Ben Stein Expelled

[Pinchandroll]

Inasmuch as there are extensive passages in the Bible wherein God is surprised, angered, agonized, or otherwise upset at the actions of his subjects

First, God never shows surprise. He is, however, completely "good" so when we make choices that go against His nature, he reacts accordingly. It makes perfect sense to me that a perfect being would be offended when his creations act against what is "good."

a) Did not see these actions coming, (i.e., is not omniscient)

Nowhere in the Bible is there evidence or indication that God does not see something coming. Find me a passage you think would satisfy that, and I'll gladly explain the context that will prove otherwise. I'll preemptively warn you against using the Genesis verse where God "goes looking" for Adam and asks "where are you," because there have been plenty of scholarly articles addressing this supposed contradiction to His nature.

b) Saw them coming and let them happen regardless, and/or set them in motion in the first place, regardless of their consequences (i.e., is not omnibenevolent)

I would argue that a supremely benevolent and omniscient God would allow us complete freedom. There is no contradiction in an benevolent God creating people, and some people making bad choices, because free will is a necessary component of our identity. If we were only allowed to do good deeds, I think everyone would agree that this violates free will, which is something a perfect God would not do.

When I have these discussions with people in real life, their next argument is always "well why doesn't God just make people entirely good to begin with?" This essentially boils down to "why is there sin?", which has historically been one of the main questions people ask about Christianity. I wouldn't presume to say that I "know" the answer, but my argument is this: The two greatest commandments are to love God, and to love your neighbor. The greatest act of love, therefore, would be absolute self-sacrifice for a loved one, and a being who embodies love (God) manifests his character by demonstrating the ultimate act of love: dying for EVERYONE. He loves everyone, and he died for everyone. The presence of sin is therefore necessary, because there can be no atonement with it. I cannot do a much better job of explaining it off the top of my head, but I believe that we can only comprehend the truest demonstration of love without sin.

In other words, there's really no reason for a truly omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent being to be shocked, upset, angered, vengeful, or whatever.

As I said above, there is no contradiction when God expresses anger, pity, sorrow, etc. If I were all powerful and I created beings full of sin, I would be sad when they sinned. It makes perfect sense to me.

Nor should such a being EVER be unable to anticipate the outcome of an event (in other words, free will cannot exist in such a system).

Again, there is no evidence that God is unable to anticipate the outcome of any event. We are still free to make our choices - it is not as if we "must" follow a certain path because God is all-knowing; rather, we are free to make choices, and God simply knows everything. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and present everywhere, then he is certainly powerful enough to create people with free will.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

First, God never shows surprise. He is, however, completely "good" so when we make choices that go against His nature, he reacts accordingly. It makes perfect sense to me that a perfect being would be offended when his creations act against what is "good."

Here's the problem with that. An all knowing being with supreme Wisdom would never get mad or offended. It would understand the necessity for everything, good and bad, especially if it created it. You can't have one without the other, and besides good/bad is all just perspective anyway.

[Blackulaa]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Here's the problem with that. An all knowing being with supreme Wisdom would never get mad or offended. It would understand the necessity for everything, good and bad, especially if it created it. You can't have one without the other, and besides good/bad is all just perspective anyway.

Well how about this. God was said to be so glorious that he could never show his face to humans or they would die because of the sin. If that's the case, maybe the only words to describe God's emotion was angry that humans could fathom. What if he had emotions and understandings that we could never handle as sinful beings. Thus all arguments are moot because you are trying to box a 4D persona in a 3D understanding.


I love when my wine makes me think I'm smart. Start debunking.

[Pinchandroll]

An all knowing being with supreme Wisdom would never get mad or offended.

Why would knowing everything exclude you from being able to get mad or offended? That doesn't really make sense to me.

[Lonin]

I'm not usually one to say that debating god(s) or religion is pointless, but in this case, it comes close. The whole discussion on what God is, what God isn't, and the semantics of certain adjectives describing God makes the debate on evolution look totally reasonable in comparison.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Blackulaa

Well how about this. God was said to be so glorious that he could never show his face to humans or they would die because of the sin. If that's the case, maybe the only words to describe God's emotion was angry that humans could fathom. What if he had emotions and understandings that we could never handle as sinful beings. Thus all arguments are moot because you are trying to box a 4D persona in a 3D understanding.


I love when my wine makes me think I'm smart. Start debunking.

Not much to debunk. You're making up a scenario to fit your belief structure in light of contrasting information.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

Why would knowing everything exclude you from being able to get mad or offended? That doesn't really make sense to me.

It's not the knowing everything part that you should be concerned with, but the Wisdom part with a big W. Those who are truly enlightened, as we would assume this deity would be, would know better than to get angry at its creation for doing something that it allowed them to do. Supreme understanding. Understanding why someone felt they needed to make the choices they did, and being completely happy with whatever decision they make.

Reminds me of a little tidbit of wisdom from South Park. Without evil there could be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes.

One cannot exist without the other. One is no better than the other. At the ultimate of reality there is neither. Individual perspective grants things the title of "good" or "bad."

Everything is as it should be.

[Lonin]

Originally Posted by Blackulaa

Well how about this. God was said to be so glorious that he could never show his face to humans or they would die because of the sin. If that's the case, maybe the only words to describe God's emotion was angry that humans could fathom. What if he had emotions and understandings that we could never handle as sinful beings. Thus all arguments are moot because you are trying to box a 4D persona in a 3D understanding.


I love when my wine makes me think I'm smart. Start debunking.

KYNG!!11one

[Duppin]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

The presence of sin is therefore necessary, because there can be no atonement with it.

This is one of the worst examples of circular logic in the history of the internet.

You do realize that if people didn't have the capability to sin, atonement wouldn't be necessary, right?

...Right?

[Blackulaa]

Originally Posted by The Edge

Not much to debunk. You're making up a scenario to fit your belief structure in light of contrasting information.

What's the contrasting information on God's emotions? You met him?

WOAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edited for the too smart folks who can't see I'm not to be taken seriously.

[Kolle]

Everything you need to know about the christian god's nature is in the book of Job. Well, in some of the other books too, but Job is a great example of why their make believe god is bunk.

Millions of christians manage to read that book and teach it in sunday school, yet they never have the common sense to grasp what's really going on. It flies right over their head. I get how many christians simply don't read the bible. They ignore the parts that instruct them to do certain things that they don't want to do (new testement). But Job is something they do read and teach often enough, so it's a bit silly.

[Pancreas]

Originally Posted by Lonin

I'm not usually one to say that debating god(s) or religion is pointless, but in this case, it comes close. The whole discussion on what God is, what God isn't, and the semantics of certain adjectives describing God makes the debate on evolution look totally reasonable in comparison.

I would have to agree. Trying to postulate what God's qualities would be is in a way, futile. Much in the same way it is impossible to prove if God created the universe.

Having said that... here's something to think about in regards to the omniscient/free will conundrum.

God in the Christian faith has simply always existed without explanation and will always exists, again without explanation. This places him outside of the realm of time. Everything that occurs in a progressive manner would be viewed instantaneously to a being outside of times flow. All moments of infinitely small proportion would occur simultaneously and each moment would be suspended for eternity.

In such a state it is impossible to initiate any form of a beginning without instantly perceiving the end and everything that leads to it.

However, simply having such knowledge would not invalidate any free movement within such a system.

As for the lack of emotion in such a being, I am not sure I understand why this must be the case.

In regards to why God administered punishment despite the fact he already knew what was going to happen: How do we modify our children in terms of behavior? Positive reinforcement. When they do something properly they are rewarded and when they do something improperly they are punished. The reason we do this and not simply force compliance through overbearing means is because the child must learn to exhibit these behaviors on their own. This allows them to live functional lives, while maintaining their freedom, and eventually to pass those traits on to further generations.

Even if we had clear foresight as to how our children would misbehave we would still administer punishment when they did, so that they might grow with better understanding of their actions. It is a disservice to a child to let it grow without boundaries. The world is full of very real limitations. A punishment during childhood is almost always preferable to the consequences rendered through life.

I will be the first to admit that I do not have answers to every aspect of what God is or isn't. That however holds little bearing on my faith. My faith is a tool to guide my day to day interactions with others. This is where it is applied to the greatest benefit and these exercises in hypothesizing the characteristics of God are done simply out of respect to those who would inquire about them.

[Kolle]

Originally Posted by Pancreas

I would have to agree. Trying to postulate what God's qualities would be is in a way, futile. Much in the same way it is impossible to prove if God created the universe.

Having said that... here's something to think about in regards to the omniscient/free will conundrum.

God in the Christian faith has simply always existed without explanation and will always exists, again without explanation. This places him outside of the realm of time. Everything that occurs in a progressive manner would be viewed instantaneously to a being outside of times flow. All moments of infinitely small proportion would occur simultaneously and each moment would be suspended for eternity.

In such a state it is impossible to initiate any form of a beginning without instantly perceiving the end and everything that leads to it.

However, simply having such knowledge would not invalidate any free movement within such a system.

As for the lack of emotion in such a being, I am not sure I understand why this must be the case.

In regards to why God administered punishment despite the fact he already knew what was going to happen: How do we modify our children in terms of behavior? Positive reinforcement. When they do something properly they are rewarded and when they do something improperly they are punished. The reason we do this and not simply force compliance through overbearing means is because the child must learn to exhibit these behaviors on their own. This allows them to live functional lives, while maintaining their freedom, and eventually to pass those traits on to further generations.

Even if we had clear foresight as to how our children would misbehave we would still administer punishment when they did, so that they might grow with better understanding of their actions. It is a disservice to a child to let it grow without boundaries. The world is full of very real limitations. A punishment during childhood is almost always preferable to the consequences rendered through life.

I will be the first to admit that I do not have answers to every aspect of what God is or isn't. That however holds little bearing on my faith. My faith is a tool to guide my day to day interactions with others. This is where it is applied to the greatest benefit and these exercises in hypothesizing the characteristics of God are done simply out of respect to those who would inquire about them.

The only thing you have to base your faith on is the bible. You weren't alive during the time of Jesus, Moses, etc... unless you're some kind of vampire. The bible is flawed and has numerous mistakes.

The only thing you can base your faith on is proven to be wrong.

If you give any anecdotal evidence for your faith you must stop and think...could this also be used to "prove" another religion? If it could be, then it's wrong. You may not have to prove anything to rest of us, but you do have to prove it to yourself.

[Pancreas]

The basis of my faith are the manifestations I have seen in my own life. The concepts presented by the bible are not bound to it. If the bible were not to exist there would still be a questioning of morality and justice and search for truth in each person. When that truth is found it resonates with humans, it connects to us in a deeply profound way.
When a person experiences this they are changed. That sense of change and the actions they take as a result are evidence of their faith.
There have been many examples of people who have been able to exhibit this selfless commitment to others and many of them did not base their faith on the bible.

There are some core precepts that must be adhered to in order for someone to be able to act in such a manner. I find the teachings of Christ to be an excellent standard by which to achieve them. Regardless of what a person claims to be or where a person has come from the only true evidence of who they are, are their words and actions.

I can not prove my faith to you or anyone else. I can merely show evidence through my actions and words. No matter where a discussion leads I wish to be respectful of everyone involved. That is but a small action but a vital one all the same. Only though such interactions can the truth I choose to accept be verified.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Pinchandroll

Why would knowing everything exclude you from being able to get mad or offended? That doesn't really make sense to me.

It's not the all-knowing, but the all-powerful bit that precludes you from having emotions or preferences. By definition, to be all-powerful is to be omnipresent: meaning, you inhabit everything at once. You simply ARE everything in all creation across all timelines simultaneously.

By necessity, if you are omnipresent/omnipotent, you cannot inhabit a state of being that excludes any other states of being. Anger excludes other emotional states; ergo, to be angry is to not be omnipresent, which is to not be omnipotent. It is also contradictory with the idea of being omnibenevolent. If you're 100% loving, there are BIG problems with getting "angry" enough at a soul to cast them into Hell for all time.

Now, someone could respond with "God can be omnipresent, but he doesn't choose to be." This makes no sense to me. Omnipresence isn't a choice. Either you are omnipresent or you're not. And omnipresence is a necessary condition of omnipotence, because if you're not everywhere at once, well, that right there is a limit to your power. Ergo, you're not omnipotent if you're not omnipresent.

And really, this is precisely why there are so many problems with God as he's depicted in the Bible vs. what he claims to be. If God is all-powerful, there cannot be any limits to his power, right? So there cannot be any iterations or manifestations of God's power that are less than optimal or less than perfect. God cannot make mistakes. God cannot "slack off" for awhile and stop watching the "game." If God is ever doing something that can be done better, then he is imperfect, because a perfect being always does the optimal thing at all times. This is why things like anger, punishment, wrath, leaving things to "free will" or chance, etc., are impossible if God really IS omnipotent.

Originally Posted by Pancreas

In regards to why God administered punishment despite the fact he already knew what was going to happen: How do we modify our children in terms of behavior? Positive reinforcement. When they do something properly they are rewarded and when they do something improperly they are punished. The reason we do this and not simply force compliance through overbearing means is because the child must learn to exhibit these behaviors on their own. This allows them to live functional lives, while maintaining their freedom, and eventually to pass those traits on to further generations.

The "loving parent" metaphor has been used quite a bit on this thread, and while I don't want to disparage your faith in any way, I think there are some flaws in the comparison. For one thing, our parents don't inhabit every aspect of our being at all times. Our parents can't control our actions or foresee their consequences. Our parents aren't omni-everything. God is (or at least claims to be). Given all of God's infinites (power, wisdom, knowledge, love, etc.), it seems highly irrational that he'd even have a Hell in the first place. The idea of certain people being "unforgivable" enough to go to Hell for eternity contradicts the idea of an all-loving "parent." Not to mention that getting angry or punishing your "children" when you ARE your children, in the existential sense, is a little silly.

Also, as I've said earlier, the idea of someone living a totally good life but happening to go to Hell because they weren't born a Christian is entirely inconsistent with an omnibenevolent ruler.

Furthermore, why would God have created ANYTHING in the first place? What was the point? For his amusement? Does he need to be amused? If so, he's less than perfect. A perfect being requires nothing -- not amusement, not alleviation from boredom, not a fun game to play, and certainly not a day of rest after creating everything.

Finally, can someone explain the reason why God "changed his mind" halfway through the New Testament and decided to give out a new set of rules? There are plenty of passages within the NT where Jesus says 'I gave you some old rules back in the OT, and here is a new way of doing things.' A better way. Well, wait a second. Why would there be a need for some "new rules" in the first place if the old rules were the work of a perfect being? Wouldn't a perfect, omni-everything being have gotten it right the first time? You could reply, "Well, God saw that humanity had changed, so he needed to give them new instructions." Yes, but wouldn't an all-seeing God have known that humanity was going to change in the first place? Again, a perfect being doesn't need a revision to his rule of law. He gets it right the first time based on his ability to see into the future and predict all changes and outcomes. He also wouldn't need to go through the whole Jesus drama in the first place.

At any rate, thank you for your contirbutions to this thread. I mean that. It's really fun to talk to you about this stuff, because I can tell you are a very smart person. So are most people here. But I particularly enjoy talking to you about this stuff.