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

[Riverwolf]

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.

I don't think he'll ever understand, I'm afraid.

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 really don't know if he does or not. He's clearly intelligent. ^_^

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.

Vaisnava-Saivite. I only put that as a demonstration that I believe Visnu and Siva are One, and as a brief way of stating my beliefs that all gods and goddesses are One Supreme God in different aspects. I actually don't follow the philosophy of Sri Caitanya.

My take on the Sastras is that they are guidelines written by the Sages: many for specific times and cultures (such as many hymns of the Rig, Sama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas), others which are more universal(such as the Upanishads). The speculations really only arise with regards to trying to define the metaphysical/supernatural.

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

Very well.

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.

Yeah, that is a fairly weak argument, considering the actual state of "religion" in many countries these days.

He seems to be asking why a soul is dependent on God. To which I was thinking: why are our bodies dependent on, say, food? Why are infants dependent on the mother? (Or other external caregiver?)
Dependency does exist in the real world.

I don't know if I can offer you a better way to explain the soul's dependency on God, as I don't follow the same philosophy on God and souls as you do, nor have I studied that philosophy in depth.

 

[Willamena]

Personally, I just think it's all a part of His Evil Plan.

 

[Willamena]

I 'serve' no one.

I take it you're not married.

 

[cottage]

[/color][/font][/color]
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.

But it's not my picture! You may not have noticed, but my argument is that the entire Adam and Eve/Fall confection is absurd, and that is to say logically impossible.

 

[cottage]

What's the reasoning there?

If p, then p
An omniscient God knew A & E would sin, ergo A & E must sin

 

[blackout]

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

Because he had nothing better to do.

 

[cottage]

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.

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.

I’m sorry but that makes no sense to me. Every apologetic that attempts to account for evil has the unintended effect of directly weakening God, or empowering man at God’s expense. The Fall is impossible if the deity is all good, and unintelligible if he isn’t. Stymied either way, I'm afraid.

 

[Dunemeister]

I’m sorry but that makes no sense to me. Every apologetic that attempts to account for evil has the unintended effect of directly weakening God, or empowering man at God’s expense. The Fall is impossible if the deity is all good, and unintelligible if he isn’t. Stymied either way, I'm afraid.

You haven't presented anything like a cogent argument for this view. It's possible for a good God to permit evil. The so-called logical problem of evil has been pretty much dead among philsophers of religion for almost three decades now (although it still has some advocates among the volk). Generally, they have moved on to more emotive arguments. Thus the fall is entirely possible and intelligible on a classical understanding of the story. The story may have its defects, but these are not among them.

 

[Mr Cheese]

In order to fly
a bird is thrown from the nest

 

[Mr Cheese]

I’m sorry but that makes no sense to me. Every apologetic that attempts to account for evil has the unintended effect of directly weakening God, or empowering man at God’s expense. The Fall is impossible if the deity is all good, and unintelligible if he isn’t. Stymied either way, I'm afraid.

If I give you some candy, it is good
If I give you 5000 lbs of candy
and you eat it.
It is bad, as your teeth will probably fall out

Thus nothing is all good, or evil.

Yet beyond duality lays the divine.

 

[James Humphreys]

I pretty much agree with Dunemeister. If God's purpose entails the creation of beings who are able to respond to him out of true free will, and out of the motivation of love, then he has the power to set up things in that way, even if that allows the possibility of sin and evil. God is seen as being omniscient, but as he is also all powerful, doesn't he possess the power to limit what he can know, as regards what choices humans will actually make? He also must possess the power to step in at any point, and eliminate evil. But if doing that would mean preventing people from eventually becoming beings able to respond fully to his love, as his children, he might choose to restrain himself-out of love.

 

[cottage]

You haven't presented anything like a cogent argument for this view. It's possible for a good God to permit evil. The so-called logical problem of evil has been pretty much dead among philsophers of religion for almost three decades now (although it still has some advocates among the volk). Generally, they have moved on to more emotive arguments. Thus the fall is entirely possible and intelligible on a classical understanding of the story. The story may have its defects, but these are not among them.

Now kindly explain to me what is not cogent about my argument?
It’s complete rubbish to say the PoE has been dead for ‘three decades now’. And it isn’t a so-called problem of evil, but a very live one, both from a logical and evidential standpoint. And by ‘philosophers of religion’ I think you mean ‘theist apologists’. There is not a single theodicy, as far as I’m aware, that can unseat the contradiction. If you know of one then I’ll be delighted to hear it. Quite simply the Bible writers got themselves into a muddle. They knew they couldn’t deny the factual existence of evil, and so they had to accommodate it while attempting to insulate the Deity from any causal responsibility, seemingly unaware that by his permitting evil it meant there could be no Good God. It’s your prerogative to understand the story however you want, but the logical impossibility remains notwithstanding.

 

[cottage]

I pretty much agree with Dunemeister. If God's purpose entails the creation of beings who are able to respond to him out of true free will, and out of the motivation of love, then he has the power to set up things in that way, even if that allows the possibility of sin and evil. God is seen as being omniscient, but as he is also all powerful, doesn't he possess the power to limit what he can know, as regards what choices humans will actually make? He also must possess the power to step in at any point, and eliminate evil. But if doing that would mean preventing people from eventually becoming beings able to respond fully to his love, as his children, he might choose to restrain himself-out of love.

Let me ask you a question. What would you say was the purpose of our creation?

 

[Wandered Off]

He also must possess the power to step in at any point, and eliminate evil. But if doing that would mean preventing people from eventually becoming beings able to respond fully to his love, as his children, he might choose to restrain himself-out of love.

If we're talking omnipotence, then "doing that" could mean whatever God wanted it to mean, and it need not prevent anything.

Why assert omnipotence and then presume a constraint?

 

[jtartar]

I get your point Little Nipper I really hope you don't take my comment as offensive or rude. I don't wanna take away from your convertion and the walk you have with God.

I get that you are grateful for God creating the world as you have a strong bond with him but I would say for a moment think of the bigger picture. The genocides, the famines, the deaths of innocent people would you say that it was worth all of that for you to have a strong bond with God?

I'm not suggesting that God shouldn't have created the world, I'm pondering why did God choose to create the world in this way? To allow creation to fall from him when he has the ability to erradicate evil, when he has the ability to create our world a new without all the drama?

conversationalist,
It is humorous that you have expressed exactly the sentiments that God warned about. I'm not condemning you, I'm just pointing out that God has everything in complete control, and answers all questions, if we seriously search His word, Matt 6:8, Prov 2:1-9, 2Tim 3:16,17, Rom 9:20,21, Job 40:2, Isa 45:9,10.
Now, let me reason with you a little. Since you would make this world a better place, do you not think a God, that IS love, would do at least as good as you for His creation, 1John 4:8, Isa 45:18??
Consider what God has promised, Rev 21:3,4, Isa 1-9, tells us about the Kingdom under Jesus, where he will destroy the wicked, and all the animals will be at peace with theirselves and mankind. Isa 65:17-25, tells us further about God's purpose for the earth and men upon it.
Think about this, because a study of God's word says this. The Almighty God, Jehovah, The creator of the Heavens and the earth and all things in them, has a purpose for everything He does. His master plan is for mankind to be allowed to rule themselves for a period of time, so that they will realize that they can NEVER rule over men without becoming corrupt, that God created man to obey HIM, because He knows what is BEST for us, even though we do not, Jere 10:23. ALL THE COMMANDMENTS God gave were for our own good, Deut 10:13, Isa 48:17,18.
God has allowed man to follow Satan for a period of time, then He has promised to send His son to, first abyss Satan during The Thousand Year Judgement Day, then destroy Satan after that, Rev 20:1-3, 6-10.
You see, God made man to live forever, but God wants only the ones who love Him, the ones who want peace on earth to gain these wonderful promises. God has allowed around 6,000 years for Satan to rule, John 14:30,31, 2Cor 4:3,4, 1John 5:19, Rev 12:9.
According to prophecies recorded by Daniel, Jesus began His rule, in the midst of his enemies in 1914, Dan chapter 4, Ps 110:1,2. Very shortly, God will send His son to earth to destroy the ones who do not want to obey Him, and set up the Kingdom that will bring in a paradise earth, Rev 19:11-21, 2Thes 1:6-9.
You see, God is going to do the things you want done, but He knows when the best time to accomplish His purpose for the most people to receive the reward of everlasting life in the paradise that Jesus promised the evildoer that died beside him on the stake, Luke 23:43.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Quite simply the Bible writers got themselves into a muddle. They knew they couldn’t deny the factual existence of evil, and so they had to accommodate it while attempting to insulate the Deity from any causal responsibility, seemingly unaware that by his permitting evil it meant there could be no Good God. It’s your prerogative to understand the story however you want, but the logical impossibility remains notwithstanding.

Perhaps it is your understanding that is in a mudle in that it seeks to only see the bible in one way... which is a key feature fo scripture, that it can be seen in several (if not many) ways...

You would, however, be hardly alone in wanting to interpret the bible in just one way, just examione the literalists in this and other threads

 

[cottage]

Perhaps it is your understanding that is in a mudle in that it seeks to only see the bible in one way... which is a key feature fo scripture, that it can be seen in several (if not many) ways...

You would, however, be hardly alone in wanting to interpret the bible in just one way, just examione the literalists in this and other threads

I'm not interpreting the Bible, but merely stating what is self-evident. No amount of scholarly exegesis is going to alter the logical implications.

 

[Dunemeister]

You would, however, be hardly alone in wanting to interpret the bible in just one way, just examione the literalists in this and other threads

Who are the literalists in this thread?

 

[Dunemeister]

Now kindly explain to me what is not cogent about my argument?
It’s complete rubbish to say the PoE has been dead for ‘three decades now’. And it isn’t a so-called problem of evil, but a very live one, both from a logical and evidential standpoint. And by ‘philosophers of religion’ I think you mean ‘theist apologists’. There is not a single theodicy, as far as I’m aware, that can unseat the contradiction. If you know of one then I’ll be delighted to hear it. Quite simply the Bible writers got themselves into a muddle. They knew they couldn’t deny the factual existence of evil, and so they had to accommodate it while attempting to insulate the Deity from any causal responsibility, seemingly unaware that by his permitting evil it meant there could be no Good God. It’s your prerogative to understand the story however you want, but the logical impossibility remains notwithstanding.

Sorry, but it's not rubbish. You will search a long time looking for a professional philosopher (Christian or otherwise, apologist or otherwise) who seriously thinks the so-called logical problem of evil shows theism to be incoherent. One simply has to admit that it's possible for evil to exist in the presence of a completely good, powerful, and knowing God. There simply isn't really any strictly logical problem here. That is why, by and large, professional philosophers have abandoned it in favor of more emotive arguments. These arguments admit that it's possible for God to have adequate (if unknown to us) reasons to permit evil but that there still remains the problem that God's response to evil is not adequate, and that this has implications for theology -- although it doesn't reach as far as an atheological argument. It also doesn't render Christian theism (the usual target) incoherent. But in the hands of particularly clever atheists, these arguments can (and should) make theists uncomfortable and chastened. It's about the only value of Dawkins when he climbs out of his biological shell.

Let's talk about theodicy a bit. First, what should we say of a theodicy that doesn't satisfy you? That the theodicy is therefore not a good one? Why should that follow? It seems to me that in these matters, humans cannot be objectively rational. Everyone has a stake in how the argument turns out. As a result, people's positions become entrenched. I've long believed that there's no such thing as an atheist or theist who adopted their view on strictly rational grounds. Anyone who thinks such a thing is self-deluded. And a committed atheist is not likely to accept the validity of any theodicy whatsoever because doing so threatens her atheism. Of course, the same works in reverse. If an atheist explains to a Christian how her theodicy fails on this or that ground, the Christian may be perplexed but not necessarily perturbed. She might say, "Hmm, you have a point. Yet I'm still convinced God is trustworthy, so I'm not about to abandon Him over a logical quibble I can't fully get round." In other words, theodicies fail (or succeed) primarily because of emotive and faith commitments, not because of anything particularly good or bad about the theodicies.

But as I've said before, I've heard the logical PoE and its rebuttal. I find myself convinced by the rebuttal. There is simply no logical contradiction between the existence of an all good, powerful, and knowing creator and evil in the creation. The argument rests on the assumption that it is impossible for a good God to have a morally sufficient reason to permit evil of the sort we see in the world today. I say that assumption rests on hubris. It implies that we're so morally astute and intellectually savvy as to have canvassed all the possibilities. It is also morally self-congratulatory in assuming that our rejection of the theodicies we have has nothing to do with our agendas, biases, and moral failings. In short, the PoE succeeds only on the strength of our moral turpitude.

 

[Willamena]

But it's not my picture! You may not have noticed, but my argument is that the entire Adam and Eve/Fall confection is absurd, and that is to say logically impossible.

It is your picture that I address -- you, the composer of the argument you're putting forth.

Edit: No free will, no sin. No sin, no argument.