₦airaland Forum

ihedinobi2:
In other words, Justice is a meaningless term. We give it what meaning we prefer in our own subjective circumstance. That is what you're saying, right? If it is, there is little point continuing in this part of the discussion. You wouldn't be able to make sense of anything I say.


Let me refresh our conversation here. You suggested that there is a contradiction between the existence of pain and suffering and the existence of an all-powerful God who cares for man. I asked you to imagine a hypothetical world where humans with free will exist and there is no pain and suffering. Then I asked you to tell me how such a world could come to be. You said that God could tell the humans what the misuse of free will would result to so that they would never misuse it. I told you that humans learn by experience. You disagreed. Then I told you that God did tell man about what happens when free will is misused and yet we have a world that is not like the one in our hypothesis. Your answer to that is that knowing the pain and suffering that the misuse of free will brings has not stopped us from misusing it.

I think that if you're honest you'll concede that telling humans about the bad consequences of misusing free will does not stop them from misusing it. Therefore it is possible for a world such as ours to exist even though an all-powerful God who cares for humans exists too. Unless you insist that an all-powerful God cannot give human beings free wills. Thus our hypothetical world cannot exist on the conditions that you set.

It can only exist if God perseveringly guides humankind through the journey of learning to make the right choices until it becomes normal to it to do so. Like going to school. At the end of that journey with the skills locked into place by habit formed from years of practising making the right choices a world where humans do not cause pain and suffering for themselves through bad choices would be possible.

Do you disagree?

Ha. Are you now trolling?

I said it is not the meaning that changes but the things that have to happen for justice to be done. For example, you cannot do justice to the victim of a hit and run by banning the use of any vehicle whatsoever by any person. Justice here would require apprehending the offender, having her take care of any medical expenses and fining/jailing her. Justice is not one size fits all, is what I mean.

I said that there might be an example in practice of an omnipotent God who created something outside its power, if God cannot now make a world without pain and etc. Also if it can, we suffer arbitrarily.

I said humans don't learn by experience alone, not that they don't learn by experience. There is also the issue of how experience trumps testimony in your scenario, if neither can attain the goal of preventing the misuse of free will.

You haven't said how knowledge of the effects of the misuse of free will is so indispensable. Remember I pointed out that God defines what is dispensable and what isn't, i.e what reality is.

I disagree, @ your last question, of course.

ihedinobi2:
You think justice has a different meaning in each different situation? That's interesting. And confusing. I think justice means that wrong is repaired regardless what the wrong is, who the perp and victim are and what their peculiar circumstances are. Are you disagreeing with this? I do not decide what the requirements are in any case even if it is in an example I cite.

Fine. I put in World B for simplicity. But we can still ignore it and use World A alone. So did God not tell Adam exactly what the misuse of free will would result in? As for demonstration, yes, you did mention it when you spoke of watching something happen to another. My point remains that humans learn especially by doing. Adam was told what would happen if he misused his free will yet he did.

Not the meaning, but the means of achieving it. For example, while in a case of theft justice almost always involves some form of punishment to serve as a deterrent for the thief, in a case where a person makes a promise (gratuitously) and fails to keep it, you could not do any justice by punishing the promisor. Therefore, punishment does not always amount to justice. Also, different people have different notions of how justice should be achieved, which is why adultery is not an offence in some places and in others it is a capital offence for which you'd be stoned. You just have to define how you want your justice to be achieved.

In our hypothetical world where free will can't be misused, you have no reason to worry about the misuse of free will. Your requirement that the humans know about the concept can be satisfied by telling them about it. If you are not satisfied with telling them and you want them to experience it, you have to keep in mind that letting Adam and the rest of us experience it has done nothing to prevent us from misusing the free will.

ihedinobi2:
I think you're splitting hairs unnecessarily here. Justice requires that the man have his money back and you give up whatever benefit you have because of it to him. Mercy requires that you suffer nothing for your wrong. The man gets his money back, you have no benefit whatsoever and you suffer nothing for what you did. If anything at all, you actually make a gain into the bargain. There is no injustice done here at all.


Ok, in the spirit of keeping the conversation simple, who would be telling the humans in this world B - where there is no sin etc but with humans with "free will" in it who learned about the misuse of free will by oral instruction and demonstration - about the misuse of free will and how is it demonstrated to them?

Lol. Is it ever necessary to split hairs? I was working with the requirements of justice you gave, and now you've changed them. What amounts to justice is not the same in every case so we have to agree on what justice is in each case. I thought we had.

We only spoke of world A. I'm assuming there's a God in world A and that he can tell the humans in that world about the misuse of free will. I never mentioned demonstrations.

ihedinobi2:
You could see it better, I think. Justice is about correcting wrong. If you steal money, then you should return it to its rightful owner. Mercy does not require that the one who has been deprived of good continue to suffer, it only requires that the perpetrator be let go and not suffer what justice is due them. Now, if you did not work even for a day to produce the money that is given back to the man you stole from, then you experienced mercy. And if the money is paid back at all, justice is done. It is as simple as that. What restitution did you do when you neither fronted the money for the business, produced the idea or provided the skill or drive? You got a free ride out of a bad situation.

No, I meant "A is NOT a world where humans don't know what the misuse of free will can cause". Do you really think so? Because I don't think that many people feel confident that being told something is enough to actually know it. We appear to learn by experiment. To be clear, do you drive? If you do, how did you know how to drive? Did you know it by being told how to?

You described justice as "you pay back what you stole", for this case we are considering. That justice cannot be met by having the victim pay to himself the money he lost to theft. Any solution that involves more or less than the justice you've set out is either injustice or mercy, respectively.

If you put it like that (A is NOT...), it means humans do know what the misuse of free will can cause, in A. I would have to disagree then, since in A there will be no such thing as misuse of free will. Of course they can always be told.

There are things that you don't have the opportunity of knowing by experience yourself. You know them by either watching the thing happen to another or having another tell you about it. For example, you know that a strong enough electric shock will kill you, even though you have never experienced it (obviously). You have either been told about it or seen it happen to someone else. I believe you are not inclined to know by experience what a strong electric shock can do, owing to what you've seen or heard. Indirect knowledge suffices sometimes.

At the driving instance, I learnt how to drive by doing as I was told. After a while I didn't have to be told anything. Look at something as simple as operating the car's wipers. If you are told what button to press to use them, do you know how to use them at that point or at the point where you press the button? Indirect knowledge suffices.

ihedinobi2:
Not really it didn't. But granted that I did make it seem so it was not necessarily so. The man could start a business in your name, run it, make a profit, take what you owe him, dissolve the business or continue running it for you leaving you every other profit he makes. In that case, is mercy not served? And justice too?

Ok, good. If A is a world without sin and bad stuff in it but with humans who have "free will", then A is not a world where humans don't know what the misuse of "free will" can cause. Do you agree?

The way I see it, technically, if justice involves the doing of "x" and the wrong doer does "x" then that is simply justice. Mercy involves having the wrong doer do "y" instead. So, in your example, if I restitute by any means whatsoever then I haven't been shown mercy. You might see it my way if you imagine that the theft took place while I was in the employment of my benefactor and I restituted out of my salary. Would that be merciful justice?

Did you mean "A is a world where humans don't know what the misuse of free will can cause"? I'll say then can know, even if they don't know, since they can be told.

ihedinobi2:
Yes, mercy is forgiving the debt. And Justice is making sure that wrong is made right. Now, if that business is made profitable enough to pay off your debt without any input from you how have you not been let go?

Ok, then you believe that omnipotence to be logically consistent cannot allow contradiction. Omnipotence will not make "A" to be both "A" and "not A" at the same time. Do you agree? Or is it your opinion that omnipotence needs to be logically inconsistent?

The business did require my input, in your example.

I expect everything to be logically consistent.

ihedinobi2:
Let's see. Say, you stole money from a man. There's just you and him, no state law, no community justice system, just you and him. You owe him. Justice is that you pay back what you stole. But you've wasted or lost that money somehow and can't pay back.

Say, this man sets up a business in your name that you are allowed to run with his help and advice. That business generates that money and he takes it back to cover your debt. The money is thus paid and you have no more debt to him.

Is justice done? Was he also merciful to you?


I guess you could say it's the law of non-contradiction. Basically, if A is white then A cannot be "not white". That's what I mean. Do you believe that?

Mercy would've been letting me go, or forfeiting some of the stolen money, given that justice is simply full restitution without punishment. I get what you mean, however. In the case of an all merciful God, the only option would be to let me go.

Yes, I believe "A" can't be both "A" and "not A" at the same time.

ihedinobi2:
You consider it logically impossible for God to be both perfectly just and merciful? Why?

Um, do you believe in absolutes? That is, if something is "absolutely (something)", then it is absolutely not (its opposite)"?

If he is all merciful he cannot do justice since he can only show mercy where justice would have sufficed. If he must be perfectly just, he must give to each their due.

I don't understand the absolutes part. Do you mean the law of non contradiction?

ihedinobi2:
Let me guess, you are going to say that you don't understand that first sentence up there, right? That would be very interesting. Because I think the sentence does have meaning even to me who didn't make it. It's just a false statement, is all. Much like, "that man was delivered of a baby girl last week."

As for the second part of your post, that we don't understand how something can be does not therefore make it impossible. Consider that to get a world free of sin etc with man in it, it may be necessary to allow a world with sin etc in it first. Do you find that implausible?

Right.

I know things don't need us to understand them in order to be. I was only trying to point out that the sort of logic that permits a perfectly just, all merciful God should also permit an omnipotent God whose power is limited.

I'd find your example implausible if the creator of the world is truly omnipotent, since he would have control over all reality and can define what amounts to "necessary".

Did I miss it or did the OP not sum up all the theistic/atheistic arguments?

ihedinobi2:
An equivalent of the question is: can a man make a sentence he cannot understand?

When you consider what a man is and his capabilities and what a sentence is, the question becomes quite meaningless.

We parked rain within the foot mat at the entrance of the calender.

I'll concede that God's omnipotence excludes logical impossibilities, even as we are all quite certain that logic holds no sway over God, which is why some people are able to tell you with a straight face that a perfectly just God can be all merciful.

Interestingly, we might have examples in practice of an omnipotent God creating something outside his power. Consider a God who made it such there would be sin, pain, suffering, etc. If he can make a world with none of these things, then our current pain and suffering are arbitrary. If he cannot, then the pain and suffering he created are now outside his power.

I guess I'll just add this caveat to my earlier concession: with God all things are possible.

Abuamam:
Stopped reading when George Bernard Shaw was said to have died at 32. He was over 90 when he died; and it was NOT of lung cancer. I have read his biography.

Oh well. You are not adjudged a sinner... (ref; Romans 3:7).

Apparently it's not that Bernard Shaw. It's another one that even the OP isn't sure ever lived.

Moral of the story: less wankking, more fxcking.

Don't even start with Yahweh and his ways. Sometimes he is like Tom trying to trap Jerry with one of those over elaborate machines made of clocks, washing machines, fans, pressing irons, plates and knives, toy boats, ropes, safes etc. How convoluted is it to rid the planet of life by pouring water over it for 40 days, having a geriatric fellow build a massive boat by hand for about a 100 years (36525 days) before that and marching all the animals and plants and insects from the ends of the planet to wherever to be cooped up in the boat for another 365 days when you are omnipotent and can just say a word? It's almost as if he isn't sure when to use magic and when not to, cos he then appears to have used it to stop others from getting into boats so they wouldn't thwart the over elaboration.

The spirits might avoid you out of concern.

frank317:
Lol..


@ poster, pls whose hand is pulling the pvc down?
Of course is a hand is holding it, a hand must be pulling it

Lol. No mind the guy. That's how God held the fan and waited for him to take pictures.

OP, has God put the fan down yet?

Is it God's hand that is pulling the pvc down?

Your Satan's plan will only work if your God punishes people for doing things which they don't know are sinful. As long as people know that homosexuality or bestiality are sins, they are not brainwashed. If the people don't know that these behaviours are sins then they cannot be held accountable for committing them, just like our forebears who did not have the Bible to guide them but did not go to hell because they couldn't have known better. Either way, just remain calm.

Scholar8200:
your response to No 1 already tells me not to bother for 2 & 5, you will most likely pick holes ( using principles that cant be correctly applied even in secular issues but are used here because they'll help for that purpose). 3.There are many Names pointing to the Messiah- Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 3:8. 4. We cant rewrite the history of a Nation for them.It's good that the nation in question is still in existence and has this event and other miraculous ones in their history.. By the way, the occurrence happened more than two millenia ago before the advent of the AD calendar.

Our agreement was for me to pick holes. I think you should be more concerned that there are holes to be picked. What incorrect principles have I used? We should probably just agree to disagree at this point.

Scholar8200:
Jesus did not only lay down His life but He took it up again: He rose up from the grave, Seen by about 500 people one of which insisted on seeing the place where the spear entered and he was shown! Why? The requirement of GOD's judgement we all deserved had been satisfied and Jesus had no sin of His. Isaiah 53 The nations Israel was sent to destroy were peers with the people of the ante-deluvian period, in abominations and must have spurned warnings just as the former spurned warnings from Enoch and Noah. Note that it was an act of judgement and when Israel too fell into the same abominations, despising warnings from God, they got the same judgement from God through other nations. Surely not at par with terrorists claim e.g Babylon as 2 Chronicles 36:14-21 moreover all the . . . People transgressed much after all the abominations of the heathen. . . And the Lord sent to them (warning)by His messengers. . . because He had compassion on His people. . . But they mocked the messengers and despised His Words and misused His prophets . . . till there was no remedy. . . (there's always an effort to warn eg Jonah was sent to warn Nineveh - a heathen nation) This is unlike the terrorists who kill others while committing sins viler than that of their victims. It's bloodlust.

I don't know how you can find any of this acceptable.

Scholar8200:
Well you requested five: Daniel ch 8:20-22 prophesied the conquering of Medo- persian empire by the Grecian and this occured under Alexander the great, in fact the prophecy speaks of a rough goat which interestingly was the symbol of Alexander. It talks of 4 kingdoms arising after Alexander and even history attests to the fact that after his death, the kingdom was divided among his 4 lieutenants. 2. Daniel 8:23 &11:21-45 spoke proximately of the man Antiochus Epiphanes prophesied pls refer to any website that has his history. 3. Isaiah 7:14 described the Conception of Jesus which was fulfilled in Luke 1:26-35. 4. Genesis 15:13 God told Abraham of the Egyptian bondage of 400 years that took off after 30years of sojourn in Exodus 1 some centuries after. 5. Revelations 13:15-18 tells of the mark of the beast and if you'll google 666 today I'm sure you'll be inundated with info. Already, there is a subtle climaxing of technology in that direction. The emphasis is smaller devices now even a chip but it's now at the test running stage. Rather He reveals Himself to all that seek Him sincerely and objectively. You dont need to help Him reveal Himself i.e. assume or think this or that 'feeling' is Him.. When He does you will know Him.

1. The prophecy doesn't have a time frame. After the death of Alexander, his Kingdom was split into various parts at various times. It was five, then it was four, then it was three and today it's just Greece. The Kingdom was not even split into 4 until 40 years after the death of Alexander. I expect the prophet to be specific about when exactly his prophecy would've come to pass, given that the period starting from the minute of Alexander's death up to present day is what is in question. Why pick one specific period 40 years after his death over AD 1921?

2. I'd appreciate it if you could specify what the prophecy is and how it came to fruition.

3. You don't expect me to believe that a virgin was impregnated by a spirit and she bore a son. Even at that, your messiah is not called "Emmanuel" in the NT. Perhaps this imprecision as to identity contributed to why Jews reject your messiah.

4. There is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt.

5. Carefully explain when and how this prophecy came to fruition.

Scholar8200:
Well apart from Herod (who beheaded John the baptist and James and also took his brother's wife unjustly and whose cup of iniquity became full) who took the place of God, I cant recall the other 'people' smitten for blasphemy.

Of course I don't agree with any of your interpretations, but I'll address two.

I don't think a man should ever be killed for another's crimes, willingly or otherwise. I don't know any legal system in the world that allows it either. Saying that Christ volunteered his life may make it sound better until you realise that you find suicide morally reprehensible. Suicide, however, is equally the exercise of one's right to end his life at his pleasure.

Similarly, you would be loathe to admit that ISIS are carrying out the justice of Allah by murdering every human in sight. I'd bet that you don't find their conduct disagreeable simply because you don't think that Allah exists. You also think their methods are extreme. It is however no different from what God asked the Israelites to do.

If you weren't trying so hard to justify everything your God did, you might have noticed this.

Scholar8200:
First, thanks for the bolded however it's not best to resort to expletives simply because you dont understand something just like the issue at hand.
If you go through most genealogies, this is not to mean that there were no females born at such times. Else we should wonder where, Noah, Enoch etc got their wives from.
As regards the occurrences, if you care to, try a study on Jewish history and use any other book except the Bible. Saying history attests (referring to the events you find ridiculous) is my way of leaving out much biblical quotes since your mind is made up already.
Talking of prophecies, I would need your go ahead to list those since I am not sure your comment suggests that you want the list. Notify if I am wrong I will be glad to list them.
Yes, if I am the only one making claims then ignore such but if millions from history down to the contemporary times make similar claims what then?

That wasn't an insult.

Of course it is not practical to list every prophecy ever. Why don't you list your best five?

There are more non Christians on the planet than there are Christians. What then? It's not about the number, mate. One problem with testimonies about God and his ways is that the experience being testified about is at best evidence of a spiritual being, not a creator. It is also usually neutral; the being experienced might be any of the Gods claimed to exist. Worst, the being testified about appears to be one that exists subjectively, since it seems to readily show itself to the witness but not to the jury.

Scholar8200:
But how do you dismiss the glaring reality of these 'stories and myths' when the names & places mentioned therein, occurences etc are still in existence today and the occurrences (backed by detailed genealogies) are clearly stated in the history of the nation concerned. We may call them stories but history attests to the fact that they actually occurred and all characters mentioned God inclusive are not fictitious. Prophecies and their obvious fulfilment in history, and in present times also stands as an able,eloquent defendant here. See these things are highly verifiable except if you choose to hold on to your atheistic stance sans evidence. Also, it will be strange to write off the testimony of myriads of people all through history down to contemporary times, of their experience with God. Concerning blasphemies and God's silence, even mature men know that you dont need to deal with every kid or nagging woman that calls your bluff,that will be an easy manipulative procedure. God's nature is such that HE gives you time to repent and will not reduce that time in a fit of rage.

We are not disputing the existence of most of the locations. Naturally, most of the locations are on earth so there isn't much to dispute. However, if I told you that there is a 7 headed bull with a thermometer screening for Ebola at Abuja airport, the existence of Abuja airport would not in the least influence your skepticism. Its not the location that is the issue but the events that have been said to occur. As for genealogies, in addition to the fact that most religions have one, the Christian one lacks the vital detail of where Cain got a wife from. We can't place too much weight on genealogies.

When you say "history attests", do you mean "the Bible attests" or do you mean that there is independent verification of every word in the Bible?

Regarding prophecies, obviously the only thing for us to do here is to tediously list each prophecy you say has been fulfilled and determine the criteria for fulfilment to see if any one has indeed been fulfilled.

People have testified both for and against God. It's not about the number but the weight to attach to the testimony. Surely you don't expect me to believe in a God I haven't seen simply because you say you can see him.

The Christian God has been known to smite people for blasphemy.

And the issue of unpleasantness of God, well, note that choices come with a seed called consequence. We cant take one and reject the other. Why then would we blame another for the consequence of our choices? And will you say a judge is unpleasant if he sentences a defiant murderer to death? Or would you consider a leader unpleasant if, after repeated warnings, deals with offenders (this was one of the weakness of GEJ which made many opt for the seemingly incorruptible pres.-elect). When you talk of God being an unpleasant Deity it means you have chosen (your choice which only you can change) to close your eyes to His goodness and also the fact that those acts perceived to be acts of unpleasantness where simply the consequences of the actions of, and judgement deserved by those involved not without sufficient warnings and time to repent. Atheists do a lot of reasoning and I believe you need to apply the same mental process, with an unbiased mind to all these. Logic tells us that the conclusion should follow from the premise now most premises you alluded to are either 1. Personal opinions not subjected to a balanced literature review. (most unsafe because of its subjective nature) 2. Uninformed assumption (deliberately ignoring the objective testimony of history as regards these things). The afore statement points to a root cause - anger/bitterness against God and belief in Him. Reminiscent of how the council that sentenced Jesus to death had already passed their verdict but still sought for witnesses which Pilate, being objective, discerned was an action motivated by envy.

I won't start quoting bible verses here, but there are many instances where your God killed or punished people who did no wrong. You have the example of Job, the 42 children mauled by bears over a prophet, original sin, the killing of Jesus for the sins of man, the hardening of the heart of Pharaoh, turning Lots wife into salt, inciting the Israelites to commit what would qualify as war crimes today, and many more.

I don't really understand the last few lines of your post. They read like you just pulled them out of your ass.

The way I see it, you'd have better luck arguing for the existence of God from outside the confines of organised religion. This is because by rejecting the arguments and doctrines of every religion but your own, especially when those other religions are based on similar arguments as yours, you implicitly acknowledge that the arguments which underpin your religion are inconclusive. It's also easier to defend God if you don't go and start giving him a hot temper, huge ego, an obsession with the details of human life and other such personal traits which turn out to be dead weight.

As an atheist I consider the person believed in to be non existent so there isn't anything to separate, there is just the belief.

There are many reasons to go on the offensive although not every atheist is interested in doing that. Most atheists consider religious belief to be unproductive. Some atheists want to burst a person's bubble, since most theists consider their beliefs untouchable and sacred. Practically all atheists find some of the myths and legends surrounding some religions hilarious. Its hard not to mock people who believe such stories. Some atheists want to repay theistic evangelism in its own coin. Some atheists use blasphemy to show that a deity is impotent and therefore non existent/improbable. The list goes on.

For my own part I've never taken christianity seriously, though I was born catholic. I don't know the God you say I'm angry at well enough to be anything at him. (I'm only referring to the God like it's a person for the purpose of discussion)

There are a lot of atheists dissing the Christian religion and God. While some supposed atheists are merely anti religious ex christians, there are some good reasons for what you notice. Christianity is the religion with the most followers. Its central deity is actually quite unpleasant if you don't make excuses for him. While Islam also has a large following and an unpleasant deity, it is far more perilous to apostatize in a muslim community than in a christian one. You can expect to hear more from atheists in Christian communities, who incidentally are more familiar with the Christian deity and can use that knowledge to make your encounter with them a more personal one.

You will agree that every religion has lost a member to atheism. That there are atheists who used to be members of one religion or the other is not a benefit to that religion.

If you get down to it, you'll see that the reasons for atheism are not limited in application. Christian, muslim, Jewish, Satanist, ATRist, Buddhist, Hinduist, etc, every deity gets the axe.

God might easily be evil. He is God after all; he can be anything he wants. An evil God can easily lie about being evil and claim to be good, so you can't even take his word. His actions however would give him away and cause you to question his intentions. If you insist on believing in God, your best explanation is that God is evil.

If I showed you an atheist who uses harsh words against Allah or Sango or Zeus, would you concede to the existence of any of these Gods as the one true God?

Any harsh words you see are directed at your beliefs, not at an imaginary being. If someone truly believes that there is a God he can rant at, he will rant at that God the same way you pray to yours; privately and directly.

You are a true Man of God. Can I pay my tithe into your bank account?

Emmalot121:
Like a great burden living in eternal emptiness, while others enjoy eternal happiness, seeing and chatting with the ONE who lives forever, where there shall neither be sorrow nor pains.

Pipe dream. Your bible God has not managed to be happy in his life. His unhappiness led him to create angels and man and animals, and he has remained unhappy with angels and man since. What makes you think he has happiness to give you when you die?

Is the option of hell fire really better than nothing at all?