Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

Zombrex · 20-11-2006 2:45pm

JimiTime wrote:

We are not pre-destined. God does not have our lives plotted out, so I hope that clarifies things.

Well putting aside the issue of free-will, are you saying that God cannot see the future?

If He can see the future then He already knows what you will or will not do. And in fact He has always known what you will and will not do, He knew before Adam was created. He knew before the instant of Creation.

So how can he be hurt by your actions since He knew what your actions would be before the moment of Creation, long before you existed. If that was the case then God hurt himself by the act of Creation.

Medina · 20-11-2006 2:53pm

JimiTime wrote:

Does God feel love? Did God love Solomon? did God love Adam? If he did love these people what was the feeling he had when these people betrayed him?

Again you are equating a human being's feelings to God's feelings.
God knew these people would betray him, that doesn't remove their free will, they went ahead and did it themselves, but God knew what choices they would make with their free will.

JimiTime wrote:

Where do you get this from? I certainly do not know this god you speak of! The Living God gave us free will, to make our choices. Please explain where you get this notion from?

Are you saying God doesn't know everything?
Knowing everything does not undermine a person's free will.

Schuhart · 20-11-2006 3:27pm

Medina wrote:

God created Rules to be followed for the greater good.

JimiTime wrote:

He wants love and mercy, because he is love and mercy.

I’m not confident that Scofflaw’s point is being addressed here. (I’m not suggesting you should accept it – just that to my eyes your answers don’t relate to it.)

Taking the case of gays, just as an illustrative example. Someone could say people should not be gay for a number of practical reasons – be that AIDS or an increased chance of haemorrhoids or just that they won’t have grandchildren when they’re old. These all fit into Scofflaw’s conception of things you don’t do because you see some intrinsic reason that they are bad for you. Getting your boss annoyed so that you get sacked or mistreating your children so they are taken off you also fit into this category because there’s a practical way in which you suffer bad consequences for those things.

Because those things have built in bad consequences, you don’t need a God to tell you not to do them. If God is present in the transaction, it can only mean that God wants you to follow your own obvious self interest and that will not lead you astray.

So we move to the case of someone who sees it to be in their self interest to pursue a gay lifestyle. He feels it to be in his nature. He pursues his nature in a responsible manner so his health risks are no worse than a heterosexual person. He adopts a child to cover the lack of grandchildren. All the practical issues are covered, so there is no ‘greater good’ concern.

He dies, and is judged to be a sinner. He asks why, given that he has all the practical issues covered, and gets the answer from God ‘I just didn’t want you to live like that’. To which that person might answer ‘Then why did you put this in my nature?’

Scofflaw, as I see it, is just drawing attention to the arbitrary nature of deeming things to be against some divine law.

Zombrex · 20-11-2006 3:31pm

Medina wrote:

I think Wicknight knows that our lives our not predestined.

Wicknight does indeed know our lives our not predestined, but Wicknight is an atheist and knows that the idea of an omnipresent God and a non-predestined universe is a paradox

But that is perhaps a topic for another thread (possibly on the atheist forum)

Medina wrote:

But God knows already what we will do and what choices we will make so therefore he is not 'shocked' or 'hurt' because he knew these things before we ever existed.

Yes that was my point.

Even if one assumes that an omnipressent God and free-will is not a paradox (and since this is the Christian forum I'm happy to do that), it still doesn't make sense to claim that God can be surprised, shocked, hurt, or otherwise affected by what we do.

One cannot betray God, since God knows everything. One cannot disappoint God, since God knows everything. One cannot upset God, since God knows everything. All these human emotions are based on inital lack of the full knowledge and then hurt feelings at the discovery of the full truth.

Since all time is known to God in one singular instant, all actions are known to God, all truth is known to God, and is known from the moment of creation. God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen, and as such cannot be effected by discovery of new information, since there is no "new" information to God. All information is known to God at the one singular instant.

God knew Adam would disobey Him before He created Adam. As such it was not a betrayal because God knew what would happen and created Adam anyway

Schuhart · 20-11-2006 3:32pm

JimiTime wrote:

When solomon, in all his glory, turned from God after having such favour from him. What do you think God felt?

Surprised? Amused? Sleepy? There’s a story in Hilaire Belloc’s book ‘The Path to Rome’ that keeps coming to mind in these discussions of the extent to which God gives a damn one way or the other.

Once, before we humans became the good and self-respecting people we are, the Padre Eterno was sitting in heaven with St Michael beside him, and He watched the abyss from His great throne, and saw shining in the void one far point of light amid some seventeen million others, and He said:

'What is that?'

And St Michael answered:

'That is the Earth,' for he felt some pride in it.

'The Earth?' said the Padre Eterno, a little puzzled . . . 'The Earth?...?... I do not remember very exactly . . .'

'Why,' answered St Michael, with as much reverence as his annoyance could command, 'surely you must recollect the Earth and all the pother there was in heaven when it was first suggested to create it, and all about Lucifer--'

'Ah!' said the Padre Eterno, thinking twice, 'yes. It is attached to Sirius, and--'

'No, no,' said St Michael, quite visibly put out. 'It is the Earth. The Earth which has that changing moon and the thing called the sea.'

'Of course, of course,' answered the Padre Eterno quickly, 'I said Sirius by a slip of the tongue. Dear me! So that is the Earth! Well, well! It is years ago now ... Michael, what are those little things swarming up and down all over it?'

'Those,' said St Michael, 'are Men.'

'Men?' said the Padre Eterno, 'Men ... I know the word as well as any one, but somehow the connexion escapes me. Men ...' and He mused. St Michael, with perfect self-restraint, said a few things a trifle staccato, defining Man, his dual destiny, his hope of heaven, and all the great business in which he himself had fought hard. But from a fine military tradition, he said nothing of his actions, nor even of his shrine in Normandy, of which he is naturally extremely proud: and well he may be. What a hill!

'I really beg your pardon,' said the Padre Eterno, when he saw the importance attached to these little creatures. 'I am sure they are worthy of the very fullest attention, and' (he added, for he was sorry to have offended) 'how sensible they seem, Michael! There they go, buying and selling, and sailing, driving, and wiving, and riding, and dancing, and singing, and the rest of it; indeed, they are most practical, business-like, and satisfactory little beings. But I notice one odd thing. Here and there are some not doing as the rest, or attending to their business, but throwing themselves into all manner of attitudes, making the most extraordinary sounds, and clothing themselves in the quaintest of garments. What is the meaning of that?'

'Sire!' cried St Michael, in a voice that shook the architraves of heaven, 'they are worshipping You!'

'Oh! they are worshipping me! Well, that is the most sensible thing I have heard of them yet, and I altogether commend them. Continuez,' said the Padre Eterno, 'continuez!'

ISAW · 21-11-2006 12:27am

Wicknight wrote:

Well putting aside the issue of free-will, are you saying that God cannot see the future?

If He can see the future then He already knows what you will or will not do. And in fact He has always known what you will and will not do, He knew before Adam was created. He knew before the instant of Creation.

So how can he be hurt by your actions since He knew what your actions would be before the moment of Creation, long before you existed. If that was the case then God hurt himself by the act of Creation.

Knowing something in advance does not negate the fact that it is going to hurt you. Christ knew he would be crusified. It didnt remove the pain. And if you know that lighting a candle under your hand will cause your hand to burn, knowing that wont remove the pain.

ISAW · 21-11-2006 12:45am

Wicknight wrote:

Wicknight does indeed know our lives our not predestined, but Wicknight is an atheist and knows that the idea of an omnipresent God and a non-predestined universe is a paradox

I think you may mean an "omniscient" (all knowing) God rather than an "omnipresent" (everywhere at the same time) one. Even the power to be everywhere at once does not mean you know the future (mind you in a relativistic physics sense you would know some of the future and space and time become interlinked). But all knowing means knowing the future and that would seem not to fit with not predetermining the future. why because knowing the future seems to suggest that it is "fixed" and perdetermined.

But even knowing the future does not mean one is causing it. Just because God knows you will chose something does not mean your are made to chose that.

[qute]
it still doesn't make sense to claim that God can be surprised, shocked, hurt, or otherwise affected by what we do.
[/quote]

it doesnt because they are two different things. But clearly one can be hurt by something we know will happen.

One cannot betray God, since God knows everything.

Actually one can! And one need not even bring God into it. Let us say I want you to vote for me and ask you. So has Brian. Brian then comes to me and shows me a video of you talking to Brian and where you said you will tell me you are going to vote for me but you really are going to vote for Brian. Then ou came to me and tell me you are voting for me. You then go to write down you vote. I have a camera hidden in the room and I know you voted for Brian. So I know you betrayed me. Are you claiming you couldnt have betrayed me since I know you did?

One cannot disappoint God, since God knows everything. One cannot upset God, since God knows everything.

Ditto and ditto!

All these human emotions are based on inital lack of the full knowledge and then hurt feelings at the discovery of the full truth.

no they are not! Fore knowledge does not mean that one will not be upset no more than it does not mean one may not be physically hurt!

Since all time is known to God in one singular instant, all actions are known to God, all truth is known to God, and is known from the moment of creation. God knows everything that has happened, is happening and will happen, and as such cannot be effected by discovery of new information, since there is no "new" information to God. All information is known to God at the one singular instant.

God knew Adam would disobey Him before He created Adam. As such it was not a betrayal because God knew what would happen and created Adam anyway

I though you said you would leave the free will/omniscient chestnut alone. Anyway it has been covered and there is a standard explaination which you have been given. Leave it alone please.

ISAW · 21-11-2006 12:50am

Schuhart wrote:

He dies, and is judged to be a sinner. He asks why, given that he has all the practical issues covered, and gets the answer from God ‘I just didn’t want you to live like that’. To which that person might answer ‘Then why did you put this in my nature?’

Scofflaw, as I see it, is just drawing attention to the arbitrary nature of deeming things to be against some divine law.

But this can be applied to ALL Natural Law Arguments and not just religious ones! "Natural" Law does not have to be derived from God. There is a secular arguement for it as opposed to "positive" Law.

So let me ask you. did the NAZIs do something wrong when they tried to treat Jews the way they did? If they did then tell me what law did they break?

Scofflaw · 21-11-2006 1:29am

Schuhart wrote:

I’m not confident that Scofflaw’s point is being addressed here. (I’m not suggesting you should accept it – just that to my eyes your answers don’t relate to it.)

.....

Scofflaw, as I see it, is just drawing attention to the arbitrary nature of deeming things to be against some divine law.

I am trying to do so, with little hope! I am also trying to show people that they confuse the arbitrary laws with the causal chains - but I have even less hope there. Fortunately, I find the process intrinsically interesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 21-11-2006 1:32am

ISAW wrote:

But this can be applied to ALL Natural Law Arguments and not just religious ones! "Natural" Law does not have to be derived from God. There is a secular arguement for it as opposed to "positive" Law.

So let me ask you. did the NAZIs do something wrong when they tried to treat Jews the way they did? If they did then tell me what law did they break?

They didn't break any natural or (as far as I am aware) existing manmade laws, apart from those covering homicide. They were condemned in the general judgement of the rest of humanity, who then made genocide illegal. The law, in this case, followed the sentiment.

Is this arbitrary? It is at least humans judging humans. Certainly God did not outlaw genocide, but rather encouraged it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Medina · 21-11-2006 10:25am

Scofflaw wrote:

I am trying to do so, with little hope! I am also trying to show people that they confuse the arbitrary laws with the causal chains - but I have even less hope there. Fortunately, I find the process intrinsically interesting.

cordially,
Scofflaw

How weary you must be trying to reason with us poor idiots

JimiTime · 21-11-2006 11:56am

Could someone please tell me where the notion of God knowing Adam would sin before creation, and knowing all of our lives already, came from? I need a biblical reference please.
Thanks.

Asiaprod · 21-11-2006 12:01pm

Medina wrote:

How weary you must be trying to reason with us poor idiots

Your first warning Medina, that type of sarcasm is not for this forum.

Scofflaw, I would request you don't answer.

Zombrex · 21-11-2006 12:17pm

ISAW wrote:

Christ knew he would be crusified. It didnt remove the pain.

Nice straw man (you are getting good at this)

Christ hurt because he was a man, the pain sensors on his skin and muscles sent pain signals to his brain. Since God has no body, or nervious system, it makes very little sense to claim that God can hurt in the way a man can.

The hurt being discussed here emotional hurt. God knew what would happen when He created the universe. The only way to be emotionally hurt by something you choose to do is to be an idiot and not realise that something will happen. I think we can both agree God is not defined as an idiot.

It makes no sense to claim that God, through his own actions, caused an event to happen what would hurt him. How would it hurt him, he knew it would happen and it happened as a direct result of his own actions. Did God hurt himself?

ISAW wrote:

Just because God knows you will chose something does not mean your are made to chose that.

No, but that only holds if God didn't create everything. He did. God created everything knowing how everything would play out. God created the future when He created everything, in one go. It is not possible that God could have created something, known what it would eventually do in the future when He created it, yet not influence this future in anyway.

At least that is the paradox, God would have to create something yet not create it.

ISAW wrote:

Are you claiming you couldnt have betrayed me since I know you did?

I am constantly mazed how many Christians don't understand the concept of their own God.

When you, being God, first created me (in fact when you first created time) you knew I would do that. You create me anyway. How can I betray you if I am only doing that as a result of you creating me? If you didn't create me in the first place I wouldn't do that. You knew I would do that when you created me. The choice of allowing me to betray you or not is actually in your hands, as God, since you decide to create time and existance, knowing everything that will happen as a result of your creation.

ISAW wrote:

Fore knowledge does not mean that one will not be upset

But control over creation does.

God makes a man. In the instant of creation God knows everything this man will ever do, till the end of time. How can this man do anything to hurt God, because God chose to make him. God would be hurting himself as direct consiquence of his action to create the man in the first place.

ISAW wrote:

I though you said you would leave the free will/omniscient chestnut alone.

I have. Adam has free will to eat the apple, in so far as God does not at the moment of sin make him do it.

That doesn't change the fact that God knew Adam would eat the apple before he did, that God knew Adam would eat the apple when God created Adam but created him anyway. So who is ultimatetly responsible for Adam eating that apple, and how can someone claim that such an act was a betrail of God, since God knew Adam would do it yet choose to create him anyway.

What is the standard explination for that?

Zombrex · 21-11-2006 12:36pm

JimiTime wrote:

Could someone please tell me where the notion of God knowing Adam would sin before creation, and knowing all of our lives already, came from? I need a biblical reference please.
Thanks.

The standard Jewish/Christians/Muslims concept of God is an omniscient being which means all knowing (not omnipresent as ISAW points out, though He is supposed to be that as well). All knowing is taken to mean the future as well.

This is backed up by passages such as Is 46

I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.

http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/2006/01/omniscience.html

Zombrex · 21-11-2006 12:42pm

ISAW wrote:

But this can be applied to ALL Natural Law Arguments and not just religious ones!

Not if nature is non-moral.

From a secular point of view saying "But it is in my nature" is irrelivent, since being in your nature does not mean something is or is not moral. Morality is a human construct, and certainly nature will affect a decision on what is moral or not, but simply existing in nature is not enough to argue something is therefore moral.

On the other hand if one assumes that God make humans and also decides morality then the question "But it is in my nature" becomes very relivent, since God chose our nature, and also chose morality. So the question is why did God place things like homosexuality in our nature and then decide that they are sinful? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

JimiTime · 21-11-2006 2:32pm

Wicknight wrote:

The standard Jewish/Christians/Muslims concept of God is an omniscient being which means all knowing (not omnipresent as ISAW points out, though He is supposed to be that as well). All knowing is taken to mean the future as well.

This is backed up by passages such as Is 46

I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.

http://www.cloudsofheaven.org/2006/01/omniscience.html

Indeed, no reference to God knowing peoples destiny or looking into our individual futures. Interestingly enough, the passage you linked to said that 'omniscience, is not mentioned in the bible, just like the trinity is not mentioned'. I see a pattern here, the trinity is a corruption of scripture, just like this idea of omniscience is. Christians, why must you keep maintaining these doctrines of man??

Zombrex · 21-11-2006 3:10pm

JimiTime wrote:

Indeed, no reference to God knowing peoples destiny or looking into our individual futures. Interestingly enough, the passage you linked to said that 'omniscience, is not mentioned in the bible, just like the trinity is not mentioned'. I see a pattern here, the trinity is a corruption of scripture, just like this idea of omniscience is. Christians, why must you keep maintaining these doctrines of man??

I think the author means the word isn't mentioned in the Bible. But then most things aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, they are inferred based on passages.

If God cannot see into the future then God is bound by the same physical laws as we are, since "time" is a property of the universe. This would kinda make it hard for God have created the universe in the first place, no? It also makes the idea of prophecy kinda bizare, since how does God know something will happen?

But then again we are both working on the assumption that all this is supposed to make sense

JimiTime · 21-11-2006 3:30pm

Wicknight wrote:

I think the author means the word isn't mentioned in the Bible. But then most things aren't mentioned specifically in the Bible, they are inferred based on passages.

If God cannot see into the future then God is bound by the same physical laws as we are, since "time" is a property of the universe. This would kinda make it hard for God have created the universe in the first place, no? It also makes the idea of prophecy kinda bizare, since how does God know something will happen?

But then again we are both working on the assumption that all this is supposed to make sense

Except one of us has the desire to get the sense:) Here's the thing, God can manipulate events to occur. Like the birth of Jesus, like the fact that he protected Jesus until the appointed time. Just like the prophesies of World powers. He can have a nation rise up and conquer another. He can put it in their hearts, and has done. If a king has allegience to nothing but his own power, God can choose to give him that power if he so chooses, and has done in the case of the powers through the years. He allowed Babylon power over his people, and he also allowed Rome destroy Jeruselem. These were prophesies. If God says something, its as good as done, but the idea that he knows the destiny of us individually is just an assumption, as is the notion that he knew Adam would sin before creation. For if this was how God operated, he would not have created Satan. Some 'scholars' may argue to the contrary, but my faith certainly sides with the more sensible side.

Zombrex · 21-11-2006 4:33pm

JimiTime wrote:

Some 'scholars' may argue to the contrary, but my faith certainly sides with the more sensible side.

Hey, preaching to the choir here Jimi. Atheists have long pointed out the paradox of a God that created the universe, can see all (including the future) and the notion of free will.

Things work a lot better if God is constrained to time and ignorance of the future as much as we are. But most Christians will disagree that He is, since that would be a constraint on God, and God kinda by definition doesn't have constraints. And you run into the problem that if God is external to time (which is a property of the universe) and created time when He created the universe, how can be be constrained to it.

I will leave it over to the Christians who believe in a God that sees all to argue for that point, as I'm sure they will

JimiTime · 22-11-2006 12:20am

Wicknight wrote:

Hey, preaching to the choir here Jimi. Atheists have long pointed out the paradox of a God that created the universe, can see all (including the future) and the notion of free will.

Things work a lot better if God is constrained to time and ignorance of the future as much as we are. But most Christians will disagree that He is, since that would be a constraint on God, and God kinda by definition doesn't have constraints. And you run into the problem that if God is external to time (which is a property of the universe) and created time when He created the universe, how can be be constrained to it.

I will leave it over to the Christians who believe in a God that sees all to argue for that point, as I'm sure they will

This is a good question, and one that I find is oversimplified by many. I do believe he operates outside of time and space, but chooses how his power is used to the greatest good. The question should be asked, 'after adam sinned, why did the intervention not happen then and there'. Having Faith that God is love, the real questions begin. Asking why, is how you find out someones personality and how they do things, so by asking, in what way was it of benefit for the intervention not to come immediately, lots more is found about the workings of God. We know so little really. Only partial knowledge is what we have.

Zombrex · 22-11-2006 10:23am

JimiTime wrote:

I do believe he operates outside of time and space

But what does that actually mean?

ISAW · 22-11-2006 10:39am

JimiTime wrote:

Could someone please tell me where the notion of God knowing Adam would sin before creation, and knowing all of our lives already, came from? I need a biblical reference please.
Thanks.

Actually if you are a christian you dont! Ypu don't have to say "if it isnt in the Bible than it isnt acceptable". But the Omniscience of God can be taken as a given. Then again it isnt necessarily fundamental. One could have the power to create the Universe and not necessarily know what will happen to it? If one could actually creeate space and time could it be impossible to know the future also?

I read a reply from scofflaw before I logged on. as he is on my ignore list I will try and answer. He seems to suggest that there is "natural law" and that people made laws to find the nazis guilty. but the context of the discussion was the "Golden Age" of Greece and Rome (sonmething the NAZIS glorified) and how I disagreed with the idea that Greek democracy was the same as modern democracy.

First of all making a retroactive penal law is post hoc legislation and not allowed under modern democracy. Second I still ask did the NAZIS do wrong? If as Scorrlaw says there was no law against it and people hadnt decided it was wrong then did they do wrong?

If scofflaw replies than please someone quote it since I will not see it.

Zombrex · 22-11-2006 10:54am

ISAW wrote:

First of all making a retroactive penal law is post hoc legislation and not allowed under modern democracy.

That isn't because the act cannot be wrong until there is a law declaring it is wrong.

Most laws are enacted in reaction to an event that people decide is morally wrong.

ISAW wrote:

Second I still ask did the NAZIS do wrong? If as Scorrlaw says there was no law against it and people hadnt decided it was wrong then did they do wrong?

I can't speak for Scofflaw, but because an event happens before people have the chance to decide if such and event is morally wrong or not doesn't mean that such an event exists in some kinda moral limbo.

The Holocaust happened and then people decided it was wrong. That means it was wrong (to the people).

A better example is the atomic bomb, because it was never used before Japan 1945 so how could anyway make a moral decision on its use except after the case. Most moral decisions are made after the fact.

ISAW · 22-11-2006 11:06am

Wicknight wrote:

Nice straw man (you are getting good at this)

Nice red herring you are getting good at suggesting all arguments you dont like are straw man arguments.

Christ hurt because he was a man, the pain sensors on his skin and muscles sent pain signals to his brain. Since God has no body, or nervious system, it makes very little sense to claim that God can hurt in the way a man can.

Actually christ according to theology was also God! But this actually IS a straw man (all be it one easily defeated). Your point was not about whether someone could physically feel or emotionally feel but whether someone with prescience could be hurt. I just point out that I can say "I am going to slap you in the face.2 you know I am going to do it. I slap you in the face. It does not stop hurting because you knew in advance!

The hurt being discussed here emotional hurt.

So what? "I am going to take you husband" and live with himn even though I know you love him. Does that mean it wont "hurt" when I do it?

God knew what would happen when He created the universe.

Let us take that as a permise.

The only way to be emotionally hurt by something you choose to do is to be an idiot and not realise that something will happen. I think we can both agree God is not defined as an idiot.

thus is very naive in my opinion. very wise people chose to do things they find upsetting to them knowing it will be upsetting. In fact that is one central element of the Crusifiction.

It makes no sense to claim that God, through his own actions, caused an event to happen what would hurt him.

first of all you are adding "causality" to the mix. This is a different argument (and also already dealt with). Causality and free will are not mutually exclusive.

How would it hurt him, he knew it would happen and it happened as a direct result of his own actions. Did God hurt himself?

Aklready dealt with. Knowing an event will happen does not prevent and effect from it.

No, but that only holds if God didn't create everything. He did. God created everything knowing how everything would play out. God created the future when He created everything, in one go.

SAying "God created the future" is using the language of time and causality in an incomprehensible and incoherent way.

It is not possible that God could have created something, known what it would eventually do in the future when He created it, yet not influence this future in anyway.

this is also a question about the nature of causality and not about whether knowing something will happen means that it can not affect you.

At least that is the paradox, God would have to create something yet not create it.

It isnt really a paradox. If you unravel the c"causality" problem form it you can easily see that knowing something does not mean that thing cant hurt you.

I am constantly mazed how many Christians don't understand the concept of their own God.

I am constantly explaining that you are suggesting something to be true when it isnt! One CAN be affected even if one hads foreknowledge.

The choice of allowing me to betray you or not is actually in your hands, as God, since you decide to create time and existance, knowing everything that will happen as a result of your creation.

This is just saying the same as before - that God by the act of creation predetermined the Universe - which is the old "free will" vs "determinism" chestnut.

God makes a man. In the instant of creation God knows everything this man will ever do, till the end of time. How can this man do anything to hurt God, because God chose to make him. God would be hurting himself as direct consiquence of his action to create the man in the first place.

This is the SAME as above. It has been answered. please criticise the answer if you can and dont just repeat the question.

That doesn't change the fact that God knew Adam would eat the apple before he did, that God knew Adam would eat the apple when God created Adam but created him anyway. So who is ultimatetly responsible for Adam eating that apple, and how can someone claim that such an act was a betrail of God, since God knew Adam would do it yet choose to create him anyway.
...
What is the standard explination for that?

You have been given it above. Look up "free will" vs. "determinism" and Presience vs free will and determinism. If there is something you dont understand when you look it up then come back here with it but dont just re state the question.

ISAW · 22-11-2006 11:22am

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't because the act cannot be wrong until there is a law declaring it is wrong.

(This point was not my original point but was brought up in response to the suggestion that positive law is adequate)
REally? well then, in the absence of an actual law on the books, what would determine whether an act was wrong?

Most laws are enacted in reaction to an event that people decide is morally wrong.

that isnt true but So what if it was? This is different to making retroactive law and saying that you can punish people for doing something which wasnt a crime when they did it. It isnt true by the way because as I see it most law is Civil and isnt about absolute wrongs but about torts and personal difference and tax rates and the like.

I can't speak for Scofflaw,

I didnt ask you to. I asked if anyone wiondered why I wasnt addressing any argument he made then all they need do is quote it.

but because an event happens before people have the chance to decide if such and event is morally wrong or not doesn't mean that such an event exists in some kinda moral limbo.

No it doesnt! But why doesent it is my question? According to what principle is it wrong? What is the source of this "moral law" without anyone deciding on it and writing it into law or going by any case law. NAZI gencide for example didnt have case law to refer to or any other written law. Yet people will say it was wrong. According to what was it wrong?

The Holocaust happened and then people decided it was wrong. That means it was wrong (to the people).

Yes but there are two points here. First the consequences for the perpetrators. If it is not against the law to have sex with a fifteen year old and someone does it all the time and then the legal age is made 18 that person cant be held liable under law. But if he does it again it is statutory rape.
Second - and this is my main point- do you REALLY believe the Holocaust was only wrong after it happened and people decided it was wrong? do you not think it was wrong to do it even if theyre was nt a law? so acording to what was it wrong?

A better example is the atomic bomb, because it was never used before Japan 1945 so how could anyway make a moral decision on its use except after the case. Most moral decisions are made after the fact.

Weapons of mass destruction were used before 1945. I would think most people believe the Atomic bamb use was unnecessary and unjustified. Again will the Us face ANY consequences for this? Well they can face LEGAL consequences because there were no laws. Nor can they face legal consequences on torture for protocols they did not sign on white phosphorus. But does that mean it isnt wrong?

NOW! If it does not mean it isnt wrong - i.e. if it is wrong without any law saying so - according to WHAT is it wrong?

ISAW · 22-11-2006 11:26am

Wicknight wrote:

But what does that actually mean?

Yes. I think I see your point. If one is going to make an arguemtn about causality and someone says "God operates outside of causailty" then the wholwe point of discussion is undermined.

The same point has been made of Muslims scholars (I think it is in the Popes comments thread either here or on Irish Skeptics) saying that if God did something which is otherwise morally wrong or illogical that he can do that because he is God and ergo God can be unreasonable.

this is wholly different to God telling us to do something which SEEMS immoral like asking Abraham to kill hios own son.

Scofflaw · 22-11-2006 2:26pm

ISAW wrote:

Yes. I think I see your point. If one is going to make an arguemtn about causality and someone says "God operates outside of causailty" then the wholwe point of discussion is undermined.

The same point has been made of Muslims scholars (I think it is in the Popes comments thread either here or on Irish Skeptics) saying that if God did something which is otherwise morally wrong or illogical that he can do that because he is God and ergo God can be unreasonable.

Interesting context, given the Pope's remarks revoved around contrasting the rational Judeo-Christian God with Allah, who is specifically exempted from the demands of reason in the Qu'ran.

ISAW wrote:

Second I still ask did the NAZIS do wrong? If as Scorrlaw says there was no law against it and people hadnt decided it was wrong then did they do wrong?

There's a number of questions in that. First, the law is not morality, although it is often used to implement morality. Second, when a crime is new, and represents the implementation of morality, it is generally accepted that the law may be made and applied retroactively. Third, people felt that what was done was sufficiently wrong that it should have been clear to any person not criminally insane.

It is instructive to note that many of the perpetrators of the Nazi war crimes did express guilt, which tends to bolster the third point above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 22-11-2006 4:07pm

ISAW wrote:

(This point was not my original point but was brought up in response to the suggestion that positive law is adequate)
REally? well then, in the absence of an actual law on the books, what would determine whether an act was wrong?

You are confusing something being illegal with something being immoral. Morality does not disappear in the absence of a specific law.

ISAW wrote:

No it doesnt! But why doesent it is my question? According to what principle is it wrong?

The principle that one should not inflict suffering on a race of people because you don't like them.

ISAW wrote:

What is the source of this "moral law"

Humanity.

ISAW wrote:

without anyone deciding on it and writing it into law or going by any case law.

I've never written anything into law, does that means I don't have morality, or a sense of right or wrong?

ISAW wrote:

NAZI gencide for example didnt have case law to refer to or any other written law. Yet people will say it was wrong. According to what was it wrong?

God I hope you are trolling.

Morality is not defined by law. Law is defined by morality. You have it completely the wrong way around.

ISAW wrote:

If it is not against the law to have sex with a fifteen year old and someone does it all the time and then the legal age is made 18 that person cant be held liable under law.

Yes, but that is not because such an act is moral at the time. It is because retro-active laws are a bad idea because they are considered very hard to do fairly.

You are confusing legal safe guards with saying something is fine. If someone murders a child but the police get the arrest warrent wrong the trial is thrown out. This is a legal safe guard. It is not the same as saying "It was ok that you killed your child"

ISAW wrote:

Second - and this is my main point- do you REALLY believe the Holocaust was only wrong after it happened and people decided it was wrong?

What do you mean "only" wrong. Everything is "only" something after I've decided it was something. That is the way the human brain works.

For example was your dinner disgusting only after you ate it and decided it was disgusting? Or was it always disgusting?

The second question doesn't make sense because the decision only comes after the fact. "Disgusting" is a construct of the human mind, a conclusion formed by the process of us thinking about and assessing something. So is morality.

Now if you believe in a universal morality, formed possibly by God, you will no doubt disagree. But then the question can always be scaled up. Is something wrong because God decides that it is wrong.

ISAW wrote:

do you not think it was wrong to do it even if theyre was nt a law?

Way too many double negatives there. But if I think I understand my response would be that it is not necessary for a law to exist saying something is wrong for it to be morally wrong. As I said morality comes before the laws, not the other way around.

ISAW wrote:

so acording to what was it wrong?

My judgement.

ISAW wrote:

Again will the Us face ANY consequences for this? Well they can face LEGAL consequences because there were no laws. Nor can they face legal consequences on torture for protocols they did not sign on white phosphorus. But does that mean it isnt wrong?

No. I think that was my original point.

ISAW wrote:

NOW! If it does not mean it isnt wrong - i.e. if it is wrong without any law saying so - according to WHAT is it wrong?

Morally judgement. Where do you think laws come from in the first place?

ISAW · 22-11-2006 5:50pm

Wicknight wrote:

You are confusing something being illegal with something being immoral. Morality does not disappear in the absence of a specific law.

not at all. You might note i am asking questions not making claims. But in any case (as I have stated) I am pointing out traditions in jurisprudence.

What i asked was if something is not legally wrong and it is still regarded as wrong then from what does this definition of wrong come? The answer given is that it is "morally" wrong. And so I ask what ios the source of "moral". You already stated it isnt anything written down. So where do we go to where we can say something is "moral"? Whay or who defines what "morals" are? Now you can't say it is done by people as they go along because the example I gave would be violated i.e. the NAZIS in the absence of a written law wouldnt be doing wrong until people decided it as they went along.

something had to inform people that holocausts are wrong. So what informed them?

The principle that one should not inflict suffering on a race of people because you don't like them.

What do you mean by a "principle"? dont forget we are dealing here with UNWRITTEN guidelines. Are you suggesting there are universal ideas which we can regard as "principles" even though they might not even be written down? Some universal idea such as "one should not inflict suffering on a race of people because you don't like them".

Okay now I just wrote that down but suppose a holocaust happened and there was nothing written as a law against it. Are you saying that tghere is a general principle which even though not written down could be stated in terms like "one should not inflict suffering on a race of people because you don't like them"?

Humanity.

So the human race is the source of this unwritten "moral" law?

I've never written anything into law, does that means I don't have morality, or a sense of right or wrong?

Bt that is my point. I know it doesnt mean that. But i am asking in the absence of positive law what is the source of what is considered "right" or "wrong" . I am attempting by dialog to lead you to a position which is at odds with positive law. And by stating thare is a "sense of right and wrong" you are doing just that. in fact you are almost there.

God I hope you are trolling.
Morality is not defined by law. Law is defined by morality. You have it completely the wrong way around.

and now you are there! You just stated that law is based on morality. morality being something which is prior to and from which positive law and jurisprudence flows. This "morality" may come from god or may come from a humanist source that isnt important for the argument - just that it is emenating from something other than what people come together and write down as law i.e. the spirit of the law.

Now tell me - what is your definition of "natural law"?

Yes, but that is not because such an act is moral at the time. It is because retro-active laws are a bad idea because they are considered very hard to do fairly.

You are confusing legal safe guards with saying something is fine. If someone murders a child but the police get the arrest warrent wrong the trial is thrown out. This is a legal safe guard. It is not the same as saying "It was ok that you killed your child"

I neverstated it was acceptable nor moral. I stated that one can not make a retroactive penalty for something which was not illegal at the time it occured.
It runs against jurisprudence. We cant start arresting people for smoking in pubs before it became illegal. the whole idea is preposterous because it leads to the like of "thoughtcrime" or what was that Science fiction film about arresting people for crimes they will commit in the future?

What do you mean "only" wrong. Everything is "only" something after I've decided it was something. That is the way the human brain works.

so the holocaust is only wrong after you decide it? In fact law would argue that something can be wrong in spite of any view you may or may not have on it. this is a philosophical principle similar to the idea of reality existing whether or not you preceive it.

For example was your dinner disgusting only after you ate it and decided it was disgusting? Or was it always disgusting?

Again more philosophy of universals. "disgusting" is a matter of personal taste. If you are trying to say that a effect cannot preceed a cause that is a different issue. Of course the effect of a slaty taste in my mouth cant preceed the tasting of food but it is a FACT that the food had a large amount of salt in it whether or not I taste it and deem it to be salty. there is a difference between a universal wrong like killing people just because you dont like them and deciding which level of parts per million salt in food is required to define food as "disgustingly salty".

The second question doesn't make sense because the decision only comes after the fact. "Disgusting" is a construct of the human mind, a conclusion formed by the process of us thinking about and assessing something. So is morality.

QED

Now if you believe in a universal morality, formed possibly by God, you will no doubt disagree. But then the question can always be scaled up. Is something wrong because God decides that it is wrong.

What I believe in is beside the point. I asked what jurisprudence is based on. whether it is God or Humanity you admitted it flows from a source which is superior and prior to written Law. This removes your "causality trap". So the point you have yourself arrived at is one of Natural Law.

Way too many double negatives there. But if I think I understand my response would be that it is not necessary for a law to exist saying something is wrong for it to be morally wrong. As I said morality comes before the laws, not the other way around.

So you believe in Natural Law then!

My judgement.

Personal judgement isnt enough. It must be informed. even for a judge.

No. I think that was my original point.
...
Morally judgement. Where do you think laws come from in the first place?

What I think is beside the point! I am asking you about your position and you have ended up mby defining it as accepting "Natural Law" I began by stating

isaw wrote:

But this can be applied to ALL Natural Law Arguments and not just religious ones! "Natural" Law does not have to be derived from God. There is a secular arguement for it as opposed to "positive" Law.

And you took that up and debated it.
It now appears you believe in natural law.

Seperating The Dogma from the Truth!

Comments