If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[Paraprakrti]

The Buddha advised against metaphysical speculations. I trust that wisdom.

It only seems like speculation due to how I am approaching the issue. Once again, it isn't about knowing the answer so much as it is about knowing what might be the answer. Because knowing what might be the answer will lead to other understandings about God and souls. In any case, I'm not a Buddhist. The Buddha also rejected sastra. Sastrically, the predominating element in the universe is ahankara or material/false ego. There are the 5 gross elements and 3 subtle elements. And it all starts with ahankara. So the question is, whose ahankara? Obviously it cannot be God's since God is not subject to false ego. So the answer to my question is sastric. I'm just not approaching the issue that way because not everyone here follows sastra. Instead I ask questions and employ reason.

 

[Humanistheart]

It only seems like speculation due to how I am approaching the issue. Once again, it isn't about knowing the answer so much as it is about knowing what might be the answer.

That is speculation paraprakrti.

 

[Dunemeister]

If it was logically impossible that A & E would not sin, it must therefore be logically impossible for God to prevent it. And so the simple unavoidable truth of the matter is that if A & E sinned then it was either because it was God's will or it was because he was usurped and confounded by his own creation. Either way you have a contradiction. It is the Adam and Eve thing that is self-contradictory, metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

This gets back to permissive will versus express will, and as I've said, God may permit a thing to happen without thinking it's a good thing (let alone best). There's nothing contradictory about human beings having freedom and power to do something their creator doesn't want them to do.

If an engineer designed a bridge and let it be built, while knowing it to be faulty, he would be held criminally responsible in event of a tragedy. A prescient God was fully aware of every inadequacy and insufficiency that would exist in the human creature, yet it he produced it anyway! The story is nonsensical in its entirety.

Only if God did not build into the whole scheme a way of restoring the bridge/humans.

 

[Riverwolf]

It only seems like speculation due to how I am approaching the issue.

You might want to use a different approach. You're current one is certainly not a good defense against Humanistheart.

Analogies don't work with him, unless you can find one yourself. Here's a bit of advice: before you actually make your posts, nitpick them yourself to find all the holes, and fix them. If even the tiniest of minuscule holes exists in your argument, he'll tear it down.

Once again, it isn't about knowing the answer so much as it is about knowing what might be the answer. Because knowing what might be the answer will lead to other understandings about God and souls. In any case, I'm not a Buddhist. The Buddha also rejected sastra. Sastrically, the predominating element in the universe is ahankara or material/false ego. There are the 5 gross elements and 3 subtle elements. And it all starts with ahankara. So the question is, whose ahankara? Obviously it cannot be God's since God is not subject to false ego. So the answer to my question is sastric. I'm just not approaching the issue that way because not everyone here follows sastra. Instead I ask questions and employ reason.

Yet your approach still relies on Sastra and the speculations of Vedic Sages, ancient and modern. Wise and great as the Sages were, not one of them was perfect. That's why their philosophies often contradict with each other.

Try to approach your argument from a completely different perspective, say... an atheistic one. Here's a way that might help: stop using the term "God." Find a more accurate adjective or adjective phrase, define it clearly without analogies, and use that, instead.

It would also help to explain our souls' dependence on God, as Humanistheart doesn't believe in dependence. (Right, Humanist? )

 

[cottage]

This gets back to permissive will versus express will, and as I've said, God may permit a thing to happen without thinking it's a good thing (let alone best). There's nothing contradictory about human beings having freedom and power to do something their creator doesn't want them to do.

Humans don’t have the power to do something their creator doesn’t want them to do! Human freedom, such as it might be, cannot defy an omnipotent being. If x happens it can only be because God wills it to happen, whether that will is express or permissive is purely academic and makes not an iota of difference to the outcome.

Only if God did not build into the whole scheme a way of restoring the bridge/humans.

God still hasn’t made the bridge safe, annihilated evil, or alleviated suffering, since it continues even until this very day. The contradiction stands, as God cannot undo what is done nor can he re-write history.

 

[Willamena]

Humans don’t have the power to do something their creator doesn’t want them to do! Human freedom, such as it might be, cannot defy an omnipotent being. If x happens it can only be because God wills it to happen, whether that will is express or permissive is purely academic and makes not an iota of difference to the outcome.

There is no freedom for humans, at all, in the picture you paint. But where there is freedom for humans painted into the picture, then humans do have that power (i.e. free will).

Apples and oranges.

 

[Willamena]

If it was logically impossible that A & E would not sin, it must therefore be logically impossible for God to prevent it.

What's the reasoning there?

 

[Dunemeister]

Humans don’t have the power to do something their creator doesn’t want them to do! Human freedom, such as it might be, cannot defy an omnipotent being. If x happens it can only be because God wills it to happen, whether that will is express or permissive is purely academic and makes not an iota of difference to the outcome.

That's true. If God's express will and ours conflict, God's wins. However, God can permit his creatures to defy his express will to a certain extent, and to that extent, the creatures are free.

God still hasn’t made the bridge safe, annihilated evil, or alleviated suffering, since it continues even until this very day. The contradiction stands, as God cannot undo what is done nor can he re-write history.

The repair of humankind is a work in progress and, because we bear the image of God, it crucially involves our participation. If it's taking a while, the fault lies with us.

 

[Paraprakrti]

You went to all that trouble just to say 'I'm speaking english'? Dautbful. More like you cannot prove or even make your point and your getting snippy now.

You keep asking "meaning?" then look up each word in the dictionary, consult the relevant analogy, and meditate on it if you want. There is nothing more to explain. It has got to that point where the best anyone can do is be snippy. You can figure it out.

It is not my fault that you chose a bad analogy, or prefer not to think too much.

It is your fault that you are taking the analogy beyond its intended use. If I say that the relationship between God and Satan is like the relationship between Willy Wonka and Mr. Slugworth, that doesn't mean that God is an eccentric candy maker in a whimsical factory.

Right. These souls, which were not created by god in your proposal, somehow have it in their nature to bow down to this 'god' dispite the absence of any reason to do so. I'm going to resist putting a 'lol' in there.

I already explained this later in the post to which you are here responding. Service is the unavoidable propensity of the living entity. That service culminates in devotion to God. Why does it culminate in God? Because God, by definition, is the highest perfection, the summum bonum, that to which we are all connected and through which we are all connected to each other. Devotion toward God is self-contained in what God is and what souls are. In other words, if you understand what is meant by "God" and "souls," then you can automatically understand the eternal nature of devotional service. There is no nor does there need to be some extraneous reasoning to why souls have it in their nature to be devotees of God.

Indeed there is the question. You say that god being 'eternal' means he's automatically all powerful and all knowing. Yet you maintain that souls were eternal without god, so by your logic we must be all powerful and all knowing. All your arguments are doing is reinforcing the question 'why would these souls be under gods heel?'

No. No. No. No. I did not say that eternal = all-powerful and all-knowing. I am saying that God is eternal and God is all-powerful and all-knowing (typical attributes of monotheistic God), therefore, God is eternally all-powerful and eternally all-knowing since if there were ever a time when God were not those things, then, by definition, God wouldn't be God. And, furthermore, since God is eternally all-powerful and all-knowing, it is nonsensical to ask when or how God came to be those things.
Also, I do not maintain that souls are eternal without God. There is no such scenario. Souls are eternal WITH God.
It is incredible how much you're failing to understand what I am saying. I seriously suspect that you're purposely misinterpreting my words because you get a kick out of it. Nothing in what I said implied that eternality logically leads to being omnipotent and omniscient.

They contradicted themselves, just like the above argument of yours I dismantled.

Obviously, you dismantled a straw man. I hope you see that now. My analogies are fine within their intended use. They are not meant to be overlapped. They each have a different function. Stop being a troll.

Then perhaps you can put more thought into your explanation so you stop contradicting yoruself.

I have to start contradicting myself in order to be able to stop.

We? No, I'm not defining them that way without a reason to do so. YOU can all you like, but be prepared to deal the logical errors that creates, and that I or others will point out to you.

Then you're in the wrong thread. This thread presumes monotheism where there is one supreme being and various inferior beings. Why are they inferior? Well, obviously, if they were equal to God in all respects, then we wouldn't be talking about monotheism. But wait, we are talking about monotheism. It is clearly the context of this very thread topic. Also, if souls were equal to God in all respects, then they wouldn't fall into ignorance and suffering. Yet, here we are.

You stated that souls were eternal, that they did not owe their creation to this god, that they existed before creation. You also state taht souls are eternally dependent upon god, but offer no reason why this would be the case in your scheama.

The soul can do nothing without God. It isn't even eternal (existing) without God. The dependency of the soul upon God is a self-contained truth understood simply by understanding what is "God" and what is "soul." Being created or not being created is inconsequential.

I'm pointing out that there is no reason in your proposal for these already existant souls to depend on this god for anything.

And you're incorrect.

It is fun to poke holes in poorly thought out arguments. Is there something wrong with that on a debate site? Perahps you'd have some fun too if you were able to defend your position.

The best you've done is poked holes in your straw man. Congratulations.

Sure it doesn't. Just like if I give a homicidal maniac who's holding a knife to a womans throat a gun, and he shoots her, doesn't make me a killer? What your suggesting takes away any sence of responcibility for ones own actions. But this is hardly surprising. Most people who believe in god make excuses for his misdeeds. I could call myself perfect to if I bent over backwards like christians do to excuse their god's unethical condact.

Case in point: God cannot be a sinner, by definition. Sin means to go against or act in ignorance of God. God cannot go against or act in ignorance of God.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Besides, you miss the point. You said having desires outside of god is a 'sin'. God must, for some reason, desire souls experience those desires you previously indicated lead to the creation of the world. So, by your own logic, god is desiring something outside of himself and thus is a sinner.

How did you come to this conclusion that God must desire that the souls experience the desires that lead to creation? That doesn't follow from anything that has been said. Also, whatever God desires is, a priori, not outside of God. It is as logically possible for God to sin as it is logically possible for someone to draw a four-sided triangle. Simply put: God's desires cannot be outside of God's desires.

Common to whom? You already stated in the beggining that your idea's were not compatible with mainstream chrisitains (and I'll add jews and muslims). Your idea is not the 'common idea of a supreme being' but now you want to consider the definition of that common idea? Make up your mind.

Certain parts of my world view are different from most Abrahamic followers, but the basic idea of a supreme being is the same. The part I was admitting was not common was the part about co-eternal souls. Try to keep up.

By your example you've offered no reason for that to be the case.

It is contained in what is meant by "God" and what is meant by "souls." I have also given you numerous examples of how the souls depends on God for its knowledge, bliss, ability, existence, etc. There is really nothing left for me to explain. Go meditate on it if you want.

You already stated that we're eternal. If you want to make this claim explain why this god would be necessary.

I already have.

No you havne't, and no it does not stand, unless you'd care to explain HOW it is you think that makes sence.

I already have.

The sun generates the sunshine. You're claim is that god did not create people. Poor analogy for your purposes. Analogies don't seem to be your thing.

Now imagine the sun and sunshine coexist eternally. If it were possible for the sun to die, then the sunshine would die since it is an extension of the sun. Therefore, if you have a working brain, you can understand the dependency DESPITE there being a simultaneous co-existence involved. Understanding analogies doesn't seem to be your thing.

Obviously? Oh I'm so sorry I took theism at it's actual definition instead of your limited personal view that only recognizes your specific form of monotheism. So which monotheism are you reffering to then, judaism or islam?

Consult thread topic for answer. Judaism versus Islam distinction is herein irrelevant.

Then sin means less than nothing. I'm a better being than any god you care to name, no god has any moral authority over me. And you already claimed it's not a matter of might makes right so that's that.

This is just you whining. There is no point here to address. I'm not saying that you should believe in God and sin. I am not trying to convince you of these things. I was simply responding to the thread topic which presumes these things. So you can cry yourself to sleep about it. I don't care.

If you look into the statistics you'll find that countries with the highest levels of organic atheism are the healthiest nations in the world. You say this god's the peak of knowlege and bliss, but in actuality it's the complete opposite. Where beleivers of this god exists, so do unnecessary problems and suffering. I guess we have different definitions of bliss.

This is a topic unto itself. I'm not going to get into this. I am not debating the alleged attributes of God, nor is this thread meant for that purpose.

I 'serve' no one.

Either you're insane or you mean something special when you write 'serve'. I don't really care what it is at this point.

That is really sad.

What? That you have failed to say anything of substance or even relevance here? However sad, happy, sexy you think it is is meaningless. You either understand it in the context of the discussion or you go sit in the corner with the dunce cap.

Yet you make them every time you post.

This is where a smilie shooting holes into a straw man with a machine gun would be perfect.

 

[Paraprakrti]

That is speculation paraprakrti.

Read the rest of that post. The apparent speculation implied by the question is merely a device used to come to certain other conclusions.

 

[APW]

Good Evening:
Hi, Al here... I am new to the forum.
The question at the beginning of this thread was:

"If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world?"

I guess my feeling on this is that I believe that mankind, not God is responsible for sin. On an evolutionary planet it must be possible for sin to exist... it is one of the possibilities of existence. Whether or not God allows sin is irrelevant, at least to me.

I believe that all beings are free to make their own decisions. And that freedom extends to celestial beings too (if you happen to believe they exist). So Lucifer and Satan (my understanding is that these were two distinct individuals) had the same freedom we enjoy. They had the freedom to choose God or to reject him. They made their choice.

Evil in our world is a fact. So is sin. I define evil is an incomplete realization of reality. I define sin as the willful and conscious rejection of reality. I define ultimate reality as God. Therefore, the way I see it, the more real you are becoming, the closer you are becoming to being God-like. Conversely, the more unreal you are becoming, the closer you are drawing to that ultimate of unreality, non-existence.

I feel that we all have the choice to become more real, or to become more unreal. Reality, to me, at least, is living forever in an ever-expanding universe adventure of growth, challenge and joy. Unreality, again, to me at least, is an inward spiral into misery, bigotry, hatred and spiritual death. I say that death is but a door thru which we all must pass… whether we choose to survive or to fade into the nothingness of unreality is completely up to us.

 

[Paraprakrti]

You might want to use a different approach. You're current one is certainly not a good defense against Humanistheart.

Well, whether it is regarded as speculation or not has no bearing on my dealings with Humanistheart. In any case, there isn't anything to defend against Humanistheart. He isn't making any valid arguments. The issue is trying to get him to understand what I am saying. It has come to the point where the most reasonable conclusion seems to be his troll status.

Analogies don't work with him, unless you can find one yourself. Here's a bit of advice: before you actually make your posts, nitpick them yourself to find all the holes, and fix them. If even the tiniest of minuscule holes exists in your argument, he'll tear it down.

The thing is, there are no holes in the analogies if their intended uses are understood. I can't force Humanistheart to understand. However, I don't think he truly lacks the capacity to understand. I just think he is playing troll at this point.

Yet your approach still relies on Sastra and the speculations of Vedic Sages, ancient and modern. Wise and great as the Sages were, not one of them was perfect. That's why their philosophies often contradict with each other.

Obviously, you and I have different perspectives on Sastra. And my approach doesn't rely on Sastra. I just mentioned Sastra to try and explain how this isn't necessarily me speculating on the matter. I assumed that since your title has "Vaisnava" in it that that meant you put value in Sastra beyond considering it as speculation.

Try to approach your argument from a completely different perspective, say... an atheistic one. Here's a way that might help: stop using the term "God." Find a more accurate adjective or adjective phrase, define it clearly without analogies, and use that, instead.

Thanks for the advice, but I am discussing God in a thread topic that presumes God. I think this is reasonable.

It would also help to explain our souls' dependence on God, as Humanistheart doesn't believe in dependence. (Right, Humanist? )

If you think you have a better way to explain the soul's dependence on God, then please contribute. I may or may not agree with your explanation. I have explained it so many times in so many ways and Humanistheart just insists that the only possible dependence can come from being caused or created by something else. He thinks I need some extraneous reason for the soul's dependence on God as if God being the highest perfection and reservoir of all ability, bliss, knowledge, etc. isn't enough. In fact, the proof of Humanistheart's trollhood is found in the fact that when I mention this about God, he goes off on a tangent to try and argue that God isn't the reservoir of bliss since God-believing countries have more problems.

 

[APW]

Good evening Paraprakrti:
What an interesting concept... the soul's dependence on God! HOW COOL IS THAT?

I really wish I had the prior knowledge of where you are coming from on this, but I do not feel like re-running thru the multiple posts and pages of this thread, so, if you wish, it would be my great pleasure if you could bring me up to date with a short summary.
I have a few thoughts on this subject…

I hope I am not way off base here! I feel that the soul is the co-creation of the human personality and the divine spark which indwells each of us. The soul grows as the material mind makes those choices which leads one God-ward. Choices like choosing good over evil, truth over error, beauty over ugliness. So, in my opinion, at least, every human being on this planet has the potential of growing a beautiful soul during this short life.

I do not feel that belonging to a particular religion matters in the development of a great soul. I do not feel that a person must even be "religious", at least not in the common understanding of the word. If one is truly good, then one is becoming like God. And if one is becoming like God, then that person is growing a beautiful and unique soul.

The marks of a great soul are, (again, in my opinion only), a love of one’s fellow men and women as fellow children of a loving Father (God). And this love is best expressed in a wholehearted desire to provide intelligent and loving service to mankind.
Al

 

[jnm66]

This question is for all you who are believers in God

These question has been lingering over my head for a very long time.

If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world? Why did he create Lucifer knowing he would become Satan? Why did he put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden if he knew Adam and Eve would be tricked by the serpent?

If you are believer in God and you know the answer, do let me know as to be honest im racking my brain over the concept of a loving creator who had prior knowledge of his creations demise and let it happen anyway?

Good day:
I shall try to give my respnse best i can...i am sure this will get expounded upon-probably for and against what i have to say....Remember we are making the "all-knowing" assumption
(1)Yes-Satan(Lucifer)rebellion was known to God before it happened.
(2)The fall of Adam and Eve was forknown....
(3)Jesus being sacrificed for our salvation was known beforehand....
(4)All suffering in the world is the result of original sin(hence there really isnt any innocent people out there...)
So as far as we look at it...this doesnt make a bit of sense!
Now we must think of it this way:This has happened so that we can see all of Gods glory presented to us totally in its entirety...Please read Romans 9:19-to I think 24,or 25....ok,ok i know i will never hear the end of that one.Welcome to the forum....hope i have shed a little light on the question-i hope you read that part of the scripture....tell me what you think!

 

[jnm66]

Good Evening:
Hi, Al here... I am new to the forum.
The question at the beginning of this thread was:

"If God is all knowing, can foresee the future and prophecy things before they happen why did he allow sin to enter the world?"

I guess my feeling on this is that I believe that mankind, not God is responsible for sin. On an evolutionary planet it must be possible for sin to exist... it is one of the possibilities of existence. Whether or not God allows sin is irrelevant, at least to me.

I believe that all beings are free to make their own decisions. And that freedom extends to celestial beings too (if you happen to believe they exist). So Lucifer and Satan (my understanding is that these were two distinct individuals) had the same freedom we enjoy. They had the freedom to choose God or to reject him. They made their choice.

Evil in our world is a fact. So is sin. I define evil is an incomplete realization of reality. I define sin as the willful and conscious rejection of reality. I define ultimate reality as God. Therefore, the way I see it, the more real you are becoming, the closer you are becoming to being God-like. Conversely, the more unreal you are becoming, the closer you are drawing to that ultimate of unreality, non-existence.

I feel that we all have the choice to become more real, or to become more unreal. Reality, to me, at least, is living forever in an ever-expanding universe adventure of growth, challenge and joy. Unreality, again, to me at least, is an inward spiral into misery, bigotry, hatred and spiritual death. I say that death is but a door thru which we all must pass… whether we choose to survive or to fade into the nothingness of unreality is completely up to us.

Good answer Apw-allow me to welcome you to the forum...i must say i have had many discussions here...and i must say the individuals here can really make you think about things...i have had some positions change as a result of this forum!
Keep an open mind-and welcome to the forum!

 

[APW]

Thanks Jnm66!

I'm happy to be here!

 

[Humanistheart]

How did you come to this conclusion that God must desire that the souls experience the desires that lead to creation? That doesn't follow from anything that has been said..

You said that soul's desires for things outside of god lead to creation. Why would god create something and allow them to go to it if he did not desire this himself? So yes, god must desire that these souls fulfill their own desires or he would not have precipitated this.

Also, whatever God desires is, a priori, not outside of God. It is as logically possible for God to sin as it is logically possible for someone to draw a four-sided triangle. Simply put: God's desires cannot be outside of God's desires..

As already established, in this scenario god desired people to act on their desires seperate from him or he wouldn't have created this world for them to do so. So then god must desire there to be sin in the world, oh but then it wouldn't be sin because god desires it. So there's the answer to the OP, there isn't sin in the world after all.

Certain parts of my world view are different from most Abrahamic followers, but the basic idea of a supreme being is the same. The part I was admitting was not common was the part about co-eternal souls. Try to keep up..

Oh your right, it's my fault I don't automatically know which parts of the abrahamic tradition your trying to be true to and which parts are your own interpretation. Silly me for thinking that would be your job to clarify your own position.

It is contained in what is meant by "God" and what is meant by "souls." .

Those are both subjective terms.

I have also given you numerous examples of how the souls depends on God for its knowledge, bliss, ability, existence, etc. There is really nothing left for me to explain. Go meditate on it if you want..

No you've given numerous 'anologies', not examples.

I already have. .

Really, where?

I already have..

See previous.

Now imagine the sun and sunshine coexist eternally. If it were possible for the sun to die, then the sunshine would die since it is an extension of the sun. Therefore, if you have a working brain, you can understand the dependency DESPITE there being a simultaneous co-existence involved. Understanding analogies doesn't seem to be your thing..

If the sunshine was eternal it would not end with the sun, hardly an apt analogy for what your attempting to describe. You are right about one thing though, analogies are not my 'thing'.

Consult thread topic for answer. Judaism versus Islam distinction is herein irrelevant..

Take a look at the OP, or thread topic as it were. Let me know how you think your responce is adaquete or that it settle's the distinction to the point that it's irrelevant. You keep talking about a monotheistic 'definition' of god (note that this distinction is not made in the OP). Those two are the only monotheistic religions that come to my mind, so to which are you referring to for this definition?

This is just you whining. There is no point here to address. I'm not saying that you should believe in God and sin. I am not trying to convince you of these things. I was simply responding to the thread topic which presumes these things. So you can cry yourself to sleep about it. I don't care..

I was merely pointing out your contradictions, again. Perhaps you can explain how your inability to articulate a cotent argument here would cause me to 'cry myself to sleep'?

This is a topic unto itself. I'm not going to get into this. I am not debating the alleged attributes of God, nor is this thread meant for that purpose..

Just pointing out more contradiction. If you don't like it, I'd suggest you try thinking your statments through more before posting them.

Either you're insane or you mean something special when you write 'serve'. I don't really care what it is at this point..

Yes, those must be the only options.

What? That you have failed to say anything of substance or even relevance here? However sad, happy, sexy you think it is is meaningless. You either understand it in the context of the discussion or you go sit in the corner with the dunce cap..

Temper temper. If you reread the OP as I suggested you'll see that this has already been dealt with.


This is where a smilie shooting holes into a straw man with a machine gun would be perfect.[/quote]

I'd prefer a smiley rolling his eyes right now, personally.

 

[Willamena]

If it's taking a while, the fault lies with us.

Or, maybe, there is no fault? Who's to say it shouldn't take a long time? (Which is to say, don't bow to him.)

 

[Riverwolf]

I 'serve' no one.

You serve your body every day. (I hope. ) When you give to charity or a homeless man, you are serving them for that moment. When you cook a meal for your guests, you are serving them.