsistent in what Christians believe about the nature of the world and the nature of God. In other words, the Christian belief is contradictory. As Dr. Geivett pointed out, having an argument that is contradictory is the worst thing that could happen to you, because it means your view is false. Period. So if it can be shown that the Christian view is contradictory then at least at that point the Christian world view is false.Here's how the objection is usually stated: If God were all good, as you say, He would want to deal with the problem of evil. And if God were all powerful, as you say, then He would be able to deal with the problem of evil. Obviously, evil exists, therefore He is either not all good or He is not all powerful, or maybe He is neither. In any case, the presence of evil in the world disproves the Christian view of God.See how that argument works? It is called a defeater. This observation of an apparent contradiction defeats the Christian's view of God.Now of course if the argument is sound, then Christianity has been defeated. I think that is fair to say. I don't think the argument is sound, though. And we've talked in different ways about how Augustine has argued and C.S. Lewis has argued and others have unfolded this particular argument and for some it might have been complex. Well, I'm going to give you a short cut, because what Doug Geivett said really stuck in my mind. In his response Dr. Geivett questioned both of the premises. His question was, "What makes you think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God's strength?"Here is how it can be played out. This will make it very clear. When this comes up again I'm going to tell this story.Let's pretend that you claim to be the strongest person in the world. More than that, you are the strongest person in the universe. You can pick up an entire building. You are so strong that you can pick up an entire city. You are so strong you can pick up an entire country. In fact, if you had a place to stand, you could lift the entire planet, even the solar system. You have so much strength, you can do anything that strength allows you to do. This is your boast to me. "OK," I say, "let's see if you can prove it." "Just give me any test you want" you respond. "If you are so strong, then make a square circle." "I can't do that." "You're not very strong, are you?""This has nothing to do with strength, does it? Because no matter how strong I am, I could never make a square circle, because making a square circle has nothing to do with power. It is a self- contradictory concept, having square circles. They can't be made by anybody regardless of how strong they are. This test is unrelated to the issue of power."Now, how does this tie into our discussion of the problem of evil? Simply this. God certainly is strong enough to obliterate evil from the earth or to have prevented it in the first place. No question about that. But let me ask you a question. Is it a good thing that God created human beings as free moral creatures, capable of making moral choices? It strikes me that the answer to that is yes. Because God is good--which is one of the things in question here--God created free moral creatures.But this changes everything, doesn't it? What makes you think that strength has anything to do with God creating a world in which there are genuinely free moral creatures and no possibility of doing wrong?You see, now we're back to square circles. It's just as ridiculous to ask God to create a world in which we have genuinely free creatures with no possibility to do wrong, as it is to ask Him to create a square circle. The task has nothing to do with His strength. It has to do with the nature of the problem. If you're going to have morally free creatures--that is, human beings that can make moral choices for themselves--and if God is good, then He is going to create creatures that will be truly morally free. But that entails, of necessity, at least the possibility of evil in the world.This has nothing to do with God's power. It is unrelated to the issue of power just like making square circles is unrelated to the issue of power. It relates to the nature of the good universe that God created, a universe that was populated by beings that were morally free. Morally free creatures by necessity, by definition, have the possibility of going bad.Now you know why this is not a good argument against the existence of God. It just doesn't apply. One could even argue there's a kind of category error here because in this particular case, according to Christianity, dealing with evil has nothing to do with strength. It has to do with the nature of the game itself.What's neat about the Christian point of view, is that God did the good thing by creating morally free creatures that went bad, yet still did the loving thing by cleaning up the mess man created in such a way that greater good results. Now that's the result of a Master mind.

[natewood3 0]

I would also like to apologize for my last post--I did not mean it to come off so confrontational--I have enjoyed this conversation and think we can both benefit from continuing it.I was trying to make two points and based on your most recent comment, I will continue to try to show where I think our beliefs are slightly different--I am not trying to show whether God exists or not, just how our thinking on this subject is different...First, I don't disagree with your first three statements. I disagree with your conclusion being the only logical conclusion. Your conclusion is the essence of faith, rather than pure logic, in my opinion. If we accept your statements:1. God is all-powerful.2. God is loving and good.3. Evil exists.Then the question becomes why did God allow evil if he could have prevented it. Based on God being all-powerful and all good as you say, one is left trying to understand why evil exists.You conclude that "God has a good and loving purpose for the existence of evil". Wouldn't this imply that the existence of evil is then good. If God's purpose for evil is good, then logically, evil is good. Just using logic, this doesn't make much sense. One has to believe that God has a purpose that one can not understand, prove or show--that, is faith. Faith is also what God asks for humans to put into him, so the fact that logically it does not work out to a conclusion is not an attach on a belief, but it is an attack the human ability to logically understand all of the powers and workings of God.Where you and I diverge in our thinking, is I am comfortable with understanding God can not exist logically. I have no issue believing in God with out proof, but rather because I feel it is the right decision to make...From what I have read of your position, this seems to be a point of conflict between our belief structures. I am not being critical of your belief and I hope this did not come off that way, I am just trying to pinpoint where our thoughts differ--please let me know your thoughts on this.The second point of difference is your final paragraph. I personally have given as much thought to the question of thought and religious structures across the world. I have studied the writings of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Ratafarianism. and Confucianism. The one thing that struck me about all of these belief systems is that the core values are very similar across them. All of these belief systems attemp to describe the right way for one to live.When you say "The problem for most non-Christians is that they believe things are "evil," yet they have absolutely no standard by which they can judge a thing to be good or evil. Hence, the problem of evil is a problem for the unbelieving worldview, not the Christian worldview." I believe you are very mistaken. There are more non-Christian religious people in the world, than Christian. These people have found a different religious and moral code to live by. It is not that if a non-believer "does have a standard, it is arbitrary or inconsistent with their worldview." Quite the contrary, a non-Christian has another standard, a different standard, but not an arbitrary standard. If anything, Christianity has the most relaxed standards of the religions I mention. All a Christian has to do to be accepted into heaven is accept Jesus and confess his/her sins. Buddhists have a much more difficult path to travel to reach enlightenment.The majority of Christians I have met believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and view these other religions as fruadulent or wrong. This has never worked for me, for some reason I can not accept that the majority of human people are wrong. No religion has 50% of the population as followers, so if any single religion is the only one, then it would imply that the majority of humans must be incorrect.I choose to believe that all religions are connected. God has chosen to allow each individual to find God in their own way. The only passage in the Bible that I know of provides even the slightest problem is one of the commandments--"Thou shalt not worship an idol other than Me" is how I think it goes. After much thought I have concluded that commandments are intended for the individual, not for the individual to apply to another individual. So, in order for me to live up to this commandment, I can not choose to worship an idol other than God, since that is how God has come to me. The same as a Buddhist would not be allowed to worship another God, since that is how God has come to him/her. Therefore, religion is a very personal relationship between God and self, not a doctrine to be shouted out to everyone else in the world. The way religion should be passed around the world is by example...we all know the expression talk is cheap. Well, talk of being religious with the goal of conversion is the cheapest talk of all. Conversion should be handled because of how you live your life, rather than how you talk about religion. Realizing we are having a discussion about religion, I also try to be very careful not to judge or criticize those who believe differently.

Floating Home,One of the problems is that you don't accept Scripture as proof or evidence. My conclusion is based upon Scripture. Hence, my "faith" in believing the conclusion is not a leap in the dark as you seem to imply. Scripture answers why God would allow evil and sin...The existence of evil in and of itself is not good, but God uses evil acts to bring about good and loving purposes for His people. Notice I said God has good and loving PURPOSES behind the existence of evil. I do have faith that this is the case, but my belief I believe is justified true belief because it is based upon the Word of God. Scripture is my proof for my conclusion. If you dont accept the conclusion, it is because you reject what the Bible teaches, not because my logic is not valid or sound.Do you believe we can completely understand God or His works?Why is "believing in God" the right decision? Why do you believe that?You cannot accept true Christianity while also accepting other religions as alternative ways to God. Jesus claimed that He was the only way to the Father. There isn't any other name by which we can be saved. Jesus Christ IS the truth, and there is no other way to be saved. Christianity is by definition exclusive.An unbeliever or non-Christian may have a standard, but where does this standard come from? If this standard is not justified, then all else derived from the standard is not justified. Again, what is your standard of judging right and wrong, good or evil, and how do you know that your standard is correct?What does the majority believing in something other than Christianity have to do with anything? I do not believe the majority determines what is right or wrong, and I don't think that because most people reject that Christianity is the only way makes Christianity probably not the only way. This is exactly what the Bible teaches about mankind, that none seek God, and all are rejecting the truth about the God of the Bible...I asked you earlier if you believed God was contradictory, and you said no. Now, if you look at other religions, like Islam for example. They teach things that are completely contradictory to the divine revelation of God found in the Scriptures, yet they claim to the be only way also. The Scriptures cannot be true and not true at the same time. They are either what they say they are, or they are false. Yet you claim man can find God through Islam. How can God be found in religions that are contradictory and complete opposites? God is not inspiring the Scriptures AND the Quran because He does not contradict Himself, yet they are contradictory in many issues...