Now you're making me think of "Total Eclipse of the Heart". And I thought I took that karaoke song out of my head years ago.
9 лет назад+3
Question for Matt Slick: Matt Dillahunty said that even if he saw Jesus resurrect Lazarus from the dead, or if he saw Jesus resurrect from the dead he wouldn't conclude that Jesus is God, yet he believes that if we find a fossil of what they claim could be a transitional species that proves that evolution is true. Is that not the special pleading fallacy?
Matt, even with the vague Metaphysical/Ethical Concept of "Sin", how is it possible that God is able to create Free Will, let alone an immortal soul as some Christians hold (I don't know what you believe about the soul, so I won't include you on the list)?
Matt Slick hung up on Morality. Saying that we got Morality from some cosmic entity. Morality was around way before Christianity's existence even began.
***** BY YOUR COMMENT ABOUT SYE> 1. what do you mean by proof.? 2. is induction enough proof? 3. the word proof is an immaterial concept. CAN YOU BUY A POUND OF PROOF? 4.IF I USE INDUCTION WILL THAT GIVE YOU CERTAN PROOF. 5. BY ASKING FOR PROOF YOU ARE ASSUMING MY WORLDVIEW, BECAUSE YOU THINK PROOF IS POSSIBLE GOOD I HAVE A CONVERT!
Wish I would have got this question in but maybe I will hear an answer that helps to resolve my dichotomy. So, If God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, and these were his foundational properties used when creating human beings (His children), then he created us to have mutually inclusive properties. We are both bad and good, powerful and powerless, knowledgable and knowledgeless. He has therefore created us using His properties, which are professed to be mutually exclusive (eg- God cannot be all bad and all good, only one quality exists). Those mutually exclusive properties created us to have mutually inclusive properties (eg- we are both good and bad). So my question is, how can mutually exclusive properties create properties which are mutually inclusive? Wouldn't that mean God must have mutually inclusive properties in order to create the opposing properties of good, knowledge, and power? But this would mean that God is all good and all bad, all knowing and all unknowing, all powerful and powerless. Doesn't make much sense to me when I think about it, that's all.
Luke 3:16, “JOHN ANSWERED, SAYING UNTO THEM ALL, I INDEED BAPTIZE YOU WITH WATER, BUT ONE MIGHTIER THAN I COMETH THE LATCHET OF WHOSE SHOES I AM NOT WORTHY TO UNLOOSE: HE SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WITH FIRE.” So, we have here: “WATER”, “HOLY SPIRIT”, “FIRE”...THREE BAPTISMS NOW note the FOURTH baptism of Luke 12:50, “BUT I HAVE A BAPTISM TO BE BAPTIZED WITH: AND HOW AM I STRAITENED TILL IT BE ACCOMPLISHED.” THIS is Christ’s baptism on the cross, “DEATH”. So if we include Matthew 28 we have five baptisms. But we read in Ephesians 4:3-6, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: One LORD, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and father of all, Who is above all and through all, and in you all.” So, which of the five baptisms of Luke and Matthew is the ONE BAPTISM of Ephesians 4:5?
I think you made a contridiction in your thinking of "Divine Epistemology". With the idea that God delivers knowledge to others, the obvious solution to everything, from all cultures, is to follow what the Lord says (specifically the Lord of Israel). While the issue of "which is which" is dead from your basic premise of "The God of the Bible is revealed to be true" the issue is also in what you said; God delivers *Some* knowledge to be certain. The question (outside of many) pertains to, as the question of "creating" free will, *why*; why would the God you uphold deliver *some* knowledge rather than *all* knowledge for man to obtain pure certainty?
I'm pretty sure Romans is referring to Paul trying to calm down the Jews who believe in the Rabbi Yehoshua (Jesus) and the new Greeks who try to blend Christ's "message" with Greek myth. Basically the whole "You know god exists" is more like "You guys need to stop complaining, you know God is still in your hearts and it's above all this bickering."
I really do not care because it's your podcast and what you do on it. I think my problem with it only comes to a manner of bias with moderation. It was especially more prominent with the conversation with AronRa where you gave Matt a lot of lee way when he was interrupting left and right. I'm not saying you were doing the same thing to AronRa, but as a viewer of a hangout that wants to be seen as quasi-professional (or fully professional, what-have-you), it would seem bias that a person who holds your beliefs gets more of a free card than guests or opponents.
Right off the bat, Tim mentions that people have an objection to Matt and him talking about Dillahunty behind his back after the show was over, so Tim says, "I can do what I want because this is my show." Clearly a Christian. Supposedly God can do whatever he wants because this is his creation. "Because I said so." Same excuse. And doesn't make what was clearly immoral all of a sudden moral. Not surprised that people who reason this way or are satisfied with such "answers" or explanations are theists.
Can't help but notice that BTWN doesn't produce videos of just him anymore. Seems to be strictly riding the coat tails of Matt Slick, for whatever that's worth.
I thought this would be for next week, the Atheist's 10 Commandments. But if anyone wants to know what he's talking about: 1) Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence. 2) Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true. 3) The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world. 4) Every person has the right to control of their body. 5) God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life. 6) Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them. 7)Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective. 8) We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations. 9) There is no one right way to live. 10) Leave the world a better place than you found it. kdvr.com/2014/12/21/behold-the-atheist-ten-commandments/
9 лет назад+1
Doesn't commandment #3 break commandment #1? And how is #3 a commandment?
FACTvsEVOLUTION Since secularism/atheism uphold a Naturalist position primarily upheld from Quine, the scientific method is mos prominent. I can kind of see where you're coming from, since it says "Be open minded to everything...through this specific popular method we utilize" but ask the people who wrote it, not me.
Andrew assumes that an authority must be something that is never wrong. As if we cant trust our brain processes and reasoning while driving or operating a car to get us from point a to point b. Even if we make mistakes in reasoning... which christians certainly do as many christians have been found guilty of crimes or have made mistakes and required forgiveness... This doesnt mean we cant use our reasoning to the best of our ability to navigate through life. As if when I'm driving a car your brain is taking in massive amounts of information and you are making thousands of tiny decisions while driving in order to get from point a to point b. If you were unable to reason efficiently enough to avoid a car crash, than you are able to make choices based on your reasoning alone to get you safely to your destination. This would never happen if all our thoughts and reasoning were untrustworthy or werent applicable to the real world. The fact that I can use my reasoning and apply it to real world situations and survive, is evidence that it works! Also, when these guys claim that god is their ultimate authority, then why is Matt so hung up on Logic? Logic requires using your own brain, and your own reasoning. And also, anyone who is familiar with Alice in Wonderland would know that perfectly sound logic can be used to create utter nonsense.
Actually, I want to go even further than that Matt: If God is perfect (ie All knowing, all conscious &c.) Why create a universe of imperfection to begin with? Since God knows from left to right of our actions, events and so on, it is entirely pointless to have an "I told you so" moment" because it's the equivalent to playing chess with yourself: Boring, predictable and not very subject to change. Let's get away from the Free Will debate for the time being, the principle alone that what you define as God creating a universe seems vain at best and preposterous at worse.
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent, therefore magic! The Doulos conversation really illustrates the foolishness of this line of thinking.
I'm not a big fan of Matt Dillahunty, I believe he gets bogged down in matters of metaphysics and logic to a level that is almost patronising for atheists who actually understand the basic concepts he is outlying. But of course, one can pardon the man given that his primary target is theists who drag things out to inconceivable levels of stupidity. But for you Slick to say that Dillahunty is inconsistent in his support of evolution, and to cite this as a comparison with miracles that have never happened, nor will never happen, really is the icing on the cake for you and your kind. In watching these discussions on line, the most important thing to note about theists like yourself is that you are incapable thinkers; this is the critical word, incapable. It's not like you're a Ted Haggard or a Jerry Falwell, charlatans who preach for money. From what I can tell, theism serves no significant material purpose for you people. So your beliefs are genuine, which I suppose is some conciliation. So, without material gain, you people obviously believe what you believe against every aspect of common sense, every aspect of rational thinking, against every aspect of how language actually functions and how words combine to provide clear ideas and concepts. To compliment this you believe what you believe in support of wish thinking, in support of absurdity and nonsense. And you do all this despite the efforts and clear speaking of people who map out everything that is wrong with your beliefs, everything that is untrue in your beliefs, everything that has been proven time and again to be the make believe stories of ancient cultures that knew no better than to create phoney authorities....So what is the answer? Again, I'm left with the single word, incapable. You are incapable of accepting reality.
"Because you don't have a standard to make judgments" Irrelevant Ad Hominem, Matt. Even if one does not obtain a complete moral theory, that has nothing to do with the argument of what he just said. Answer him first, then talk about his Moral Philosophy. Maybe then, you can sound more proper.
BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM No one says that you can't run your hangouts the way you want, but isn't the comment section where we're supposed to voice our opinions? I felt like the Christian huddle up at the end taints what were otherwise good discussions, but it was meant more as a constructive critique rather than as a request for you to change.
Sikes Pico how very christ-like of you. schizophrenic, miserable coward with absolutely no self-worth whatsoever. that was such an incredibly pathetic response that i am very surprised you did not just delete my original comment. you look really, really bad.
Actually, I want to go even further than that Matt: If God is perfect (ie All knowing, all conscious &c.) Why create a universe of imperfection to begin with? Since God knows from left to right of our actions, events and so on, it is entirely pointless to have an "I told you so" moment" because it's the equivalent to playing chess with yourself: Boring, predictable and not very subject to change. Let's get away from the Free Will debate for the time being, the principle alone that what you define as God creating a universe seems vain at best and preposterous at worst.
MoStLy1aWaKE OK, I have to respond to this in reverse, so pardon the organization (and length): Your first point "Can be pretty fun" actually reminds me of the Pixar Short with the old man playing with "himself" at a game of chess. As the story goes on, the more the opponent becomes a different character. Good short, probably one of my favorites. Anyway, the point of using the "Playing Chess with yourself" wasn't to say whether or not it's boring, but the fact that there isn't a true teleology or dialect in creating a universe where you (or in this case, the Creator God of Christianity) know what will happen from the Sufficient Truth(s) of the universe to the contingent facts of our current lives and on to the end where, as Matt points out, you just say "I told you so". It’s entirely pointless for many reasons, including the part where he is already perfect and shouldn’t require such a tedious “game”. That’s really my point and I was using the chess game as a sloppy metaphor. Your second point "God Did not Create a Universe of Imperfection" is dumbfounding to me. Because it ask a perplexing question (outside of what perfection really *is* as opposed to imperfection); if the Creator God of Christianity didn't create the universe out with imperfection planted into it, *how is imperfection practically innate*? It's clearly established according to Christian Doctrine (unless you were within the more Gnostic or even some Hyper~Calvinistic sects) that God had nothing to do with the fall of man, meaning that he didn't intervene with the action(s) that took place. It could be argued that if God implanted pure perfection in the universe, the fall wouldn't exist because: A) If the universe were "perfect" then the snake would either not aide in the fall and not suggest Eve to eat the fruit. B) If the universe was "perfect", Eve would know *for a fact* that it would be wrong to eat the fruit and wouldn't eat it. C) If the universe was "perfect", Adam wouldn't eat the fruit, even if we were to allow Eve to partake in it. By most Christian accounts, this world is filled with imperfection or “sin” as some people like to say. My question is more for the sake of Theodicy (and kind of connection to the “chess game” metaphor if you squint your eyes hard enough) on why he (when by definition of Christian Doctrine and Theology) is unable to “sin” allowed to let others “sin”? To say he didn’t create a universe of imperfection implies that man (for better or worse) is able to create something that God cannot making him, in one way or another, not omniscient since he doesn’t know or cannot create “imperfection”.
Harry Alexander Nice novel you wrote there, but it has its problems. Well my friend I am going to address some of the issues you brought up but I hope you don't mind but this will be my last message in this post. I will read the counter points you may bring up but I probably wont respond to them, as I do not like RUclips debates all that much. A) The universe itself was perfect as well as all the animals, plants, and humans. This is the physical realm, not the spiritual, which is what we mean in Christian Theology when we say the universe was perfect. B) Eve did know for a fact that it was wrong. However Adam was the one who received the instructions from God, not Eve. For this reason Satan was able to ask her, "Did God really say?" and it put doubt in her mind because she was not there when God allegedly gave the instructions. You get proof of this when Eve gives her interpretation of the instructions and she adds "You shall not even touch it," which was not a part of Gods instructions. C) At this point in time Eve had already eaten of the fruit and Adam was still pure. Adam was not deceived for he knew exactly what God told him. Adam in his love for his wife decided to take the fall with her because God would have just killed her.
plus.google.com/hangouts/_/hoaevent/AP36tYd7sRak2TsM204TgH9Dv_snrX9s9JuzIK91Wv-VNAg15vDSCw?authuser=0&eid=111683839755055023667&hl=en
What time do you have the Google hangout and days?
I really enjoyed this talk. I appreciate everyone who put the talk on including the BibleThumpingWingnut.
Now you're making me think of "Total Eclipse of the Heart". And I thought I took that karaoke song out of my head years ago.
Question for Matt Slick:
Matt Dillahunty said that even if he saw Jesus resurrect Lazarus from the dead, or if he saw Jesus resurrect from the dead he wouldn't conclude that Jesus is God, yet he believes that if we find a fossil of what they claim could be a transitional species that proves that evolution is true.
Is that not the special pleading fallacy?
Matt, even with the vague Metaphysical/Ethical Concept of "Sin", how is it possible that God is able to create Free Will, let alone an immortal soul as some Christians hold (I don't know what you believe about the soul, so I won't include you on the list)?
Lol Matt Slick sounds drunk when you hold down the space bar.
I already made the A-A-Atheist t-shirt. I posted it on your Facebook page weeks ago, Tim...
Matt Slick hung up on Morality. Saying that we got Morality from some cosmic entity. Morality was around way before Christianity's existence even began.
morality exists as a transcendent before a material universe, writting them down does not mean that is the beginning of them.
***** WITH INDUCTION YOU COULD NOT PROVE ANYTHING< AND THAT IS YOUR MODE OF REASONING AS AN ATHEIST>
NOTHING IS TRUE THAT MIGHT BE FALSE>
***** Because you have no BENCHMARK, IF YOU DO PROVE IT>
***** BY YOUR COMMENT ABOUT SYE>
1. what do you mean by proof.?
2. is induction enough proof?
3. the word proof is an immaterial concept.
CAN YOU BUY A POUND OF PROOF?
4.IF I USE INDUCTION WILL THAT GIVE YOU CERTAN PROOF.
5. BY ASKING FOR PROOF YOU ARE ASSUMING MY WORLDVIEW, BECAUSE YOU THINK PROOF IS POSSIBLE
GOOD I HAVE A CONVERT!
***** ARE QUESTIONS TOO HARD FOR YOU?
MR> BENCHMARK.
YOU ARE THE BENCHMARK FOR THE PERSON THAT JUST FALLS SHORT OF INTELLIGENCE>
Wish I would have got this question in but maybe I will hear an answer that helps to resolve my dichotomy.
So, If God is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, and these were his foundational properties used when creating human beings (His children), then he created us to have mutually inclusive properties. We are both bad and good, powerful and powerless, knowledgable and knowledgeless. He has therefore created us using His properties, which are professed to be mutually exclusive (eg- God cannot be all bad and all good, only one quality exists). Those mutually exclusive properties created us to have mutually inclusive properties (eg- we are both good and bad). So my question is, how can mutually exclusive properties create properties which are mutually inclusive? Wouldn't that mean God must have mutually inclusive properties in order to create the opposing properties of good, knowledge, and power? But this would mean that God is all good and all bad, all knowing and all unknowing, all powerful and powerless. Doesn't make much sense to me when I think about it, that's all.
Luke 3:16, “JOHN ANSWERED, SAYING UNTO THEM ALL, I INDEED BAPTIZE YOU WITH WATER, BUT ONE MIGHTIER THAN I COMETH THE LATCHET OF WHOSE SHOES I AM NOT WORTHY TO UNLOOSE: HE SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WITH FIRE.”
So, we have here: “WATER”, “HOLY SPIRIT”, “FIRE”...THREE BAPTISMS
NOW note the FOURTH baptism of Luke 12:50, “BUT I HAVE A BAPTISM TO BE BAPTIZED WITH: AND HOW AM I STRAITENED TILL IT BE ACCOMPLISHED.” THIS is Christ’s baptism on the cross, “DEATH”. So if we include Matthew 28 we have five baptisms. But we read in Ephesians 4:3-6, “Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: One LORD, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and father of all, Who is above all and through all, and in you all.”
So, which of the five baptisms of Luke and Matthew is the ONE BAPTISM of Ephesians 4:5?
Yeah!
I think you made a contridiction in your thinking of "Divine Epistemology". With the idea that God delivers knowledge to others, the obvious solution to everything, from all cultures, is to follow what the Lord says (specifically the Lord of Israel). While the issue of "which is which" is dead from your basic premise of "The God of the Bible is revealed to be true" the issue is also in what you said; God delivers *Some* knowledge to be certain. The question (outside of many) pertains to, as the question of "creating" free will, *why*; why would the God you uphold deliver *some* knowledge rather than *all* knowledge for man to obtain pure certainty?
I'm pretty sure Romans is referring to Paul trying to calm down the Jews who believe in the Rabbi Yehoshua (Jesus) and the new Greeks who try to blend Christ's "message" with Greek myth. Basically the whole "You know god exists" is more like "You guys need to stop complaining, you know God is still in your hearts and it's above all this bickering."
What is Matt's opinion on Santa?
I really do not care because it's your podcast and what you do on it. I think my problem with it only comes to a manner of bias with moderation. It was especially more prominent with the conversation with AronRa where you gave Matt a lot of lee way when he was interrupting left and right. I'm not saying you were doing the same thing to AronRa, but as a viewer of a hangout that wants to be seen as quasi-professional (or fully professional, what-have-you), it would seem bias that a person who holds your beliefs gets more of a free card than guests or opponents.
That guy logan is clearly seeking God. Everyone needs to pray for him.
Right off the bat, Tim mentions that people have an objection to Matt and him talking about Dillahunty behind his back after the show was over, so Tim says, "I can do what I want because this is my show."
Clearly a Christian.
Supposedly God can do whatever he wants because this is his creation.
"Because I said so."
Same excuse.
And doesn't make what was clearly immoral all of a sudden moral.
Not surprised that people who reason this way or are satisfied with such "answers" or explanations are theists.
Let the entertainment commence!
...still waiting
*****
All it takes is for someone to get in and say something. *makes popcorn* ladies first!~
Harry Alexander
lol!
"We represent Him (God)." To whom?
Weeeha! Is there a guest this week?
Can't help but notice that BTWN doesn't produce videos of just him anymore. Seems to be strictly riding the coat tails of Matt Slick, for whatever that's worth.
I thought this would be for next week, the Atheist's 10 Commandments. But if anyone wants to know what he's talking about:
1) Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.
2) Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.
3) The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.
4) Every person has the right to control of their body.
5) God is not necessary to be a good person or to live a full and meaningful life.
6) Be mindful of the consequences of all your actions and recognize that you must take responsibility for them.
7)Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.
8) We have the responsibility to consider others, including future generations.
9) There is no one right way to live.
10) Leave the world a better place than you found it.
kdvr.com/2014/12/21/behold-the-atheist-ten-commandments/
Doesn't commandment #3 break commandment #1?
And how is #3 a commandment?
FACTvsEVOLUTION Since secularism/atheism uphold a Naturalist position primarily upheld from Quine, the scientific method is mos prominent. I can kind of see where you're coming from, since it says "Be open minded to everything...through this specific popular method we utilize" but ask the people who wrote it, not me.
FACTvsEVOLUTION As an atheist myself I don't even agree with #3, in general at least. I think it pushes science way more than necessary.
FACTvsEVOLUTION
#1 is an essential part of the scientific method, so it's redundant.
Andrew assumes that an authority must be something that is never wrong. As if we cant trust our brain processes and reasoning while driving or operating a car to get us from point a to point b. Even if we make mistakes in reasoning... which christians certainly do as many christians have been found guilty of crimes or have made mistakes and required forgiveness... This doesnt mean we cant use our reasoning to the best of our ability to navigate through life. As if when I'm driving a car your brain is taking in massive amounts of information and you are making thousands of tiny decisions while driving in order to get from point a to point b.
If you were unable to reason efficiently enough to avoid a car crash, than you are able to make choices based on your reasoning alone to get you safely to your destination. This would never happen if all our thoughts and reasoning were untrustworthy or werent applicable to the real world. The fact that I can use my reasoning and apply it to real world situations and survive, is evidence that it works!
Also, when these guys claim that god is their ultimate authority, then why is Matt so hung up on Logic? Logic requires using your own brain, and your own reasoning.
And also, anyone who is familiar with Alice in Wonderland would know that perfectly sound logic can be used to create utter nonsense.
Actually, I want to go even further than that Matt: If God is perfect (ie All knowing, all conscious &c.) Why create a universe of imperfection to begin with? Since God knows from left to right of our actions, events and so on, it is entirely pointless to have an "I told you so" moment" because it's the equivalent to playing chess with yourself: Boring, predictable and not very subject to change. Let's get away from the Free Will debate for the time being, the principle alone that what you define as God creating a universe seems vain at best and preposterous at worse.
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent, therefore magic! The Doulos conversation really illustrates the foolishness of this line of thinking.
I'm not a big fan of Matt Dillahunty, I believe he gets bogged down in matters of metaphysics and logic to a level that is almost patronising for atheists who actually understand the basic concepts he is outlying. But of course, one can pardon the man given that his primary target is theists who drag things out to inconceivable levels of stupidity. But for you Slick to say that Dillahunty is inconsistent in his support of evolution, and to cite this as a comparison with miracles that have never happened, nor will never happen, really is the icing on the cake for you and your kind. In watching these discussions on line, the most important thing to note about theists like yourself is that you are incapable thinkers; this is the critical word, incapable. It's not like you're a Ted Haggard or a Jerry Falwell, charlatans who preach for money. From what I can tell, theism serves no significant material purpose for you people. So your beliefs are genuine, which I suppose is some conciliation. So, without material gain, you people obviously believe what you believe against every aspect of common sense, every aspect of rational thinking, against every aspect of how language actually functions and how words combine to provide clear ideas and concepts. To compliment this you believe what you believe in support of wish thinking, in support of absurdity and nonsense. And you do all this despite the efforts and clear speaking of people who map out everything that is wrong with your beliefs, everything that is untrue in your beliefs, everything that has been proven time and again to be the make believe stories of ancient cultures that knew no better than to create phoney authorities....So what is the answer? Again, I'm left with the single word, incapable. You are incapable of accepting reality.
"Because you don't have a standard to make judgments" Irrelevant Ad Hominem, Matt. Even if one does not obtain a complete moral theory, that has nothing to do with the argument of what he just said. Answer him first, then talk about his Moral Philosophy. Maybe then, you can sound more proper.
BIBLETHUMPINGWINGNUT.COM No one says that you can't run your hangouts the way you want, but isn't the comment section where we're supposed to voice our opinions? I felt like the Christian huddle up at the end taints what were otherwise good discussions, but it was meant more as a constructive critique rather than as a request for you to change.
So much incompleteness in scripture and doctrine, so little time.
So you get morality from his nature. But said nature & actions can only be found in the bible....Ok then.
1:13:40
46:50
33:50 and you wonder why your views are so low
Why are atheists so bent?
take your haloperidol.
"bent?"
Volound You should do as most atheists do.
Volound I dont care much for cockroaches. Why should extend the same courtesy to you? You are worthless.,
Sikes Pico how very christ-like of you.
schizophrenic, miserable coward with absolutely no self-worth whatsoever. that was such an incredibly pathetic response that i am very surprised you did not just delete my original comment. you look really, really bad.
Actually, I want to go even further than that Matt: If God is perfect (ie All knowing, all conscious &c.) Why create a universe of imperfection to begin with? Since God knows from left to right of our actions, events and so on, it is entirely pointless to have an "I told you so" moment" because it's the equivalent to playing chess with yourself: Boring, predictable and not very subject to change. Let's get away from the Free Will debate for the time being, the principle alone that what you define as God creating a universe seems vain at best and preposterous at worst.
God did not create a universe of imperfection. Also, playing chess with yourself can be pretty fun.
MoStLy1aWaKE OK, I have to respond to this in reverse, so pardon the organization (and length):
Your first point "Can be pretty fun" actually reminds me of the Pixar Short with the old man playing with "himself" at a game of chess. As the story goes on, the more the opponent becomes a different character. Good short, probably one of my favorites. Anyway, the point of using the "Playing Chess with yourself" wasn't to say whether or not it's boring, but the fact that there isn't a true teleology or dialect in creating a universe where you (or in this case, the Creator God of Christianity) know what will happen from the Sufficient Truth(s) of the universe to the contingent facts of our current lives and on to the end where, as Matt points out, you just say "I told you so". It’s entirely pointless for many reasons, including the part where he is already perfect and shouldn’t require such a tedious “game”. That’s really my point and I was using the chess game as a sloppy metaphor.
Your second point "God Did not Create a Universe of Imperfection" is dumbfounding to me. Because it ask a perplexing question (outside of what perfection really *is* as opposed to imperfection); if the Creator God of Christianity didn't create the universe out with imperfection planted into it, *how is imperfection practically innate*? It's clearly established according to Christian Doctrine (unless you were within the more Gnostic or even some Hyper~Calvinistic sects) that God had nothing to do with the fall of man, meaning that he didn't intervene with the action(s) that took place. It could be argued that if God implanted pure perfection in the universe, the fall wouldn't exist because:
A) If the universe were "perfect" then the snake would either not aide in the fall and not suggest Eve to eat the fruit.
B) If the universe was "perfect", Eve would know *for a fact* that it would be wrong to eat the fruit and wouldn't eat it.
C) If the universe was "perfect", Adam wouldn't eat the fruit, even if we were to allow Eve to partake in it.
By most Christian accounts, this world is filled with imperfection or “sin” as some people like to say. My question is more for the sake of Theodicy (and kind of connection to the “chess game” metaphor if you squint your eyes hard enough) on why he (when by definition of Christian Doctrine and Theology) is unable to “sin” allowed to let others “sin”? To say he didn’t create a universe of imperfection implies that man (for better or worse) is able to create something that God cannot making him, in one way or another, not omniscient since he doesn’t know or cannot create “imperfection”.
Harry Alexander Nice novel you wrote there, but it has its problems.
Well my friend I am going to address some of the issues you brought up but I hope you don't mind but this will be my last message in this post. I will read the counter points you may bring up but I probably wont respond to them, as I do not like RUclips debates all that much.
A) The universe itself was perfect as well as all the animals, plants, and humans. This is the physical realm, not the spiritual, which is what we mean in Christian Theology when we say the universe was perfect.
B) Eve did know for a fact that it was wrong. However Adam was the one who received the instructions from God, not Eve. For this reason Satan was able to ask her, "Did God really say?" and it put doubt in her mind because she was not there when God allegedly gave the instructions. You get proof of this when Eve gives her interpretation of the instructions and she adds "You shall not even touch it," which was not a part of Gods instructions.
C) At this point in time Eve had already eaten of the fruit and Adam was still pure. Adam was not deceived for he knew exactly what God told him. Adam in his love for his wife decided to take the fall with her because God would have just killed her.