God and stuff?

[jlay]

God prefers the way he does things, i personally prefer something else. Is he wrong? I guess not, he is doing what he wants the way he wants. Am i wrong? i guess not.

Wow. That is is interesting. And wrong. It attempts to define God in your terms. That your thoughts are equal to his.( Isaiah 55: 7-11) I don't think I've seen someone take truth, and reduce it down to such nonsense before. Sailor, I have a feeling, that the issues I injected about preferences really went right by you. Do you understand what I was trying to reveal in your worldview when I used these examples?

[Byblos]

"Why is that any better than unreasonable and chaotic thinking?

Your answer smuggles in objective value. You are presupposing that reasonable is good. (we'll see how reasonable you are being in a moment) You say, 'if you don't want humanity to be doomed.' This presupposes that humanity has inherent value and that being doomed is bad, with no way to jusitfy that position. Afterall, if people are just molecules in motion, then so what? Why is your preference any more valid than someone who wants to eradicate humanity? "

Up until this point I honestly had no idea what you were arguing but now (due to the above) it's becoming much clearer, thanks. So let's take it one step at a time; bottom line as I understand it, you're arguing that objectivity doesn't exist, am I right in stating that about your position? If that is the case, we have many members on here who hold to this position, have been here for a while, engage in intelligent (although at times heated and frustrating) conversation, with no problem at all, so hopefully we can still do the same with you.

[jlay]

Byb,
He was quoting me. Those are my words to him.

[sailornaruto39]

oh nevermind

[Byblos]

Byb,
He was quoting me. Those are my words to him.

You're right, I fixed the quoting in my reply. Hopefully what I said still applies (to sailor).

[sailornaruto39]

oh nevermind

[neo-x]

Thanks Neo you just summed up what i was thinking , on that note i am ending my discussion in this thread as i think i have explained my position to the fullest.

I also loose interest when the argument steers away to, "I don't like it so" and so on and so forth. I mean what can you debate, from there onwards.

[jlay]

Byb,
You didn't fix it. Everything quoted was mine.

He was appealing to reasonable and logical thinkging. So I said,

"Why is that any better than unreasonable and chaotic thinking? Your answer smuggles in objective value. You are presupposing that reasonable is good. (we'll see how reasonable you are being in a moment) You say, 'if you don't want humanity to be doomed.' This presupposes that humanity has inherent value and that being doomed is bad, with no way to jusitfy that position. Afterall, if people are just molecules in motion, then so what? Why is your preference any more valid than someone who wants to eradicate humanity? "

I want to know how he accounts for meaning, knowledge, logic and truth apart from a transcendant, and intelligent source of such things.

[Byblos]

Byb,
You didn't fix it. Everything quoted was mine.

He was appealing to reasonable and logical thinkging. So I said,

"Why is that any better than unreasonable and chaotic thinking? Your answer smuggles in objective value. You are presupposing that reasonable is good. (we'll see how reasonable you are being in a moment) You say, 'if you don't want humanity to be doomed.' This presupposes that humanity has inherent value and that being doomed is bad, with no way to jusitfy that position. Afterall, if people are just molecules in motion, then so what? Why is your preference any more valid than someone who wants to eradicate humanity? "

I want to know how he accounts for meaning, knowledge, logic and truth apart from a transcendant, and intelligent source of such things.

In that case, what sailor said (never mind). Sorry 'bout that, it's hard to follow improperly quoted nested threads.

[sailornaruto39]

Ok after a quick search on yahoo answers i finally,real talk, no foolin', get it now. Since god wants them to CHOOSE him denying them a choice(to disobey him) wouldn't be what he wants. The way i see it is like this....

"since i want you guys to choose me out of your own choice and not because it is the only one, here, don't eat from this tree, either eat it and get out, or don't and be here for ever."

he he sorry bout that. Suddenly what you guys were saying now makes sense.

What would the would be like without the tree?

[Danieltwotwenty]

It makes my heart rejoice that you have had an enlightening moment, from a personal perspective i feel a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction.
Thankyou for coming back to tell us as it has made my day.
If there was no tree i guess there would have been no choice to accept or reject God and we would have to "love" God not by our will but his, because there was no freewill we would be robots programmed to worship and have no real thoughts to call our own. I would see it sort of like a bee hive or ants nest kind of world where the individual works towards the common good and life would be boring, not that you would realise as you cant think for yourself

[RickD]

Ok after a quick search on yahoo answers i finally,real talk, no foolin', get it now. Since god wants them to CHOOSE him denying them a choice(to disobey him) wouldn't be what he wants. The way i see it is like this....

"since i want you guys to choose me out of your own choice and not because it is the only one, here, don't eat from this tree, either eat it and get out, or don't and be here for ever."

he he sorry bout that. Suddenly what you guys were saying now makes sense.

What would the would be like without the tree?

[DannyM]

Ok after a quick search on yahoo answers i finally,real talk, no foolin', get it now. Since god wants them to CHOOSE him denying them a choice(to disobey him) wouldn't be what he wants. The way i see it is like this....

"since i want you guys to choose me out of your own choice and not because it is the only one, here, don't eat from this tree, either eat it and get out, or don't and be here for ever."

he he sorry bout that. Suddenly what you guys were saying now makes sense.

What would the would be like without the tree?

Nice one, Sailo, now repent and believe on Christ!

[Byblos]

Ok after a quick search on yahoo answers i finally,real talk, no foolin', get it now. Since god wants them to CHOOSE him denying them a choice(to disobey him) wouldn't be what he wants. The way i see it is like this....

"since i want you guys to choose me out of your own choice and not because it is the only one, here, don't eat from this tree, either eat it and get out, or don't and be here for ever."

he he sorry bout that. Suddenly what you guys were saying now makes sense.

What would the would be like without the tree?

Like a one way, dead end street.

[jlay]

What would the would be like without the tree?

I would say the choices are that it either wounldn't be, couldn't be, or would be but without without man. My personal choice is the 2nd.

The question itself seems flawed in that is acknowledges one worldview (theism), while super imposing a conflicting worldview (naturalism) over the top as the superior starting point of reasoning. It really does depend on our starting point. If we look at the world through a naturalists lens, then the error is presupposing that the world we are in is the result of unguided, chance processes. And thus, there are multiple possibilities for 'other' outcomes. Thus, a 'what if?"

Funny how nature is so fine tuned, that if just any factor (of which there are hundreds or more) were changed by a fraction, life could not exist. Not just intelligent, self-aware life, but any life.

So, when one ask the question, "what would the world be like without, the tree? It would be like asking, 'what would the world be like without gravity, oxygen, etc.?' No one would be here to ask. And further assumes that God's motives are as arbitrary as random chance. It is entering the discussion with a bent towards naturalism. That there are multiple possibilites. I think is one of the biggest failures of modern science. Presupposing that naturalism (not science) is the best starting point to ask questions. It is prejudicially bent towards atheism all while in the guise of science. Its' really self-defeating. Science is a search for causes. But, how can anyone attempt to seek out meaning, if their wolrldview can not account for the meaning of their own existence, much less the existence of anything at all? No wonder the science community is so hostile towards Intelligent design. And thus, 'science' is seen as the neutral starting point, when it is really anything but. It isn't science, but naturalism masquerading as an objective lens through which to view the world. Science is NOT a worldview.

Thus we have the conflict earlier in the thread. You had a bunch of people trying to give explanations, (many not sure themselves) with evidential (actually opinion) arguments. Free will, choice, etc. Stuff that is never actually mentioned in the Bible. Not saying it isn't true, or conceptually there, but just that it wasn't a productive discussion. Why? Your starting point. You probably assume that you are open minded, just wanting answers. But, you are no more open minded than myself. The same mistake that modern science makes. That naturalism is the objective starting point for examination. It isn't. This leads to all kinds of issues. In fact I believe it leads to all kinds of issues withing Christianity. Many of which you saw revealed in this thread. You saw conflicting explanations regarding the tree. You were wise to notice these conflicts. That is why I didn't bother trying to rationalize an explanation, knowing that most here don't agree, or don't really know to begin with, yet still attempt an answer. And in those answers we see that some acknowlegdge theism, yet unknowlingly allow naturalism to hold dominion over their thinking.

A transcendent, intelligent, pusposeful creator is not simply rolling the dice and playing the odds, so that an outcome is not THE reality but just a possible reality. It seems to be the equivalent of saying God has 1 million dice, and he is rolling them over and over until all come up on six. What are the odds of this happening? And then so, we deduce that the other rolls are actual possibilities. If that is the case, then God is not the 'creator' that is revealed in the scriptures. He is some hypothetical gambler who, BTW, would still be rolling the dice, hoping for the correct outcome.

So, say we don't like the idea of a tree. Is our reaction to it, evidence for a better alternative? Not really. Say, I don't like gravity. It would be much better if I could jump from Knoxville to Chattanooga. Surely, God could have created a world in which I could because I would prefer it, and it would be 'better' in my eyes. Life without the tree would be as absurd a concept as life on earth withouth gravity, or the proper mixture of oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen. And yet still try to rationalize the existance of man into this imaginary, never existant world.

We see the multiverse option being proposed and actually considered. An absurd alternative that presupposes some universe producing factory cranking out endless possibilities. Yet, with no evidence or ability to account for such a factory. I think it is fruitless to ask the question, 'what if,' because it presupposes the naturalists worldview (one that offers no purposeful meaning or reason for, Why?) is a superior position to interpret the theistic worldview. It is destined to fail before it gets out of the gate. And for most people, this is all happening ignorantly. The naturalists starting point is so ingrained that it almost seems absurd for most to even question their methods of thinking. And so where does that leave you. Frustrated with Christians who claim to know truth, but don't even agree amongst themselves. Worse off than you were before. And then all the Christians saying, "He's just anti Christian." All because they thought it wise in their own eyes to abandon the solid ground of theism to be open minded and give credibility to a worldview that is non-sense and offer ZERO hope for meaning in anything.

I wasn't planning on writing this long of a response, but it all seemed to be neceassary in the end.