Stephen Fry and Gay Byrne

antiskeptic

challengemaster wrote: »

That's a neat way of packaging it. However - there's two ways to look at this and reach the same conclusion:

1. God created life, therefore god created death

The notion of creation involves bring something into being. Versions of nothing (death) isn't bringing something into being. It's not a package, it's the way it is.

First time death was mentioned? By god. Either way it's pretty obvious that God created death.

God pointed to what would be in the absence of. Death/nothing.

You don't create nothing, do you.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

What you described there is entropy.

I know. Gradual decay leading to death.

Delirium

Death is ceasing to live, death cannot exist without life.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

The notion of creation involves bring something into being. Versions of nothing (death) isn't bringing something into being. It's not a package, it's the way it is.

Deciding to create something that has a finite existence is creating the concept of no longer existing. Since when God did this the only thing that had ever existed was God himself and he was eternal God was creating something new when he decided to create the concept.

Thus in terms of life forms it is creating "death".

The alternative would be to create beings that last forever. Beings that last for ever already existed since God lasts for ever, but a being that could die was a novelty that had not previous existed until God made it.

If that is not creating "death" I don't know what would be.

Zubeneschamali

Gits_bone wrote: »

I believe more people are dying at a younger age now. (excluding accidents).

Higher mortality due to cancer is often associated with longer life.

Cancer is what eventually gets you if you survive everything else.

challengemaster

antiskeptic wrote: »

The notion of creation involves bring something into being.

Exactly. And until such a point that God created death, it did not exist.

robindch

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Much like martial arts, the person who thinks they know a lot are the ones who know the least.

I have two words at this point - Dunning and Kruger and their wonderful paper.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

That isn't what I'm asking.

I'm asking did God have any choice in what reality the consequence of the Fall would produce? Could he have decided to swap out cancer and replace it with something else? Could have have decided that actually parasites in the eyeballs of children was not what he wanted in a post-Fall landscape and not gone with a creation that includes that in the rules of what a post-Fall landscape would look like

How much, if any, of the detail of what a post Fall reality would look like was in the control of God and how much was he forced to include.

There isn't a clear answer on this specific thing but there are hints to be had from elsewhere.

In Job, the Devil is permitted to bring all kinds of affliction onto Job, but his is not permitted to kill him. These afflictions are physical as well as circumstantial and a matter of the Devils choice

People frequently protest about the cruelty of the world and ask how God could allow this happen to his children. People aren't born God's children, rather, they can be born again and become adopted children of God. Up to that point they are described as children of the Devil. This realm of ours "is under the sway and rule of the wicked one". In other words, the dominionship that was given Adam was handed over to Satan. He has authority down here.

I would conclude therefore, that Satan is the one who powers the decay we see around - it's part and parcel of what he's about and the product fits his MO. But God is the one who permits him to operate and presumably sets boundaries for that operation as he did in the case of Job.

I would also conclude God's hands bound to play by particular rules. He set things up so as to give man choice and would have had to render the potential downsides of that choice equal in magnitude as the potential upsides - so as not to tilt the balance in the choice given. That potential is fully found in our eternal existence: exquisite in the case of 'Heaven' and ' agonizing in the case of 'Hell'. Our life here offers, and must offer us, a taste of both sides.

Fry states "[he] didn't have to do that".

You seem to be suggesting he did, that there was no choice in how a post-Fall reality would be, that if God wanted consequences to us disobeying him he HAD to include this specific version of a post-Fall world, with all the details such as cancer and parasites, that there is only ONE type of post-Fall world that can exists so if you want the possibility of a Fall (and God wanted us to be able to choose to reject him) you HAVE to go with this one.

Would that be what you believe?

I don't think it necessarily had to be this one but had to be balanced. If not cancer then something equally appalling. Or take away cancer and take away an equal portion of that which gives joy.

I think God was bound, in giving us a choice, to make that choice balanced.

mikom

Stephen Fry,
Gay Byrne

Can't you all see the it is a sign from god that we must atone for our sins of face the flames of hell.

As an aside I hear the cameraman who filmed the show went by the name of John PitchForkUpYourArse....

antiskeptic

challengemaster wrote: »

Exactly. And until such a point that God created death, it did not exist.

Death isn't something. It's nothing. Like darkness is nothing.

I don't mind you winning some or other semantical game. If you want to consider God as having created nothing as an act of creation then be my guest.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

Deciding to create something that has a finite existence is creating the concept of no longer existing.

But it's just a concept. Non-existence isn't anything as such.

Beings that last for ever already existed since God lasts for ever, but a being that could die was a novelty that had not previous existed until God made it.

When man made the electric lightbulb there was a big hullabaloo. Nobody clapped when the lightbulb was turned off. Darkness isn't created, it's whats there when theres no life. Similarly, with death.

But as I say, I'm happy to have folk say God created death by virtue of turning off the light.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't think it necessarily had to be this one but had to be balanced. If not cancer then something equally appalling. Or take away cancer and take away an equal portion of that which gives joy.

I think God was bound, in giving us a choice, to make that choice balanced.

Bound by what or whom? You seem to suggest Satan, but my understanding is that Satan is a lesser being to God.

silverharp

antiskeptic wrote: »

People frequently protest about the cruelty of the world and ask how God could allow this happen to his children. People aren't born God's children, rather, they can be born again and become adopted children of God. Up to that point they are described as children of the Devil. This realm of ours "is under the sway and rule of the wicked one". In other words, the dominionship that was given Adam was handed over to Satan. He has authority down here.

I would conclude therefore, that Satan is the one who powers the decay we see around - it's part and parcel of what he's about and the product fits his MO.

But the dinasours died out before humans evolved so the dog eat dog nature of the natural world was set in motion by god preumably. So god did create the flesh eating insects etc.

RikuoAmero

People aren't born God's children,

Not what my priests told me when I was growing up...

Up to that point they are described as children of the Devil.

a.k.a. evil

Yup, I'm going to back to ignoring you, if you have this sick twisted mental image of newborn children. Enjoy your self-loathing.

Zubeneschamali

silverharp wrote: »

But the dinasours died out before humans evolved

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

When man made the electric lightbulb there was a big hullabaloo. Nobody clapped when the lightbulb was turned off. Darkness isn't created, it's whats there when theres no life. Similarly, with death.

Darkness is created if you create a universe which can have photons and can have absence of photons. If the universe was filled with photons darkness could not exist.

For death to be a thing that happens you must create beings that are not eternal. God created beings that are not eternal, thus introduced the concept of death into his creation.

It may seem obvious that death is a thing but it is only obvious if you have already established the idea of beings with finite life spans. To eternal beings in another universe saying "You guys get what death is, right?" would be like explaining colour to a blind man.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

Bound by what or whom? You seem to suggest Satan, but my understanding is that Satan is a lesser being to God.

Bound by himself. He created us, wanted us to come into a relationship of pure love but had to give us the option of refusing what he was offering. I say 'had to' because there is no other way, per definition, of having a loving relationship other than it be freely embarked upon.

And so a balanced choice was offered. And this life of ours is the stage were that choice of ours is made. The precursor to the main event .. as it were.

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Not what my priests told me when I was growing up...



a.k.a. evil

Yup, I'm going to back to ignoring you, if you have this sick twisted mental image of newborn children. Enjoy your self-loathing.

How can you ignore someone who's being quoted hither and thither. It's beyond me.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

I say 'had to' because there is no other way, per definition, of having a loving relationship other than it be freely embarked upon.

Hence little kids die of bone cancer.

See, it all makes sense!

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

Bound by himself. He created us, wanted us to come into a relationship of pure love but had to give us the option of refusing what he was offering. I say 'had to' because there is no other way, per definition, of having a loving relationship other than it be freely embarked upon.

Yeah I'm ok with that. Gives us a choice, must be freely embarked upon. But the question is why the consequences of not choosing that?

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so a balanced choice was offered.

Ok, but why did it have to be a "balanced" choice, "balanced" apparently meaning we must suffer for not choosing to love God?

We don't generally punish people for choosing not to love us. Aside from being immoral and evil doesn't that also take away from the "freely embarked upon" bit of what you said above.

There is a significant difference from a man asking a woman to marry him and a man asking a woman to marry him with a gun to her head, wouldn't you agree? If the man was hurt by the rejection I might feel sorry for him. But I wouldn't entertain the notion that for the sake of "balance" he must now hurt her.

You seem to genuinely not be able to imagine that the choice for not choosing God was not required to be bad for humans, that there is no logical law that says it must be. If it was God choose that it would be, like the man choosing that the consequences for not marrying him would be a bullet to the head. And this choice is evil. Not simply unnecessary, but evil.

If you say God is not punishing us but merely letting us live with the consequences of choosing not to love him we are back to WHO DECIDED what the consequences of not loving him would be. Why are the consequence of not loving him simply nothing bad?

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

Darkness is created if you create a universe which can have photons and can have absence of photons. If the universe was filled with photons darkness could not exist.

The universe consists of stuff and lots of nothing in between. You don't have to create the nothing in between. It's there already (which you can't actually say since darkness and emptiness isn't anything to refer to as it)

For death to be a thing

Its not a thing, it's the absence of a thing. It's a concept alright, and one that exists in relation to something that is more than a concept. But it doesn't have to be created in and of itself.

It may seem obvious that death is a thing but it is only obvious if you have already established the idea of beings with finite life spans. To eternal beings in another universe saying "You guys get what death is, right?" would be like explaining colour to a blind man.

Like I say, I'm happy that God created nothing/death if only in it's necessarily being a concept brought about by the creation of something/life.

What difference does it make?

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

The universe consists of stuff and lots of nothing in between. You don't have to create the nothing in between. It's there already (which you can't actually say since darkness and emptiness isn't anything to refer to as it)

What was there "already" except God? If God creates a big space with nothing in it he has created nothingness. If God creates a big space and fills it entirely then nothingness doesn't exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Its not a thing, it's the absence of a thing. It's a concept alright, and one that exists in relation to something that is more than a concept. But it doesn't have to be created in and of itself.

If the only thing that exists is an eternal being then death as a concept does not exist in reality. It must therefore be created.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Like I say, I'm happy that God created nothing/death if only in it's necessarily being a concept brought about by the creation of something/life.

What difference does it make?

The difference is that death becomes part of God's chosen design, not simply an inevitable consequence of that design out of control of God.

Or to put it another way, disconnection from the source of life does not bring death unless God chooses that it will. Self sustaining eternal beings don't, by definition, require a source of continued life since they are self sustaining and cannot die anyway.

The fact that we are neither of those things was a choice by God. Thus he created death. Not simply as a concept but as a possibility. Up until that point it was a concept alien to reality.

antiskeptic

TheLurker wrote: »

Yeah I'm ok with that. Gives us a choice, must be freely embarked upon. But the question is why the consequences of not choosing that?

The nature of what was on offer is to be woven into God's life. It wasn't something detached from him, like an eternal summer holiday. Since the offer involved us partaking "of the divine nature", the corollary had to match by way of something opposite.

And what is opposite of God is a more intense version of the worst of what we see here: God is self-sacrificing, opposite God is utterly selfish. God is love, opposite God is hate. God wants the best for us, opposite God desire to use us to own end no matter what the cost to us.

I read a very good book on the environment of Hell some time back. It argued that Hell didn't contain flaming pits or elevated temperatures. What it did contain was individuals who had been stripped of all the image of God in which they had been made: that which makes us generous, kind, selfless, courageous, relational, etc. The creature in Hell would be utterly repulsive to you, even if your own mother - since all that made her attractive and wonderful to you was no longer part of her.

If you reject what God is about then you are stripped of what God is about (we all (bar perhaps those who've already sold their soul to the Devil) contain something of him and something of what he is not in this life)

Ok, but why did it have to be a "balanced" choice? We don't generally punish people for choosing not to love us. Aside from being immoral and evil doesn't that also take away from the "freely embarked upon" bit of what you said above.

It's not that we refuse to love God, it's that we don't want what he is about. We don't want his environment. That's the choice we make

At the moment we have a foot in both camps typically. There's times when we chase after what God isn't about and time we dearly do. Much of the outcry about what is perceived as a cruel and capricious God is the result of that God-given knowledge of good and evil misdirected back at the God who gives it because folk don't understand what it is they are dealing with (something God completely understands)

We can be the very worst we can be and very best we can be in the same day. Which is fine for this life but ultimately we have to decide which extreme we want. There's heaven and hell and no inbetweenie place like here.

There is a significant different from a man asking a woman to marry him and a man asking a woman to marry him with a gun to her head, wouldn't you agree? If the man was hurt by the rejection I might feel sorry for him. But I wouldn't entertain the notion that for the sake of "balance" he must now hurt her.

There is no gun to your head. You don't believe in God so as to feel threatened with damnation. In my case, I only found out Hell was real what I had already found out I wasn't going there. No reason to feel threatened by it. Then or ever.

You seem to genuinely not be able to imagine that the choice for not choosing God was not required to be bad for humans, that there is no logical law that says it must be. If it was God choose that it would be, like the man choosing that the consequences for not marrying him would be a bullet to the head. And this choice is evil. Not simply unnecessary, but evil.

The choice is God or not-God. The consequences of not-God aren't chosen by God anymore than dark is God's choice for what happens when you turn out light. What happens is a natural, unavoidable phenomenon.

It's worth nothing that God is tolerating evil (ours and evil in the spiritual relam) to exist for a time and a purpose. This time of ours involves exposure to evil as well as good so as to enable our hearts desire to express by way of final choice - but as soon as that task is complete there will be no place for the expression of evil anymore. God will wrap it all up and chuck it in the garbage, so to speak

So, no pleasant, God-less environment that suits each and every one. The only thing that makes things pleasant for us is either that which is light appealing to the light in us, or that which is dark which appeals to the dark within us. Since there will be no place for evil expression (since there is no need for God to tolerate evil expression anymore), no pleasure possible from that quarter. The only place of pleasure possible is where the light is.

No half-way house possible.

Someone who engineers a 'game' where one payoff is eternal suffering for the 'players' isn't a good guy imo.

antiskeptic

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone who engineers a 'game' where one payoff is eternal suffering for the 'players' isn't a good guy imo.

The fullest consequences on both side the choice don't need to be known in order to make a choice.

You get a flavour of both sides here and you plump for one side or the other. it's YOUR hearts desire which is being fulfilled afterall.

You don't think that those who run after evil don't suffer? What must it be like to have the mind of a rapist. Or to have seen yourself kill someone?

You might not be able to help yourself in being captive to evil - there are all kinds of traps to fall into - up to and including those things. But if you don't yearn to escape, if you're prepared to wallow there, continue to justify your evil, prepared to go deeper into it (every step down is just as easy to take as the step down before it) then a time comes when your decision is set in concrete as your final one.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fullest consequences on both side the choice don't need to be known in order to make a choice.

You get a flavour of both sides here and you plump for one side or the other. it's YOUR hearts desire which is being fulfilled afterall.

You don't think that those who run after evil don't suffer? What must it be like to have the mind of a rapist. Or to have seen yourself kill someone?

You might not be able to help yourself in being captive to evil - there are all kinds of traps to fall into - up to and including those things. But if you don't yearn to escape, if you're prepared to wallow there, continue to justify your evil, prepared to go deeper into it (every step down is just as easy to take as the step down before it) then a time comes when your decision is set in concrete as your final one.

That's addressing the 'players' of the game.

What of the engineer? The creator? The person that decided the payoffs? (i.e, the one I posted about, which you quoted, and seemingly ignored)

I'm stating that in the absence of players, inferences about the creator of the 'game' can be possibly made through study of the 'game' itself.

edit : In fact, I don't think you've addressed anything whatsoever about the post you've quoted. I'd be more interested in having a conversation about what I'm saying than what I'm not tbh.

TheLurker

antiskeptic wrote: »

The consequences of not-God aren't chosen by God anymore than dark is God's choice for what happens when you turn out light. What happens is a natural, unavoidable phenomenon.

Ok, so this is the crux of the matter I think.

To use an analogy, two men are in a house. The house is cold, but one of the men has a heater. That heater keeps both men warm.

The man without the hater then says "I HATE YOU, LEAVE ME ALONE". This makes the man with the heater very sad, but he respects the wishes of the other man, and leaves the house, taking the heater with him.

The other man is left in the house alone. And because the heat is gone he now starts to get cold. The starts shivering and cursing the man who left, saying "Why did you do this to me!". He cannot see that the man with the heater was simply respecting his wishes, and it is in fact the other man who got himself into this situation by ordering the man with the heater to leave him alone.

Would that be a fair analogy?

If it is I can completely understand why you are baffled by people like Fry complaining that the heat is gone when we were the ones who sent the heater away. You are missing a key point, but we can get to that.

challengemaster

antiskeptic wrote: »

Death isn't something. It's nothing. Like darkness is nothing.

I don't mind you winning some or other semantical game. If you want to consider God as having created nothing as an act of creation then be my guest.

For someone trying to appear so well versed in religion, you really can't read very well.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

You claim darkness is nothing. Your bible says God created darkness. Therefore, your God created "nothing".

If death is also "nothing", then by creating "nothing" your God did in fact create death.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Death isn't something. It's nothing.

This is something I've been trying to convince believers of for years, thanks!

No punishment, no fear, nothing, no need for a god.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

The fullest consequences on both side the choice don't need to be known in order to make a choice.

You only need that if you want the choice to be fair and just.
And it's clear that God doesn't particular about that since he purposefully made Adam and Eve to be incapable of knowing the consequences of their choice.