Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.

[cottage]

Not true. The actually does teach strongly against freewill. The thing is people think they know what freewill is and thats why statements like yours above come out..

I’m sorry but I can’t seem to make any sense out of that answer. Please explain?

I never said it wasnt in our scope. We do still make choices, but doesnt mean that all of our choices arent influenced hence that is what freewill speaks of.

If we have the choice to do x or y but we are influenced to do y, then we do not have the free choice to do x.

Exactly, the matter has been decided for us and we cant choose good over evil unless something influences us to choose good. Your words here just proved my point about freewill, it collapses..

I think you’ve missed the point I was making. The Free Will Defence is the classic theodical argument that is used to rebut Problem of Evil: God is all good, and evil only exists because humans have misused their God-given free will by defying the Almighty. So I’m saying if there is no free will, then obviously the FWD collapses.

Says who? The bible shows we dont have freewill yet God is still having a relationship with His creation..

Impossible! A relationship is a mutual concept by definition. You cannot have a one-sided relationship.

They call this doctrine limited freewill. This is an oxymoron. The words limited and free are completely in contrast to each other as good and evil is. Freewill is an illusion and this illusion makes [which that in itself makes your will not free] you think you have a will that is limited or free..

Not quite. Humans, unlike the Christian God, can be partly good and partly evil. And in the same way we can be free in some respects while in others our judgements are utterly determined. It may be argued that our selfish needs are logically prior in everything we do, and in that sense our will can certainly be said to be determined for us by our need to exist and to reproduce, and also by the other physical limitations that exist in nature, but within that sphere we still have the power to act or not act. But what does it mean to say we have no free will and that everything is determined? What law do we call upon to make this argument? It is none other than our old friend cause and effect, a principle that has no certainty but stands upon the custom of associating one thing with another.

see to believe in any freewill, one has to accept a contradiction as fact. Look at your statement..

"must exist within the laws of the universe"---we are inside of laws that influence everything we do you admit here yet i dont think you really admit to the everything in that sentence.

"but we do have free will"---now you say we are free to break any law in the universe at our whims or whenever we will it. Is that not a contradiction to the first part of your sentence where you say "We are physical beings who must exist within the laws of the universe"? Basically you are saying we are free to live outside of the laws of the universe with our freewill if we will this.

"with the exception of that one constraint"---see constraint and free, two totally opposite things, a contradiction. Now is it a constrained will or free will and if it is constrained, who constrains it? The laws of the universe? Where did the laws come from? Did they just make them up themselves? i had more but i will stop for now.

I’ve already made it plain that free will is conditional: our will is neither completely determined nor entirely free. (For example, we refer to the right of free speech, but even in the most liberal democracies there is no such thing as absolute free speech, where this might for example incite racial hatred or cause damage to the well being of society.)

The laws of the universe limit human free will, and God’s free will is limited by what is logically possible. But God and humans are free to act within those respective parameters. And you misrepresent my argument where you say ‘we are free to live outside the laws of the universe with our free will with the exception of one constraint.’ I said explicitly that we must exist within the laws of the universe – and that is the only constraint upon our freedom. Where did the laws come from? The answer is that if a thing is eternal and necessarily existent then self-evidently it is its own law, be that the universe or God.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The only reason emotional response has anything to do with it is because like I have explained, love is an act and not an emotion. An act produces energy and the energy has an effect which causes us to feel emotional responses.There now I have equated it with a quantifiable energy??

Love is an emotion that can cause loving acts, these acts can result in corresponding emotions.

 

[AK4]

I never once made this claim.
Care to try again?


To my knowledge there is nothing that is eternal.
Not even your god.


The onus is on the one who actually makes the claim.


What we learned is that you are not above using the very tactics you whine so much about.


I am well aware of what the op says.
I am also aware that the OP was nothing more than the Thread Starter (TS) attempting to have everyone else do their homework.

Sound familiar?


And you your unwillingness to listen to the reasons you are wrong are all on you.
NOT on those who have tried to explain why you are wrong.


Since I have not made the claim you are trying so hard to attach to me, your attempt at diversion has ended up as an epic fail.

Care to try again?

I might be lumping you in with everyone else because truthfully you all are arguing the same thing when you break it down. Agnostic--the religion of i dont know. How far is it that off of atheism

 

[McBell]

There is nothing i could do to "mend" a discord that an atheist already has for the bible unless they were truly willing to have an open mind to what i presented from the scriptures [not just bibles because of the churches teachings and faulty translations is the reason many curse God anyway]

So you think it is better to give even more reason for atheists to disregard the Bible?
Sounds like a really good plan to me....not.

Did it really look any better when i presented the stuff i did earlier that supported science? It matters not, when you show an atheist anything from the bible, the biasedness of their heart will not let them have nothing but discord for what you present.

Not the way YOU presented it.

Whew, thats a relief. Good thing lucifer is not a scriptural. Would have been a little worried if youd had said satan or the devil or even some demon.

LOL

Interesting how you prefer one title over another.
Even more interesting that you would resort to such childishness in order to avoid the point.

I wonder, is your refusal to actually address the point mean you agree with it?

 

[McBell]

Thought I would share this definition of love I found!
Love is totally selfless and it is an act, not an emotion. We often mistake it for emotion because it is usually contained in strong emotions. But love is not an emotion…. love is creative action. It is the most creative act in the universe”.

This only works if you ignore the fact that the word love is also a noun...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The only reason emotional response has anything to do with it is because like I have explained, love is an act and not an emotion. An act produces energy and the energy has an effect which causes us to feel emotional responses.There now I have equated it with a quantifiable energy??

You're stretching the limits of your analogy, if that's what you mean.

The problem is that hate can be considered an "act" just as much as love can be.

Think about it. This is important for you so you can understand how your argument fails. Love, in order to know what love is you have the contrast of it, hate, evil, unloving actions.

Okay... so you attribute both loving and unloving actions to God. This doesn't change the fact that unloving actions exist and therefore love is not all-encompassing.

Now God in His wisdom knew this so He GAVE us both love and hate, loving actions and unloving actions, all so we can experience and learn these things. And guess what, in order for us to be trully made in His image [actually its still a process going on, He is making man not He made man] we had to know good and evil. love and hate. And by His action of love He provided these things

IOW, God fails to meet your definition of God, but for really good reasons. It still means he fails to meet your definition of God.

Care to try again?

 

[cottage]

He is not dependent upon a non-necessry feature of the universe because the universe comes out of Him. Its like saying He took a piece of His dna and made everything else from that piece..

He is absolutely dependent upon it. There doesn’t have to be DNA; God could create humans by using an entirely different mapping system – in fact there doesn’t even have to be humans! But there is a direct contradiction implied by a God who has no causal abilities. So it still has to be shown how cause, which cannot be proved or explained and has no logical necessity in this world, can be attributed to a supposed world that is entirely beyond experience.

They benefit when they come into existence. No different than a man and a woman who prepare and plan for having kids. They make sure they are financially secure and all the other stuff before having kids and then once the kid is brought into existence, it benefits from what the parents did. And the parents did this out of love for their future children. This is the same for God and the non-existent things..

I’m sorry but that is plainly absurd. You cannot love a thing that has no being. And a thing that doesn’t exist cannot be better off by existing.

Possibly, yet maybe sharing everything He has is just another form of pleasure He can get. And the reason this fits with creation is because before there was a creation how could He have this kind of pleasure.

This 'kind of pleasure', that kind of pleasure! If God is omnipotent and all-sufficient then by definition he has everything. God has no needs or desires, which poses another question: why create the universe? Why create anything?

 

[McBell]

I have no idea what you're talking about now or how it's relevant to the discussion.

Glad to know I am not the only one...

 

[Enlighten]

No one bible translation is perfect. There is a big difference between scriptural and biblical. There are many translations that doesnt follow the King James Version model. Theres Youngs Literal, the Concordant, Douay Rheims--[i think this one even preceeded the King James] and many others who ahvent twisted up the meaning of one of the most important words of scripture.

Those words are aion/aionis and olam. Study up on these words. The scriptures themselves define them and with just them alone you will see how for ever and ever/everlasting/eternal are not scriptural and how they damage the Gospel severly. If you study up on those words off of things from the internet you get arguments on both sides, but then the deciding factor should be how scripture defines it and how its used. Heres one off the top of my head, it mentions something about from everlasting to everlasting. Think about that.

If one everlasting is eternal, how can that everlasting end for another eternity to begin?


Also eternity is part of those unscriptural things. Eternity/eternal means no beginning and no end. See what i mean now.

​

Ok have just taken a quick look into what you are referring to, I honestly think you should look more into this, I think you've just automatically seen a "contradiction" without actually putting some deeper thought into it. e.g.

Matthew 28:20: “…I am with you always, to the end of the age” (NRSV), the word “age” being a translation of aion. Rendering aion to indicate eternality in this verse would result in the contradictory phrase “end of eternity

But if you look at different versions of the Bible they are worded so there are no contradictions as such hence hold the same meaning. This is why there are various translations.

And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during. (YLT)[4]
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (NIV)[5]
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. (NASB)[6]
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. (KJV)[7]
And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life. (NWT)[8]

 

[AK4]

I agree i don't know where AK4 is coming from in scripture references?

Here is a chart

I prepared a chart below to show key verses on the aions. The Greek word "aion" is here translated properly and consistently by two different translations. Notice carefully the categories these verses fall into: BEFORE, MAKES, PAST, PRESENT, END, NEXT, FUTURE, CONTRASTING, AND ENDS. It is not possible to use any one of these words in conjunction with any word meaning "endless time" or "eternity."

CONCORDANT VERSION
ROTHERHAM (1896)
BEFORE the aions:
I Cor. 2:7--
... before the eons ...
... before the ages...
God MAKES the aions
Heb. 1:2--
... makes the eons.
... made the ages.
PAST aions:
Col. 1:26--
... hid from eons...
... from the ages ...
PRESENT aion:
Gal. 1:4---
... the present wicked eon ...
... present age ... an evil one
END of present aion:
Mat. 24:3--
... conclusion of the eon ...
... conclusion of the age...
The NEXT aion:
Lk. 18;30--
... the eon to come ...
... age that is coming ...
FUTURE aions:
Eph. 2:7--
... the oncoming eons ...
... ages that should come ...
CONTRASTING aions:
Eph. 3:21--
... the eon of the eons...
... age of the ages ...
ENDS of the aions:
I Cor.10:11-
... the consummations of the eons ...
... the ends of the ages ...
​

Now try substituting the words "eternity," "forever," or "everlasting" in place of eon or age and see what happens: "before the eternities," "the present wicked eternity," "the conclusion of the everlasting," "the oncoming forevers," "the eternity of the eternities," "the consummation of the forevers." Interestingly, my computer spell-checker just told me that "eternities" and "forevers" are not in its memory and suggested "eternity" or "forever." No, I spelled them correctly, it's just that my computer knows there are no such things as "eternities" or "forevers" even if theologians and translators insist that there are.

 

[AK4]

continued

Only a few translations render "aion" consistently. These translations are not popular, however, because they are not endorsed by mainstream clergy. Most people have never even seen these translations. What they do see are the numerous popular translations that promote error upon error. I prepared a chart of popular translations showing the extreme measures taken to pervert this simple Greek word, "aion."

THE GREEK TEXT​

(This makes perfect sense)​

​

POPULAR TRANSLATIONS


(This is nonsense)

Mat. 13:22​

" ... the worry of this eon ... "
" ... the cares of life... "
(The Twentieth Century N.T.)

18:8​

" ... eonian fire."
" ... everlasting fire."
(Authorized Version)

24:3​

" ... conclusion of the eon."
" ... the world will come to an end."
(N.T. By: WmBeck)

28:20​

" ... till the conclusion of the eon."
" ... every day to the end of time.
(Rieu's Four Gospels)

Mark 4:19​

" ... worries of this eon... "
" ... but worldly cares ... "
(New English Bible: N.T.)

Luke 20:35​

" ... that eon... "
" ... yonder world ... "
(N.T.: A New Testament-Moffatt)

John 6:54​

" ... has life eonian ...
" ... will live eternally ... "
(N.T. By: Monsignor Knox)

8:35​

" ... for the eon ... "
" ... remain permanently ... "
(N.T. by: Montgomery)

8:35​

" ... for the eon ... "
" ... in the house for ever ... "
(Authorized Version)

8:51​

" ... death for the eon ... "
" ... will never experience death ... "
(N.T. by: Goodspeed)

Acts 3:31​

" ... from the eon ... "
" ... from of old.."
(Revised Standard Version)

I Cor 2:7​

" ... before the eons ... "
" ... before time began ... "
(New Testament by: O.Norlie)

8:13​

" ... eating meat for the eon ... "
" ... from flesh meat perpetually ... "
(N. T. By: Knox)

8:13​

" ... eating meat for the eon ... "
" ... while the world stands ... "
(Authorized Version)

Eph. 3:9​

" ... from the eons ... "
" ... from the very beginning ... "
(Living Gospels-Taylor)

3:11​

" ... purpose of the eons ... "
" ... that timeless purpose ... "
(N.T. by: J.B. Phillips)

3:21​

" ... of the eon of the eons."
" ... all ages, world without end."
(Authorized Ver.)

Col. 1:26​

" ... from the eons ... "
" ... for centuries... "
(Paraphrased Epistles-Taylor)

Titus 2:12​

" ... in the current eon ... "
" ... here and now ... "
(New Testament-J. B. Phillips)

Heb. 1:2​

" ... makes the eons ... "
" ... made the universe ... "
(Epistles of Paul-Conybeare)

1:2​

" ... makes the eons ... "
" ... created all orders of existence ... "
(New Eng. Bible)

1:2​

" ... makes the eons ... "
" ... this world of time ... "
(N.T. By: Monsignor Knox)

1:8​

" ... for the eon of the eon ... "
" ... from everlasting to everlasting ... "
(N.T.-Norlie)

6:5​

" ... the impending eon ... "
" ... the eternal world ... "
(N.T. by: J.B. Phillips)

6:20​

" ... for the eon ... "
" ... made for all time ... "
(Twentieth Century N.T.)

9:26​

" ... conclusion of the eons ... "
" ... at the climax of history ... "
(New Eng. Bible)

11:3​

" ... eons to adjust ... "
" ... the whole scheme of time and space ... "
(Phillips)

II Pet. 3:18​

" ... for the day of the eon ... "
" ... the day of eternity ... "
(N.T. by: R.F. Weymouth)

Jude 25​

" ... eon, now ... for all the eons ... "
" ... before all time, ... and for ever more ... "
(ASV)

Rev. 15:3​

" ... King of the eons ... "
" ... King of the nations ... "
(N.T. By; Henry Alford)

5:13​

" ... for the eons of the eons ... "
*" ... the eternities of the eternities... "
(Amplified N.T.)

" ... the eternities of the eternities ... " Now there's a strange rendering. I nonetheless give the translator credit for his stupid consistency. If aion means "eternity" then aions would mean "eternities." If someone can explain to me the meaning of "the eternities of the eternities" maybe this same man could also tell us about "hot ice," and "square circles."
So how did the translators handle a verse like Matt. 24:3, " ... conclusion of the eon ... ?" Remember they insist in other places that "aion" is "forever," and now they have to translate a verse claiming that this particular eon is going to end. How can forever "end?" Being in a fix, the translators changed the meaning of "aion" again, and translated this verse " ... end of the world ... " Now, think for a moment. Since they insist elsewhere that "aion" means "eternal" (which of course it doesn't), how could it possibly mean "world" here? It couldn't. The Greek word for world is "kosmos" not "aion."

 

[AK4]

continued

Check enough English Translations, and you will find all of the following diverse words absurdly translated from the Greek word "aion:"

"beginning" and "end"
"first" and "very first"
"evermore" and "nevermore"
"before time began" and "end of time"
"of old" and "today"
"nations" and "saints"
"permanently" and "never while the world lasts"
"the world" and "the universe"
"for all time" and "before all time"
"ancient" and "here and now"
"immortal" and "never to the end of my days"
"end of the world" and "world without end"
"ancient" and "yonder world"
"always" and "never"
​

You are looking at an amazing thing, which is false translating in action. This is certainly not "a pattern of sound words" ( II Tim. 1:13-14)!

 

[AK4]

Well the charts didnt show up right but you guys can figure it out

 

[McBell]

I might be lumping you in with everyone else because truthfully you all are arguing the same thing when you break it down. Agnostic--the religion of i dont know. I far is it that off of atheism

You know absolutely nothing about my beliefs.

Perhaps you would look less like the fool if you stop with your assumptions?

 

[McBell]

Well the charts didnt show up right but you guys can figure it out

I have no idea what your charts are supposed to show.

 

[Enlighten]

I have no idea what your charts are supposed to show.

That his interpretation of the Bible is correct and the rest of us are just blasphemous. Also that the Bible is inaccurate so we need to read it how he reads it in order to be Christian.

 

[Walkntune]

This only works if you ignore the fact that the word love is also a noun...

It actually works well and I would consider God as a noun.

You're stretching the limits of your analogy, if that's what you mean.

The problem is that hate can be considered an "act" just as much as love can be.

You call it a problem, I will call it freewill.

 

[Walkntune]

Just as darkness is here by default of the absence of light, so is hate also here by default. I don't find it to coincidental that they are used interchangebly in the scriptures.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Just as darkness is here by default of the absence of light, so is hate also here by default. I don't find it to coincidental that they are used interchangebly in the scriptures.

Can love be quantifiably measured?

 

[AK4]

Not the way YOU presented it.

Of course. Not the way any believer will present it

LOL

Interesting how you prefer one title over another.
Even more interesting that you would resort to such childishness in order to avoid the point.

I wonder, is your refusal to actually address the point mean you agree with it?

I don’t prefer any of them. Nice try though. And I did address the point