God knows everything. That's a pretty basic premise. Therefore, God created me specifically knowing I would become atheist (as events yet to happen fall under the subset of "everything"). I still have the CHOICES to make, but God already knows which choices I will make- so what does that say about predetermination vs free will? You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Free will means that God does not know which choices you will make, and he did not know you would become an atheist. You chose to d so and you also choose the words in your posts carefully, in order to inflict maximum insult.
God's ways are not man's ways, and the God has omniscience is different that whatever the literal human definition is. In an earlier post you were miffed the Catholic Church doesn't condone abortion. This is because human life begins at conception and abortion therefore takes a human life, making it incompatible with the principle of protecting the sanctity of human life and dignity at all stages of development. I am eager to here you explain how we don't actually know when human life begins, or are you going to use the alternative strategy of splitting hairs over when human life becomes meaningfull enough to protect? Or are you going to go with that statement which has the highest "troll value," e.g. "fuk humans."
Anyways, a hypothetical: God knows my brain chemistry, what I am thinking and how I feel every single moment of every single day. Since I am a unique person, or so my parents told me, that means that my criteria for judgement should also be unique, assuming God loves me as much as is claimed and recognition of my uniqueness falls under that category. So, would it not be probable that God is infact judging me based on my discrete nature? What is reasonable for me may not be reasonable for someone else.
God would judge you based on your actions. While your nature informs your actions, it does not create them, any more than having a coffee addiction makes you guzzle down a whole pot or having an attraction to someone of the same sex makes you engage in male-on-male fornication. The inclination to do something (tempation) and the actual action are seperate. God does not judge us based on our temptations but on our actions.
I submit to you that I am actually invariably going to heaven no, matter what I do, because I strive to be the best at being me that I can. If God does love me the way that it's claimed, I'm sure he can rise above his petty threat to burn someone he loves more than anything (me) in an eternal lake of hellfire? After all, nothing says "I love you more than you can ever understand" like recognizing my uniqueness and not scorching my soul for all eternity.
Striving to be the best troll you can be hardly qualfies as a virtue. You entirely misunderstand what hell is. Hell is the complete and purposeful separation from God through a human beings actions in life. There won't be any fire, your skin won't burn off, worms will not devour you, you will not be able to converse with famous murderers and dictators. Your soul will simply corrupt and will suffer eternal misery and separation from all goodness and exist in a ceaseless, loveless void. But that doesn't play well in movies so that isn't how it's depicted.
Also, on this topic, I think that the souls of the dangerous sociopaths or scizophrenics really god a bum deal. I mean they are basically hardwired for promiscuity, murder and mayhem. God must have known this and known they wouldn't stand a chance. That doesn't seem like an all loving allowance to me.
Part of being a good Christian is to recognize these biologic/psychologic faults in judgement in other people before they have the chance to inflict any pain and suffering. A true Christian life is difficult, it requires discipline and awareness not only of yourself but others around you.
cookie said:
god is imperfect if he's relying on agents of free will to spread his word so lol why would i worship someone who's imperfect, and more to the point why should i believe it when he says i'll go to hell if i don't.
Contrary to your statement, the reliance on imperfect humans to save their own souls is part of God's perfection. What use would life on earth be if everyone were perfect? No one is surprised when a machine executes their programming, so what value would having a perfect world of perfect beings have? Good and Evil objectively exist. There is no purpose for good without its counterpart.
I must reiterate that God's ways are not man's ways. Humans spin around infinitely on defining something as basic and obvious as the beginning of human life. Humans easily ignore facts that get in the way of their agendas in order to promote their own interest. Humans are so wrapped up in concerning themselves with being right that they fail to concern themselves with being good. I don't have a problem being incorrect or misinformed, I have a problem being apathetic, uncaring, sluggish, cowardly, or dismissive of other people's concerns.
The problem is I am also a human, and there are people who would rather be right than be good. At some point I am called as a Christian to confront these people who have an array of very sound, very logical arguments for why no one should believe in God or religion. For me it doesn't really matter because being wrong about God when I die is irrelevant. It is a massive waste of my time and resources to prattle on about having no logical proof of a God I have faith in. Faith is by definition belief without evidence. What I would rather focus on then, as I cannot prove my creator's existence, is to focus on what he commands me to do and why.
God is taken at face value. For me he exists, and he wants me to follow his commands. In order to do so I must understand why he teaches what he does and what the results are if I do not follow them.
What I am concerned with is why I should believe in the value and sanctity of human life.
What I am concerned with is why I should support and protect that model of the family that has the most success in bringing up well-adjusted, productive, caring members of society.
What I am concerned with is why I should not oppose every vile and toxic thing but out by other human beings that degrades my fellow human beings.
Whether God exists or not is irrelevant to addressing these (among other) concerns. To spend time debating the validity of faith using scientific trials is to waste resources trying to deconstruct an unscientific premise to begin with. Science is not a moral philosophy, it is a tool. Belief in God may be unscientific, but unscientific is not equivalent to morally wrong.
Given my belief in God strives me to do things I otherwise would not do, to be kinder, to be more patient with my fellow men, I could not care less if God's characteristics are illogical based on human definitions. My behavior towards others is impacted positively, so whether God has the characteristics of the Christian God is irrelevant to the fact my mere belief manifests itself in my actions. As my actions undoubtedly exist, that's a sufficient basis for me to continue believing in God. Circuar reasoning? Sure, whatever, call it a feedback loop if you must. Either way you're chastizing me for being a better person and wasting my time trying to chide me for not being scientific enough. Nitpicking is not a morally desirable trait, and being an insulting nitpicker is repugnant in general.
Morm can have his 6-11 IQ points. I'd rather be considered marginally dumber and significantly more considerate than be marginally smarter and significantly less considerate. Never mind that intelligence doesn't neccesarily match up to wisdom.