Good video...

kelly1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rby5itnDloI

CerebralCortex

Meh. Its exactly what you would expect.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Meh. Its exactly what you would expect.

Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe you missed the point of it?

monosharp

Few things to say.

1. This a complete lie (snopes.com) trying to use the name of a good intelligent man.

2. Einstein didn't believe in a god.

Einstein wrote:

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

3. What is that advertisement promoting ?

Dades

Since both cold and darkness (human concepts, btw) are default natural states, does that mean God created a naturally evil place for us to live?

kelly1

monosharp wrote: »

Few things to say.

1. This a complete lie (snopes.com) trying to use the name of a good intelligent man.

2. Einstein didn't believe in a god.



3. What is that advertisement promoting ?

I'm not terribly interested in whether Albert Einstein said those words and I doubt he did. What interested me about the video is the point that darkness, cold, evil etc are nothing in themselves but rather the absence of their opposite.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe you missed the point of it?

The point, apparently, is that you can't blame God for evil, since the boy is claiming that all evil is is the absence of God, and that secular teaching is corrupting the youth of today.

The argument about evil doesn't make sense at a fundamental level.

To use the boy's own analogy, if I create a room and remove light from the room have I not created a "dark" room. Whether you define darkness as a thing itself or simply as the absence of light it doesn't matter. I'm still creating a room that is dark. God created "darkness" by allowing for light to be blocked, he created darkness when he decided how light would work.

God created evil in the same way. He created the possibility of the absence of good, he created the idea that there can be an absence of good. He created an evil universe, for want of a better term, a universe where evil can exist and thrive.

Nothing can exist in the universe without God deciding that it can exist. Flying unicorns don't exist because God decided they weren't going to exist. Salt exists because God decided it would exist. Humans can't fly because God decided they weren't going to fly. Humans can burn because God decided we could burn.

Even the argument of free will falls down because God decided the parameters of free will, decided what he would allow humans to choose to do.

He created "evil" when he decided that one of the things he would allow humans to do is to be not good (as he created darkness when he decided that light would have the ability to be blocked off).

This is in the same way a video game creator consciously decided to allow the player to kill civilians in a shoot-em up or bomb a friendly town in a flight simulator. The game designer has created the ability to be evil in the game, and has to consciously allow this in the game since nothing is possible in the game without the designer deciding it would be.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Sorry to disappoint you. Maybe you missed the point of it?

Nope I got the point its just a poor one.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not terribly interested in whether Albert Einstein said those words and I doubt he did. What interested me about the video is the point that darkness, cold, evil etc are nothing in themselves but rather the absence of their opposite.

Your applying natural states to a supernatural being. Heat and cold are just human concepts to explain natural phenomenon.

Heat is the transfer of energy, nothing more.

Out of curiosity, do you believe in satan ?

Zombrex

By the way I'm not 100% sure what we are supposed to be discussing here.

Kelly if you wanted this to be a thread discussing how good God is perhaps a Christian Only thread title is required. Otherwise the sceptics/rationalists (Christians or otherwise) are just going to rip this apart since it is a poor argument which flaws have been discussed many times before.

It also uses Einstein as a call to authority which is bound to piss people off since Einstein was not a theist nor is this argument pretty smart, so the implication that it is because Einstein is supposed to have said it is annoying on a number of levels.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

Your applying natural states to a supernatural being.

It also ignores, as ironically so often Christians apologetic arguments do, that God created everything and thus defined the rules not just of what exists but also the states in which they can exist.

In the same way that God decided that light would be something that can be blocked (thus creating darkness) he also decided the same with good, thus creating evil. He could have decided otherwise, as he did with some particles that cannot be blocked and thus exist everywhere.

Turtwig

Pfft how many times do I have you tell you guys

Light is an illusion.
This theory, explains everything.

toiletduck

Where's the ad from? I can see the "Bringing Religion back to schools" bit at the end but am curious if it's aimed at America or where?

Zombrex

Malty_T wrote: »

Pfft how many times do I have you tell you guys

Light is an illusion.
This theory, explains everything.

Some days I wake up thinking that maybe the Creationists will say it has all been a piss take as well .... still waiting

kelly1

Guys, I think it's a good video with an important message. Why can't you just live and let live? You sure know how to spoil what could be a positive thread. As far as I'm concerned, your comments are not welcome.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Guys, I think it's a good video with an important message. Why can't you just live and let live?

Well because this is a discussion forum.

If you want to simply post a video without anyone discussing it post it on your blog.

If you don't want non-Christian discussion stick a Christian Only sign on the thread, though I imagine Christians aren't particularly impressed by this idea any more than non-Christians are.

As it stands this video does 3 things that will annoy people

• It presents a poor and illogical argument for why God is not responsible for evil
• It presents a poor view of secularism in education
• It presents a poor view of Albert Einstein.

What exactly do you think the "important message" is in this video?

Turtwig

Live and let live,

This video is a disgrace, it is disrespectful to both theists and non theists. It is merely a ridiculous appeal from authority, Albert Einstein, behind a fallacious argument that would have Einstein turning in His grave. Einstein's cosmic religion is something of beauty and every time he was asked about it he chose his words very very carefully indeed. This video uses human concepts that were invented (e.g cold,heat) to try to explain the existence of a supernatural being. Fundamentally, flawed because both cold and heat are simply arbitrary defintions of the human mind, neither have definite properties other than what we arbitrarily defined them as.


A better question to ask would be at what point does heat actually become absent?

kelly1

Like this and other threads, posts by atheists are generally hostile.

The professor set out to prove that God is evil using a fallacious argument. The boy questioned the professors assumption that evil is something created.He used the examples of cold and darkness that evil is the result of God's absence in the human heart.

Message 1: God did not create evil. It is a consequence of rejecting God.

Message 2: Secular educators are not providing a balanced education by ignoring or disparaging the spiritual aspect of man. I believe this is very harmful to society.

To monosharp, yes I do believe a fallen angel called Satan exists.

EDIT: And yes I agree that it's wrong to attribute those words to Einsten assuming he said no such thing.

Turtwig

kelly1 wrote: »

Like this and other threads, posts by atheists are generally hostile.

The professor set out to prove that God is evil using a fallacious argument. The boy questioned the professors assumption that evil is something created.He used the examples of cold and darkness that evil is the result of God's absence in the human heart.

Message 1: God did not create evil. It is a consequence of rejecting God.

Message 2: Secular educators are not providing a balanced education by ignoring or disparaging the spiritual aspect of man. I believe this is very harmful to society.

To monosharp, yes I do believe a fallen angel called Satan exists.

I would be really disappointed if it was only atheists that were disagreeing with this video.

The professor's argument is your typical straw man rubbish. No one in their right mind would use such a ridiculous argument to begin with, and Albert Einstein would never say such nonsense as cold being the absence of heat.

Secular educators teach ALL religions, how much fairer can you get??

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Fundamentally, flawed because both cold and heat are simply arbitrary defintions of the human mind, neither have definite properties other than what we arbitrarily defined them as.

A better question to ask would be at what point does heat actually become absent?

Ah, for once scientific discussion is encompassed by the OP so we can discuss it and remain on topic .

No, heat and cold are not arbitrary definitions, not unless you also want to argue that motion and non-motion are also arbitrary.

I'm no scientist, but I understand that heat is created by the movement of atoms within an object. The faster the atoms move, the greater the heat. If the atoms were to cease moving at all (which would occur at -459 degrees Farenhite) then you have reached absolute zero. Apparently it is impossible to get any colder than absolute zero because you can not get less movement than zero movement. So, it would appear to be scientifically correct that 'cold' has no objective existence - increasing coldness is simply a lessening of heat (atom movement).

kelly1

Malty_T wrote: »

The professor's argument is your typical straw man rubbish. No one in their right mind would use such a ridiculous argument to begin with,

Really? I've often heard agruments on this forum from atheists who say that God created evil because He created everything!!

Malty_T wrote: »

...and Albert Einstein would never say such nonsense as cold being the absence of heat.

What?

If you have no heat, you have no vibrating molecules. So cold is something that not there or doesn't happen. In can only be definined in terms of what it's not. It's the state of absence of heat. Yes?

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Like this and other threads, posts by atheists are generally hostile.

Your video is hostile to secularism, hostile to reasoning and hostile to a great scientist.

kelly1 wrote: »

The professor set out to prove that God is evil using a fallacious argument.

Kelly this didn't happen, it is an urban myth invented by religious people trying to co-opt Einstein as one of their own.

The "professor" is an actor. The purpose of the professor in the first place is to be humiliated by this little kid. It is a literal straw man.

kelly1 wrote: »

The boy questioned the professors assumption that evil is something created.He used the examples of cold and darkness that evil is the result of God's absence in the human heart.

Which is a poor and illogical argument.

The "professor" shut up about it rather than going to school on the kid because the professor is an actor and the purpose of this ad is to present the kids argument uncritically for political aims. Stick Richard Dawkins in there and the kid would probably be crying by the end of the ad.

Imagine if anti-theists made a video with a Sunday school teacher teaching that Jesus came to promote peace and love and then a little kid jumped up and said the infamous (and often misquoted) line about Jesus coming with a sword.

The Sunday school teacher looks shocked and sits down quietly, defeated by the Biblical knowledge of this child, who has exposed the lie of Jesus and peace. Impressive? Not one bit. Your average Christian would spend no time pointing out the flaw in such an advertisement and that it is either stupidly ignorant of the Bible or deliberately deceitful.

kelly1 wrote: »

Message 1: God did not create evil. It is a consequence of rejecting God.

Message 2: Secular educators are not providing a balanced education by ignoring or disparaging the spiritual aspect of man.

Secular educators don't disparage the spiritual aspect of man, there are far far too many religions to cover it would take them all day.

This advertisement is setting up a straw man argument, that secular teachers attempt to disprove God in class rooms, which in fact ignores the who point of secularism.

A secular teacher could not spend time attempting to disprove the existence of one god because he would have then spend time attempting to disprove the existence of all the other gods! Giving time just to disproving your god would be anti-secularist.

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe this is very harmful to society.

Start a thread about that then. Or have that as the topic of this thread. But be prepared for discussion, that is the point of a discussion forum. And be prepared for input from secularists and atheists when they are the ones your post directly deals with.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Ah, for once scientific discussion is encompassed by the OP so we can discuss it and remain on topic .

No, heat and cold are not arbitrary definitions, not unless you also want to argue that motion and non-motion are also arbitrary.

I'm no scientist, but I understand that heat is created by the movement of atoms within an object. The faster the atoms move, the greater the heat. If the atoms were to cease moving at all (which would occur at -459 degrees Farenhite) then you have reached absolute zero. Apparently it is impossible to get any colder than absolute zero because you can not get less movement than zero movement. So, it would appear to be scientifically correct that 'cold' has no objective existence - increasing coldness is simply a lessening of heat (atom movement).

Coolio

Yep hotness and coldness are merely a measure of heat. And you are right unless you are going into the whole origins of definition malarky (motion /non motion) then heat can never be actually absent. If you get into that malarky then the concept of heat is now called Malty

Turtwig

kelly1 wrote: »

If you have no heat, you have no vibrating molecules. So cold is something that not there or doesn't happen. In can only be definined in terms of what it's not. It's the state of absence of heat. Yes?

No not at all,

Heat is the term given to a flow of energy of a system, Hot and Cold are relative measures of temperature which is the measure of heat energy. There is no fixed point where we can say cold begins and heat ends.

If heat is absent the temperature would not change (I'm not sure it would even exist?), so coldness and hotness have no meaning.

I don't think the absence of heat is actually possible though..

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ah, for once scientific discussion is encompassed by the OP so we can discuss it and remain on topic .

No, heat and cold are not arbitrary definitions, not unless you also want to argue that motion and non-motion are also arbitrary.

I'm no scientist, but I understand that heat is created by the movement of atoms within an object. The faster the atoms move, the greater the heat. If the atoms were to cease moving at all (which would occur at -459 degrees Farenhite) then you have reached absolute zero. Apparently it is impossible to get any colder than absolute zero because you can not get less movement than zero movement. So, it would appear to be scientifically correct that 'cold' has no objective existence - increasing coldness is simply a lessening of heat (atom movement).

I think what he means is that "hot" and "cold" are just arbitary pointers on the scale of atomic movement.

Is -458 degrees F "hot" because it is 1 degree higher on the scale than absolute zero? Or is it "cold" because it is hundreds of degrees lower on the scale than room temp? It depends on where you starting your scale.

As for cold not "existing", heat is really just movement, so it could be argued that it is an inaccurate way of looking at things as well. "heat" is simply a human classification for a form of kinetic energy.

I should also just point out I'm shooting the breeze here, none of this is important to the flaw in "Einstein's" logic, that being that God created the rules of the universe thus deciding what can exist and not exist.

homer911

Well -458F has "heat" because atoms are moving and generating it!

While I personally like the video, (it shows hows arguments can be manipulated as per this thread), I think the comparison of hot and cold is not the same as good/evil

Heat has an infinite one-way scale, starting at -459 F / -273 C / 0k (take your pick)

Light also has an infinite one-way scale, (measured in lumens?)

Good/Evil has an infinite scale in opposite directions - if people can be either good or evil then they can also be neither good nor evil.

I therefore dont think its a fair argument, although I do appreciate the video and the point it is trying to make

(Thanks Noel)

Soul Winner

Seeing that all this started with the premise that 'if God exists then He is evil' let us stick with that premise for a min.

If God exists then He must have created evil. He created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for instance. The evil was there (all be it abstractly) before it was chosen by man. But God creating evil means that God was before evil which means that God cannot be evil Himself because evil came after God. But that doesn't mean that God can't do evil things. Things that we see as evil. God used evil to punish His people in the Old Testament but that doesn't mean that God is intrinsically evil.

If God doesn't exist then evil doesn't exist. What we perceive as being evil in a world without God is just stuff that we don't like. It is all relative to our tastes. That's it. If all that exists in nature is nature then everything in nature is natural even what we call evil.

So in a sense both the kid and the professor are wrong. The professor in that he thinks that if God exists then He is evil and the kid in that he thinks that evil is some sort of a vacuum or simply the absence of good. It's not, it was created and therefore cannot be used a basis for saying either God doesn't exist or that He Himself is evil.

Sam Vimes

Soul Winner wrote: »

If God doesn't exist then evil doesn't exist. What we perceive as being evil in a world without God is just stuff that we don't like. It is all relative to our tastes. That's it. If all that exists in nature is nature then everything in nature is natural even what we call evil.

I wish people would stop saying this. It's not to anyone's "tastes" to have harm done to them for no overriding purpose. A desire not to have your family brutally murdered is not a "taste"

Zulu

Humpff. It's pretty sad that the theists don't even get peace in a Christianity forum.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what he means is that "hot" and "cold" are just arbitary pointers on the scale of atomic movement.

Is -458 degrees F "hot" because it is 1 degree higher on the scale than absolute zero? Or is it "cold" because it is hundreds of degrees lower on the scale than room temp? It depends on where you starting your scale.

No, I don't think that's correct. Absolute zero is not an arbitrary point at which to start a scale. It is the point at which there is no movement. Therefore nothing can exist, even theoretically, on any scale below that point (unless we are proposing a concept of minus-movement).

-458 may not be 'hot' (a relative term) - but it is 'hotter' (an objective term) than -459 because sufficient movement now exists to create one degree of heat.

If you argue that cold exists, then you should also argue that motionlessness, and even non-existence, have an objective reality.

AFAIK there is no upper limit for heat - no such thing as 'absoute heat'. This is because, no matter how fast you can get atoms to move, there is always the possibility that at some stage in the future you can get them to move slightly faster.

It may be helpful to think of temperature as a scale running from zero to infinity. You can reach zero. You cannot go below zero. But you never reach infinity. That is because heat has objective existence and so can always be increased. Cold is the absence of heat, and once all heat is gone then coldness cannot be increased.

I would think that light and dark operate similarly. We speak of the speed of light, but not the speed of darkness. I can imagine a concept of absolute darkness - but absolute light?

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

AFAIK there is no upper limit for heat - no such thing as 'absoute heat'. This is because, no matter how fast you can get atoms to move, there is always the possibility that at some stage in the future you can get them to move slightly faster.

There is a contender for the highest number..10^32 Kelvin namely Big Bang time..

but here's an interesting mind muddle for anyone interested.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html

toiletduck

Gah, heat is the transfer of energy! Wick said it best earlier.

Zulu wrote: »

Humpff. It's pretty sad that the theists don't even get peace in a Christianity forum.

Well the thread is not marked with [Christian Only] tags...

PDN wrote:

AFAIK there is no upper limit for heat - no such thing as 'absoute heat'. This is because, no matter how fast you can get atoms to move, there is always the possibility that at some stage in the future you can get them to move slightly faster.

Until they (atoms) tear themselves apart! Like precited to occur at a "Big Rip" end to this universe.

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

Like this and other threads, posts by atheists are generally hostile.

Whereas posting a video which insults common sense, common intelligence and a great man of science is ..... fine ?

The professor set out to prove that God is evil using a fallacious argument.

The 'professor' is an actor using an argument set up to be destroyed.

The boy questioned the professors assumption that evil is something created.

The boy is an actor given the right material to take down an argument set up to be destroyed.

He used the examples of cold and darkness that evil is the result of God's absence in the human heart.

Which is complete nonsense as already shown here multiple times.

'Heat' and 'Cold' are human concepts for natural states of being.

Message 1: God did not create evil. It is a consequence of rejecting God.

Evil and good are human concepts which vary wildly with each person.

Message 2: Secular educators are not providing a balanced education by ignoring or disparaging the spiritual aspect of man. I believe this is very harmful to society.

So you would rather they teach Buddhism ? Buddhism is by far the most peaceful of religions today.

To monosharp, yes I do believe a fallen angel called Satan exists.

So Satan is the cold to Gods heat eh ? So on a power scale out of 10, how powerful is Satan assuming god's a 10.

(Yes this is a nonsense question, the same as the ones in the video)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't think that's correct.

Yeah you make some good points, about the scale being a scale from zero to infinite (you are correct there is actually no upper limit to temperature but for more complicated reasons that the molecules can always keep vibrating as this is limited to general relativity and the speed of light, but other factors like time go to infinity at these points), so yes you can think of the scale adding and "cooling" as subtracting, which is the absence of something rather than something itself.

My point was more to do with the relative scales that we assign "hot" and "cold" to, again like speed, become relative to something else, and are arbitrary. If you think of the scale from zero to infinite something is always hot since it is always above zero.

Like I said, just shooting the breeze.

toiletduck

monosharp wrote: »

So Satan is the cold to Gods heat eh ? So on a power scale out of 10, how powerful is Satan assuming god's a 10.

We were taught in school that God's power is a 7 (out of 7) and Satan's is a 6...

Don't think it's official Catholic teaching but it definitely came up on a test! :pac:

monosharp

toiletduck wrote: »

We were taught in school that God's power is a 7 (out of 7) and Satan's is a 6...

Don't think it's official Catholic teaching but it definitely came up on a test! :pac:

How can poor old Satan upgrade ?

homer911

toiletduck wrote: »

We were taught in school that God's power is a 7 (out of 7) and Satan's is a 6...

Don't think it's official Catholic teaching but it definitely came up on a test! :pac:

I would personally put Satan, as a created being, at 1 out of 7 - thats the part that's both scary and amazing!

PDN

I tried to watch the video, but it froze my laptop (absence of heat?) - so I'm not going to risk trying to watch it again.

I feel uncomfortable with stuff that tries to make apologetic points with fictional stories - it's seems too much like the stuff that you get in the infamous Chick Publications tracts.

I feel the same when I read some of the anecdotes on the A&A forum about what someone claims a Christian once said to them etc. I always find myself suspecting that they're making it up, particularly when it reports something preposterous that I've never heard from any real Christians in over 25 years of Christian ministry.

Also, I think this is one thread where no one can legitimately gripe about atheist hostility since the OP itself was a bit of a slam at atheism. I would, as a moderator, feel pretty uncomfortable with having a thread that presented an atheist strawman but then requested Christian responses only. That would seem like an abuse of privilege to me.

In recent discussion about our Charter some posters have drawn comparisons with how the A&A forum is moderated, but the two are very different fora. I cannot see us ever allowing, for example, Christian posters to run any equivalent of the Religious Humour thread.

We are attempting to limit, indeed to eliminate, the trolling that has been spoiling this forum for so many, but that requires a measure of responsibility from ourselves. We cannot claim protection from the Charter on the one hand, but then behave in a similar fashion ourselves.

From how the video has been described to me, I think the points about the absence of heat and light are indeed worthy of discussion. In fact I would love to see a thoughtful discussion about theodicy and the problem of evil where Christians could explore their views without some halfwit hijacking it and turning it into an 'us versus them' thing again.

But if the point of any thread is to attack atheism then it would be better posted in the A&A where atheists can respond without the restrictions imposed by the Christianity Charter.

Hope that all makes sense!

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

I feel uncomfortable with stuff that tries to make apologetic points with fictional stories - it's seems too much like the stuff that you get in the infamous Chick Publications tracts.

I agree with you there. I didn't really believe that Einstein said those words and it would have been a good idea if I'd stated that.

What struck me about the video was the metaphors of darkness and cold for evil. I think evil can accurately described as the absence of love.

Having said that, I don't think it should come as a surprise that some atheists use the existence of evil to argue that God is the author of evil. And I think the video does a reasonable job of demonstrating the weakness of this argument.

PDN wrote: »

Also, I think this is one thread where no one can legitimately gripe about atheist hostility since the OP itself was a bit of a slam at atheism. I would, as a moderator, feel pretty uncomfortable with having a thread that presented an atheist strawman but then requested Christian responses only. That would seem like an abuse of privilege to me.

I never took the video to be a portrayal of actual events but saw it as a drama that shows an example of erroneous thinking by atheists.

I'm just sorry I ever started this thread.

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm just sorry I ever started this thread.

I think all of us know that feeling!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Having said that, I don't think it should come as a surprise that some atheists use the existence of evil to argue that God is the author of evil. And I think the video does a reasonable job of demonstrating the weakness of this argument.

Getting back on topic, I think this is the bit no one is following. How do you think it does that?

Even if evil is the "absence of good" (what is "good"?), did God not author this when he decided what good was? If a property of good is that it can be absense, then God decided this when he decided everything else, thus authoring evil.

To use the light analogy, God authored darkness when he decided that light was a high wave length that can be blocked by solid objects, as opposed to say radio waves. This created darkness in places where light can't shine.

Didn't God do exactly the same thing with good and evil?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Even if evil is the "absence of good" (what is "good"?), did God not author this when he decided what good was?

To my mind the "good" in basically unselfish, self-sacrificing love.

Wicknight wrote: »

If a property of good is that it can be absense....

You mean good can be absent? Yes, of couse. So God allowed for the possibility for good not to exist but He doesn't will it to be so.

Wicknight wrote: »

, then God decided this when he decided everything else, thus authoring evil.

When you say "author", you seem to suggest that God created evil. God only allows it to happen, he doesn't cause it. I think God allows evil to happen in order to give us free will and as a means for us to decide whether we're for or against Him and thus fit to live in His presence eternally.

Wicknight wrote: »

To use the light analogy, God authored darkness when he decided that light was a high wave length that can be blocked by solid objects, as opposed to say radio waves. This created darkness in places where light can't shine.

I think you're taking the analogy too far! The analogy is only meant to explain that darkness doesn't actually have any real, objective existence. It could be more accurately described as nothing rather than something.

Wicknight wrote: »

Didn't God do exactly the same thing with good and evil?

No, for the reason given above.

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

You mean good can be absent? Yes, of couse. So God allowed for the possibility for good not to exist but He doesn't will it to be so.

When you're omniscient, omnipotent and outside time, as in when you know exactly how the world is going to play out from start to finish and you know exactly what the result of "allowing good not to exist" will be, what is the difference between allowing something and willing it?

I could compare it to getting information that the president is about to be shot and choosing to to pass it on. By my inaction I am effectively willing it to happen, a sin by omission to use religious terminology. And I'm not even all powerful.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

To my mind the "good" in basically unselfish, self-sacrificing love.

Ok, and how did God "create" that?

kelly1 wrote: »

You mean good can be absent? Yes, of couse. So God allowed for the possibility for good not to exist but He doesn't will it to be so.

Of course he did, nothing would happen unless God wills it, that is the point.

Again take the analogy of the video game designer. Nothing gets in the video game without him deciding to put it in there. So if the video game designers allows for the player to kill civilians or bomb a friendly city, that was placed in there. The designer willed that such an ability exists, he could have easily willed otherwise.

kelly1 wrote: »

When you say "author", you seem to suggest that God created evil.

If God "created" good then he also created evil.

kelly1 wrote: »

God only allows it to happen, he doesn't cause it.

He doesn't cause good either does he? How does God cause "unselfish, self-sacrificing love." He can give us that, and he creates us with the ability to give it as well, and he also created us with the ability to give evil. Thus he created both good and evil.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think God allows evil to happen in order to give us free will and as a means for us to decide whether we're for or against Him and thus fit to live in His presence eternally.

Why he created evil is irrelevant to the question of did he.

kelly1 wrote: »

I think you're taking the analogy too far! The analogy is only meant to explain that darkness doesn't actually have any real, objective existence. It could be more accurately described as nothing rather than something.

Well more accurately it can be described as a position of the scale from absolute absense of light and light everywhere. God made that scale, thus creating points on this scale of darkness.

Equally God made the scale from evil to good, and decided how far the scale extends into the "evil" range. Thus he created evil as much as good.

The scale that God created is -

Evil                                  Not that Good                   Good
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|


It could have been 

Not that Good                          Good
       |------------------------------------------|

It wasn't, for some reason. Thus God created evil.

Morbert

Ummm... If the kid is Einstein then why the hell is the energy-momentum equation on the blackboard?

Turtwig

Morbert wrote: »

Ummm... If the kid is Einstein then why the hell is the energy-momentum equation on the blackboard?

Well he had to have gotten the idea from somewhere.
Here's how I think it went down,

Einstein was so passionate about that argument that he wanted to disprove everything his professor had said during that class. Unfortunately all he could do was merely prove his professor right again. Einstein kept part of his GR applications secret, invented a temporal incursion weapon of some sort and removed the professor from all existence.


More importantly,
*I needz yourz observzationz skillz*

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

I tried to watch the video, but it froze my laptop (absence of heat?) - so I'm not going to risk trying to watch it again.

I feel uncomfortable with stuff that tries to make apologetic points with fictional stories - it's seems too much like the stuff that you get in the infamous Chick Publications tracts.

I feel the same when I read some of the anecdotes on the A&A forum about what someone claims a Christian once said to them etc. I always find myself suspecting that they're making it up, particularly when it reports something preposterous that I've never heard from any real Christians in over 25 years of Christian ministry.

PDN while I do agree with you that probably most A&A stories are made up, you can hardly compare claiming Albert Einstein said something to 'A Christian guy I met down the pub' said something.

And while I agree with you most stories are probably fake, you cannot admit that because of the extremely large number of people who claim to be christians that these stories are hardly far fetched.

Think of Fred Phelps, think of creationists. These people say things that would make puppys cry.

Also, I think this is one thread where no one can legitimately gripe about atheist hostility since the OP itself was a bit of a slam at atheism. I would, as a moderator, feel pretty uncomfortable with having a thread that presented an atheist strawman but then requested Christian responses only. That would seem like an abuse of privilege to me.

+1

Soul Winner

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I could compare it to getting information that the president is about to be shot and choosing to to pass it on. By my inaction I am effectively willing it to happen, a sin by omission to use religious terminology. And I'm not even all powerful.

Don't you mean not choosing to pass it on? Anyway even if you did choose to not pass that information on, and the assassin decided to change his mind on the way to his dastardly deed, would you have still done something wrong even though the president wasn’t actually shot? The way I see it, the only way you could be effectively willing it to happen would be to persuade said assassin to carry out the deed that he has changed his mind on or indeed to grab the gun off him and do it yourself.

God allowing things to happen is not the same as Him willing them to happen. For me to allow my child to fall down in a part of the garden I specifically told her not to play in is not the same as me willing for it to happen. I’d be happy if she never fell in that part of the garden as I don't want her to be there anyway. But if the fall will teach her what I mean about not going to that part of the garden then I’m willing to let that happen but not willing that it should necessarily happen just for the sake of her getting hurt.

There is a difference between willing something to happen and allowing it to happen, you could be allowing it to happen in order that some good might come out of it. Same with God. All the bad things that have happened to me in my life have always taught me something beneficial that I would never have been taught had they not happened. You have to look at the bigger picture, and if God exists then He knows the bigger picture and allows things to happen that seem bad at the time but end up benefitting in the end.

I believe God created the possibility for evil, and how He did that was to give His creatures free will. If He wanted His creatures to act in a way that was perfectly good then He could have done that, but then we would just be like robots doing what we were programmed to do, like all other wild animals do. What He seems to treasure more than anything else is His creatures freely giving Him their love when they could do otherwise. In order to get this He had to risk sin. Sin simply being the misuse of freedom.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Some days I wake up thinking that maybe the Creationists will say it has all been a piss take as well .... still waiting

Replace "Creationists" with "atheists" and we have an agreement. :pac:

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

God allowing things to happen is not the same as Him willing them to happen. For me to allow my child to fall down in a part of the garden I specifically told her not to play in is not the same as me willing for it to happen. I’d be happy if she never fell in that part of the garden as I don't want her to be there anyway. But if the fall will teach her what I mean about not going to that part of the garden then I’m willing to let that happen but not willing that it should necessarily happen just for the sake of her getting hurt.

It is if you created the garden and the child because you set up the possibility of this to happen, coupled with the fact your supposed to be omnipotent.

So if you created a child with a mind not capable of understanding danger and then sent her into a garden with a dangerous ledge and told her not to go there and then went off down the pub for a few hours (but apparently know everything thats happening and have the power to change it) then yes you are completely responsible.

You created the child, you know how her mind workds, you created the garden, you know what will happen, you do nothing to stop it. You are responsible.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

It is if you created the garden and the child because you set up the possibility of this to happen, coupled with the fact your supposed to be omnipotent.

So if you created a child with a mind not capable of understanding danger and then sent her into a garden with a dangerous ledge and told her not to go there and then went off down the pub for a few hours (but apparently know everything thats happening and have the power to change it) then yes you are completely responsible.

You created the child, you know how her mind workds, you created the garden, you know what will happen, you do nothing to stop it. You are responsible.

That would be true if I said nothing about the dangers to my child but once the warnings go out then she has responsibility to take my word for it. Don't go near that part of the garden. We are all responsible for our own sins not God.