BBC Home

Explore the BBC


12th July 2014
Accessibility help
Text only

BBC Homepage

Contact Us


Like this page?
Send it to a friend!

 
this conversation is related to a page called
Dawkins- root of all evil? [preview]
all related conversations
page 1 of 83
 first post |  previous 12345 next  | latest post 
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 1
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 17, 2006
Well, I don't like to be a git, but no-one of a creationist bent has ever provided me with a reasonable or hole free solution to this conundrum...

Axiomatic Facts of Creationist Science

1. God is Omnipotent and Omniscient.
2. God Created all life on Earth.
3. God Is Loving, Merciful, and Just.
4. The wages of sin is death, or more simply, Unbeleivers go to hell.

The Problem...

Within the simple basis of these axioms tell me how it is possible than a loving, just god could create, with full knowledge, so many, many unbelievers (like me), knowing that we'd all be going straight to hell. I think we can all see the paradox therein...
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 2
comment by simplereally    Jan 17, 2006
The bit that you are missing is that god is creating a new heaven and earth where there is there is no suffering, pain, huger or illness. To do this he has build a world whereby people are given free will and satan (spiritual source of eveil) is tempoarily allowed to tempt and deceive us but where we are also given the holy spirit (spirit of love) to empower us to overcome his deception. Those of us who recognise that we are mere human beings and ask for forgiveness and for the holy spirit to empower us will be able to inherit the new heven and earth.
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 3
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 17, 2006
Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't answer the question. The paradox of which I speak is plain. Unbeleivers are created in full knowledge that they are hellbound. Thats not loving, just or merciful. God's supposed omnisciece eliminates the free will argument. Did he not know us before we were formed in the womb?? I
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 4
comment by weegie     Jan 17, 2006
i've always imagined god as having a terribly fragile ego. god created 'man' with free will (unlike the angels, who don't have free will, they love god because it's in their nature) to choose to love god. that love is all the greater because of that choice... or not to love 'him'

... 'he' was just feeling a little delicate that morning.

biggrin
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 5
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 17, 2006
awright weegie.

You gotta read all of preacher by garth ennis. It's a treatise on religion masqerading as a comic book about a texan preacher who is imbued with the power of god's voice. I think you'll find your point is very, very well explored there. Or am I preaching to the converted?
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 6
comment by simplereally    Jan 17, 2006
They are also created in the full knowledge that they can change there predicament and therefore can choose their destiny. The ability to chose salvation is clearly loving, just and merciful.
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 7
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 17, 2006
How can they created in the full knowledge that they can repent??
God knows EVERYTHING!!!

Thats past, present and future...We have free will, but god already knows the outcome.
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 8
comment by The Digital Ninja    Jan 18, 2006
If you are fated, then how *can* you have free will?
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 9
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 18, 2006
Nice ninja, nice. Now all may see the contradiction of divine omnipotence and free will. They go together like a horse and marriage. Or like a mouse on fire.


complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 10
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 18, 2006
To clarify, I don't question free will at all. I merely question how someone believing in a God, all powerful and all knowing, can say we have opportunity to repent. Yes indeed we may, but god already knows if we will or not...
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 11
comment by Mister Savage    Jan 18, 2006
I get the feeling that even if the bible was written according to the instructions of God, there have been many people over the centuries that have said

"Oh, uh, god told me we wrote it down wrong. Us silly humans - I guess we're not perfect like Him! Nah - what he actually said was that for some reason we should all hate gay people and kill each other"

People have almost certainly changed it over the years to fit their purpose...
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 12
comment by weegie     Jan 18, 2006
cheers harvest.... just curious, if you don't believe in god and presumably you don't believe in hell - why so mithered ?

when your dead, can 'you' go to somewhere you don't believe in?

biggrin
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 13
comment by fingerchimp    Jan 18, 2006
harvester, i have some objections to the idea of heaven and hell and these are based on some (again) relativist objections and some observations on the nature of pleasure and pain by schopenhauer.

firstly our very language requires dichotomy. i know im going to be accused of semantics again here but youve got to see how our language makes it possible for us to concieve of things which are actually impossible. "good" is relative and is only possible as a concept by the juxtaposition of its opposite "bad". so "good" is that which is not "bad" and "bad" is that which is not "good". so how could heaven only be "good" or hell only be "bad"? there would have to be some things in heaven that were better (more "good") than others. surely over time relativity would dictate that these less "good" things would be come "bad". relativism basically dictates that there are no absolutes, everything is relative.

schopenhauer believed life was about suffering. he is partially backed up by psychology; out of all possible human emotional states only 2 are positive, 2 are neutral and the rest are negative. it appears that the human physiology is biased toward suffering. compare the satisfaction you feel of eating a meal to the discomfort of hunger. compare the enjoyment of not being in pain to being in pain. as schopenhauer put it compare to temporary ephemeral pleasure of an animal eating eating another to the absolute pain of the one being eaten.

pleasure is supposed to be ephemeral. if we ate one meal and never felt hungry again we would die. it is a physiological response. if we were in heaven and immortal why would we need to eat? where would physiological pleasure come from? equally in hell our physical torment would mean nothing if it did not lead to death.

we are an organism with a consciousness. we are not a "soul". the experiences of the consciousness are inseperable tied up with the workings of the organism. its inconcievable it could exist independantly. and with what purpose?
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 14
comment by The Digital Ninja    Jan 18, 2006
well done chimp-o! heart-breakingly succinct and eloquent for christians biggrin
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 15
comment by fingerchimp    Jan 18, 2006
have any other atheists ever considered (however unlikely it may seem) what you would do if you died and found your dream of uninterrupted eternal oneness with the great f**k all interupted by someone shaking you to find yourself wearing some sort of robe standing on a cloud in a big queue in front of some great big gold gates with st peter ticking you in like some celestial bouncer? frankly id be pissed off.
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 16
comment by The Digital Ninja    Jan 18, 2006
*looks down at floor*

'ermm.. yeah, I *am* sorry your almightyness - you are a bit illogical though aren't you?'

GOD - *smites digital ninja*
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 17
comment by simplereally    Jan 18, 2006
Exactly, God knows what your are going to decide before you decide it - it doesn't change the fact that it is your choice. You can't then blame god if you make the wrong choice.
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 18
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 18, 2006
I'm not mithered at all, I'm just proving a point, that to attempt to explain the religious with the scientific or vice versa is a pointless exercise. Religion will never stand up to objective, realist, logical argument, no more than science will accept Faith and belief in unknowns as fact.

Creationism is a lot of things, but science it aint. Attempting to voice it as such is a fallacy, and, if it is to be taken as science it must be able to withstand the rigours all other sciences endure.
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 19
comment by CombeineHarvesterOfSorrow    Jan 18, 2006
Simple, I don't know why but you are dancing round my point with the unfailing innaccuracy of Thelonius Monk finding a resolving note. I realise it's our choice. My point is that god knowingly creates the Hellbound, yet is supposed to love all creatures. My point is simply that beleif in a creationist universe creates a total paradox.

Put as simply as I can... Why does one who is all loving create those he knows are bound for naught but eternal suffering. Surely you see the obvious logical paradox....
complain about this page
Logic Problem for Creationist science... post 20
comment by simplereally    Jan 18, 2006
What would be the point of having choices and decisions if there were no consequences to them. The alternative would be to have all our choices and decisions made for us. God could have created the world like that but he chose to leave it up to us. I'm not sure that I am in a position to questions God's motives for doing that but I do know God would love nothing more than for all to become believers.
complain about this page
page 1 of 83
 first post |  previous 12345 next  | latest post 
all related conversations
talk
talk
collective is closing
Thanks to everyone who has supported the site over the years.
bbc.co.uk
comedy


About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy