The Question Islam and Christianity Can't Answer

[Ignatius A]

Knowing with absolute certainty that a person will cause untold suffering and then himself suffer eternally in hell and STILL choosing to create this person when He could have not created this person.... makes this concept of God fundamentally amoral in nature.

Totally incorrect. People are free to choose. That's just how it is.

 

[Tomef]

Totally incorrect. People are free to choose. That's just how it is.

Just having some random opinion doesn’t make it true. If you had been born in a different country, chances are high you would have ‘chosen’ a different religion. That’s what the evidence shows - that people tend to pick the predominant belief in their culture (especially people who just assume that what they think is true). What evidence supports your idea?

 

[Ignatius A]

Just having some random opinion doesn’t make it true. If you had been born in a different country, chances are high you would have ‘chosen’ a different religion. That’s what the evidence shows - that people tend to pick the predominant belief in their culture (especially people who just assume that what they think is true). What evidence supports your idea?

And your statement doesn't mean it's not true. If if if ...
Scripture shows its true.

 

[Tomef]

And your statement doesn't mean it's not true. If if if ...
Scripture shows its true.

So, nothing supports your random idea?

Are you making a choice to ignore reality, or is your choice predetermined? Can you choose to engage with reality? Doing so would both prove your point and teach you a few things.

 

[Ignatius A]

So, nothing supports your random idea?

Are you making a choice to ignore reality, or is your choice predetermined? Can you choose to engage with reality? Doing so would both prove your point and teach you a few things.

I gave you the support. Whether you like it or not is of no real interest to me. BTW you realize you arent the arbiter of truth, right? Lie if you have to.

 

[Tomef]

I gave you the support. Whether you like it or not is of no real interest to me. BTW you realize you arent the arbiter of truth, right? Lie if you have to.

‘Lie if you have to’ lol. This conversation began with me commenting on your post, in which you quite clearly state an obvious fiction as if it were the truth. So, clearly you believe yourself to be ‘the arbiter of truth’. You try to displace this belief about yourself to the Bible, but where in the Bible is there conclusive proof for your idea?

I pointed out the well-established fact that people’s beliefs tend to mirror the society they are born into. People who are unable to question their own beliefs are especially prone to this kind of pre-determined belief assignment. Rather than engage with this however, you simply fall back on the insistence that whatever happens to go through your head must be true. Who, then, is the person who believes himself to be the arbiter of truth? The one who points to evidence and suggest discussion, or the one who refuses to think and insists on the universal truth of their unsupported opinion?

 

[Ignatius A]

‘Lie if you have to’ lol. This conversation began with me commenting on your post, in which you quite clearly state an obvious fiction as if it were the truth. So, clearly you believe yourself to be ‘the arbiter of truth’. You try to displace this belief about yourself to the Bible, but where in the Bible is there conclusive proof for your idea?

I pointed out the well-established fact that people’s beliefs tend to mirror the society they are born into. People who are unable to question their own beliefs are especially prone to this kind of pre-determined belief assignment. Rather than engage with this however, you simply fall back on the insistence that whatever happens to go through your head must be true. Who, then, is the person who believes himself to be the arbiter of truth? The one who points to evidence and suggest discussion, or the one who refuses to think and insists on the universal truth of their unsupported opinion?

Prove what I said is an obvious fiction. Telling me I would believe something else if i was born in a different time and place is not evidence my statement is fiction. Prove it's untrue.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe knowing does not mean intent. God is not willing for any to perish.

That's obviously incorrect if Christian doctrine is correct. This god is indifferent to the fates of those he creates who don't show fealty to it.

“hell” is nothing like it has been taught.

Nobody knows anything about the subject of hell or gods or afterlives. You can only give your beliefs.

If someone has the eternal will to throw a purely innocent God into an eternal torture of hell then I would say God has a right to send that someone to eternal hell.

And vice versa. If a man had the power to throw the god that made a torture chamber for him to gratuitously suffer in for eternity, he would be justified in so doing in self-defense.

God doesn't throw anyone in hell.

Then nobody will go there.

46 And they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous will enter eternal life."

You seem to have contradicted yourself if you're offering this scripture as fact.

Knowing what you will choose doesnt remove your free will

Knowing what will happen with certitude means that free will is not involved. We can predict what a planet orbiting a star will do only because it has no choice in the matter. If it had free will and the ability to modify its orbit, you couldn't predict its future course.

Only Abrahamists make that claim. Nobody else has trouble seeing that omniscience precludes free will. They have to if their god is to be both omniscient and just. They need to be able to blame man for being human and earning hellfire for it, beginning with the kids in the garden.

Scripture shows its true.

Scripture is evidence of nothing apart from the fact that somebody wrote those words down and that they have survived. If one wants to know which words if any in the book are accurate descriptions of the past or present, he must consult the world (collect and properly interpret evidence) in search of supporting or disconfirming evidence.

 

[Ignatius A]

That's obviously incorrect if Christian doctrine is correct. This god is indifferent to the fates of those he creates who don't show fealty to it.

Nobody knows anything about the subject of hell or gods or afterlives. You can only give your beliefs.

And vice versa. If a man had the power to throw the god that made a torture chamber for him to gratuitously suffer in for eternity, he would be justified in so doing in self-defense.

Then nobody will go there.

You seem to have contradicted yourself if you're offering this scripture as fact.

Knowing what will happen with certitude means that free will is not involved. We can predict what a planet orbiting a star will do only because it has no choice in the matter. If it had free will and the ability to modify its orbit, you couldn't predict its future course.

Only Abrahamists make that claim. Nobody else has trouble seeing that omniscience precludes free will. They have to if their god is to be both omniscient and just. They need to be able to blame man for being human and earning hellfire for it, beginning with the kids in the garden.

Scripture is evidence of nothing apart from the fact that somebody wrote those words down and that they have survived. If one wants to know which words if any in the book are accurate descriptions of the past or present, he must consult the world (collect and properly interpret evidence) in search of supporting or disconfirming evidence.

People choose hell. That's just how it is.

 

[sayak83]

Totally incorrect. People are free to choose. That's just how it is.

Regardless of freedom of choice, God knows what it is that the person he is about to create will choose and hence knows that he will, with absolute certainty, cause others to suffer and then get burnt in hell. Despite that God decides to give life to this guy. That is what makes this idea of God Amoral, regardless of the culpability of the person in question.

 

[Ignatius A]

Regardless of freedom of choice, God knows what it is that the person he is about to create will choose and hence knows that he will, with absolute certainty, cause others to suffer and then get burnt in hell. Despite that God decides to give life to this guy. That is what makes this idea of God Amoral, regardless of the culpability of the person in question.

Not regardless...people are free to choose.

 

[sayak83]

Not regardless...people are free to choose.

Do you have difficulty in reading comprehension. It does not matter whatsoever if people are free. It only matters that God foreknows what they will choose, and yet brings people who will choose evil and burn in hell to life at conception? That makes God's actions EVIL.

 

[Ignatius A]

Do you have difficulty in reading comprehension. It does not matter whatsoever if people are free. It only matters that God foreknows what they will choose, and yet brings people who will choose evil and burn in hell to life at conception? That makes God's actions EVIL.

Oh course it matters if they're free. You just want to blow past that.

 

[Tomef]

Prove what I said is an obvious fiction. Telling me I would believe something else if i was born in a different time and place is not evidence my statement is fiction. Prove it's untrue.

Sure, but showing why your assumption is unreliable requires you to engage in an adult discussion, and will include some effort on your part to understand why, to read some texts and discuss them maturely.

First a serious question though - I am assuming you are not a child, that you are in fact an adult? Is that correct?

 

[sayak83]

Oh course it matters if they're free. You just want to blow past that.

It does not matter a single bit when it comes to evaluating the goodness of God. . I proved why. It's not my concern that you did not understand the proof.

 

[Link]

How can a person be guilty and destined to hell before they even exist. Future knowledge doesn't make sense.

 

[Ignatius A]

Sure, but showing why your assumption is unreliable requires you to engage in an adult discussion, and will include some effort on your part to understand why, to read some texts and discuss them maturely.

First a serious question though - I am assuming you are not a child, that you are in fact an adult? Is that correct?

You just have to show that the statement I made is untrue. Can you do that yes or no?

 

[Tomef]

You just have to show that the statement I made is untrue. Can you do that yes or no?

Yes, for starters you can familiarise yourself with the relevant arguments, here is a starting point: Free Will vs Determinism - Orion Philosophy
Once you are familiar with those, you will begin to realise that simply insisting that ‘everyone chooses’ and there is no nuance involved is absurd.

However it seems quite evident that you have no interest in any kind of mature conversation. I suspect that you do not understand your own demand for proof and what that involves. What it involves, in reality, is you engaging in some mature behaviour. What I think you perhaps mean is proof along the lines of proving it’s raining outside by sticking your hand out of the window. If that is what you mean then you know as well as I do that your demand is silly and childish.

 

[Link]

Yes, for starters you can familiarise yourself with the relevant arguments, here is a starting point: Free Will vs Determinism - Orion Philosophy
Once you are familiar with those, you will begin to realise that simply insisting that ‘everyone chooses’ and there is no nuance involved is absurd.

However it seems quite evident that you have no interest in any kind of mature conversation. I suspect that you do not understand your own demand for proof and what that involves. What it involves, in reality, is you engaging in some mature behaviour. What I think you perhaps mean is proof along the lines of proving it’s raining outside by sticking your hand out of the window. If that is what you mean then you know as well as I do that your demand is silly and childish.

Salam

Free-will is only possible with God and unseen realms. The Quran says a day with God is a thousand years of our reckoning and things take a thousand years to ascend to God. Each day our deeds are presented to God and his Messenger and the security givers (the Imams), but it's not in a process we are familiar with.

Angels (a) and the unseen realm we are connected to make free-will possible. In this unseen realm, we have enemies too and can go wrong realms and wrong skies.

Once we associate with God, we are in a far place, and Angels (a) and Imam (a) are not responsible at that point if we reach guidance or not. However, if we enter the proper doors and fear God, the Imams (a) will guide us in the unseen journey.

The speed we race to God is a matter of will.

Ultimately, we are the creators of the realms in our souls. We choose what to tune into the good thoughts from God and Imam (a) or the evil thoughts from Satan and his minions.

The struggle to get out darkness to light is not easy. And it's not a matter of just a moment decision. Rather, each decision behind the scenes is an entire battle in the soul between light and darkness. Yet when we do evil, we feel guilt and when we do good, we feel good about it, so we are the ultimate decision makers. How those events take place, we don't know.

Man is a light, a secret on top of a secret. The Angels rank up the higher they help humans in ascension. Each day we witness is a entire thousand years of battle between Shayateen and Angels in the unseen realm.

 

[sayak83]

How can a person be guilty and destined to hell before they even exist. Future knowledge doesn't make sense.

I agree with you. No morally defensible idea of God is compatible with God foreknowing the free willed decisions of created beings and the existence of evil.