[fappenhosen]

It is God's All Power that makes it impossible to look at his face and live.

Again, this makes no sense. You failed to address this issue when it was put to you before. I'll assume you'll keep posting it even though its been refuted using your own logic.

I've had these freewill debates in these fora before.

And lost?

It's possible to have free will and live in a world without pain. Cookies or ice cream? See, a simple choice with no slaughter of millions. The fact that religious types insist on binding "free will" (as gifted by a being that has yet to be shown to exist) to harm is only to get out of debates like this one. And to make people appear weak and God strong. Somehow.

The Bible doesn't mention free will. I don't know where you got the idea from. In fact it explicitly refutes the notion of free will. Which kind of makes sense if God is an all knowing being, as he's claimed to be.

If we have free will then god is not omni-benevolent. He would rather see a 5 year old girl raped and murdered just so he can see the murderer exercise his free will. And even then the murderer can just say "I accept Jesus/<YourMessengerOfChoice> into my heart" and its all OK.

Once again, that sounds like a horrible, petty being.

[Pete Svarrior]

So God is a masochist and likes to inflict pain and displeasure on himself?

Nah, the only ones receiving pain and displeasure here are the people he specifically designed to be disobedient; for disobedience.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Actually, FAP, there is no winning or losing a debate of this nature. There is only exchange of ideas. The only way you can lose is to act like a self-satisfied, conceited asshole, which you have succeeded in doing w/ your arrogant tone. The Bible in no way refutes free will. People make choices, & pay the consequences, throughout the text. God has been shown to exist. The Ontological Argument did that centuries ago. Your failure to recognise that is a personal problem. Your refusal to acknowledge that there might actually be something more important than you in the cosmos sounds like megalomania. Might I recommend a good psychiatrist, & possibly meds?

[beardo]

Something more important than him and us might very well exist, but it's probably not your god.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

It would be a being a greater than which cannot possibly be conceived, & which exists. Ergo, it would indeed be God as Judaism has always understood him. Now, I am NOT attempting to prove Scripture to be correct about us being the Chosen People or any of that. That's all a debate for another day. I am only arguing for a God, defined in Anselmian terms.

[fappenhosen]

The Bible in no way refutes free will.

Go home and read your Bible.

You can counter this with a few quotes that might hint at free will being endorsed by the Bible, despite the fact that it never proposes it. (Because it would make God look weak)

Here I'll help:

John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.John 8:24 - I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

NB A lot of the quotes given in favour of Biblical free will are really just passages telling people to accept God/Jesus. You get punished if you don't accept Jesus. You get eternal life if you do. This says nothing about the ability to govern ones own actions. (According to the Bible God expressly creates bad people who reject him, and then sentences them to eternity in hell)

Anyway, having presented "evidence" for free will from the Bible the only thing you achieve is presenting a self-contradictory text. Not much good for anything.

The Ontological Argument did that centuries ago.

Yeah. I don't think you know much about that. I suspect you just read it somewhere. No offence.

Your refusal to acknowledge that there might actually be something more important than you in the cosmos sounds like megalomania.

There are many, many things more important than me. An angry, petty, vindictive, sex obsessed sky fairy isn't one of them.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Your quote comes from the NT. That is not part of the Bible, last time I checked, or did you forget I'm a Jew? Having 2 BA's, one of them in philosophy, probably means I know more about Anselm's argument than you do, altho' I am a bit rusty. & Judaism re: marriage as a positive commandment, along w/ the sex part. In fact, sex w/ one's wife is encouraged on Sabbath. We do not have the hangups about sex that Christianity does. Jews also don't believe in Hell. Or Jesus. Or being saved. Or any of the Christian claptrap you spouted in your post. So, tell me... Does it feel good to have made yourself look like a complete f-----g schmuck? Incidentally, the 2nd BA is now an MA.

[juner]

I am surprised this debate is still going on.  It is clear that atheism is the only sensible approach in the matter when comparing the two items in the subject of the thread.

[Ghost of V]

Your quote comes from the NT. That is not part of the Bible, last time I checked, or did you forget I'm a Jew? Having 2 BA's, one of them in philosophy, probably means I know more about Anselm's argument than you do, altho' I am a bit rusty. & Judaism re: marriage as a positive commandment, along w/ the sex part. In fact, sex w/ one's wife is encouraged on Sabbath. We do not have the hangups about sex that Christianity does. Jews also don't believe in Hell. Or Jesus. Or being saved. Or any of the Christian claptrap you spouted in your post. So, tell me... Does it feel good to have made yourself look like a complete f-----g schmuck? Incidentally, the 2nd BA is now an MA.

I didn't think we were confined to discussing God in Jewish terms only. This thread is titled "Atheism vs Religion", not "Atheism vs Judaism". Unless Judaism is the only religion now? If so, my mistake.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Vaux, you can argue any religion you like w/ anybody you like. But if you're going to debate w/ me, the default is set @ Judaism. If you want something else, I can probably do it. Specify. But don't assume. It makes an ASS out of U & ME.

[fappenhosen]

Your quote comes from the NT. That is not part of the Bible, last time I checked, or did you forget I'm a Jew?

To the people who call it a Bible, it's part of the Bible. Anyway, feel free to inject your own quote.

Having 2 BA's, one of them in philosophy, probably means I know more about Anselm's argument than you do

Cool, then you'll know it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. It basically boils down to "Cool things must exist because they are cool and it is better that cool things exist than not exist".

Christian claptrap

Whoah someone just backed away from the Torah. Anyway, reported for hate speech. Enjoy your ban.

[Ghost of V]

Vaux, you can argue any religion you like w/ anybody you like. But if you're going to debate w/ me, the default is set @ Judaism. If you want something else, I can probably do it. Specify. But don't assume. It makes an ASS out of U & ME.

I have skipped over most of this debate, so can you explain some things to me?

Is your God benevolent? Y/N and reasons why, please.

Is He omnipotent? Y/N and reasons why, please.

If above is true: can your God create a rock that he cannot pick up due to its own weight?

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

I don't hate Christianity any more than you do. I merely consider them a bit humourous. & no, I haven't backed away from Torah. That would be them. The Anselmian argument says nothing about being cool. It says that existence is better than non-existence. Let me ask you a rhetorical question. If someone points a loaded pistol @ your head & asks, 'Do you care if I pull the trigger or not?' What will you say? Is your continued existence on Earth as a conscious, thinking being better in your mind than your non-existence? Please note that the question is rhetorical. You might be a schmuck, but I don't wish to shoot you.

[fappenhosen]

If someone points a loaded pistol @ your head & asks, 'Do you care if I pull the trigger or not?' What will you say? Is your continued existence on Earth as a conscious, thinking being better in your mind than your non-existence?

This question has nothing to do with the Ontological argument. That argument is to do with cool things. Pistols at my head are not cool.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

God is of course omnipotent, omnibenevolent, & omniscient. The question, however, is illogical & solipsistic. 'Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?' is like saying that someone is a married bachelor. The question, like the phrase, is a contradiction in terms, & therefore has no connotation in English (or any other language).

[Ghost of V]

God is of course omnipotent, omnibenevolent, & omniscient. The question, however, is illogical & solipsistic. 'Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?' is like saying that someone is a married bachelor. The question, like the phrase, is a contradiction in terms, & therefore has no connotation in English (or any other language).

Alright, we'll ignore the question since you've admitted it is beyond your ability to grasp.

If God is omnibenevolent, which loosely means "Good guy all around ", then why has He commited such foul acts in the Bible? I'll give you one example: the flood. He actually attempted to kill everyone on Earth (of course there is no evidence for this Flood ever happening, but we'll ignore that part as well for now) and He had no qualms about doing it.

What was the point of this? God got upset that the beings he created were doing evil things (keep in mind, he programmed them to do evil things in the first place via "free will") and wanted to kill them all. That's the bottom line. No "benevolent" ruler murders his own subjects.

"Yahweh decides to flood the earth because of the depth of the sinful state of mankind."

Exodus 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.


Your God would make a lot more sense if you stopped calling him benevolent, because he's clearly not. He's actually more malevolent than most deities.

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Cool things & existence have nothing to do w/ each other. Some things that exist are indeed cool, but many things that exist are manifestly uncool. Nevertheless, in things that think, continued existence is almost always preferred over non-existence (in the case of humans, causing non-existence in oneself would constitute suicide). So God's existence is neither cool nor uncool, in the sense that he is neither a cool or uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence, as you have indicated by your dislike for loaded pistols near your head. Ergo, God exists.

[Ghost of V]

Cool things & existence have nothing to do w/ each other. Some things that exist are indeed cool, but many things that exist are manifestly uncool. Nevertheless, in things that think, continued existence is almost always preferred over non-existence (in the case of humans, causing non-existence in oneself would constitute suicide). So God's existence is neither cool nor uncool, in the sense that he is neither a cool or uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence, as you have indicated by your dislike for loaded pistols near your head. Ergo, God exists.

ergo trolling 

[Yaakov ben Avraham]

Re: God being an uncool Dude in the Bible by flooding the place, & doing other things that appear very nasty to people & things, I don't claim to understand the justice of of God @ all times. Why the Flood? Well, the Torah offers an answer. Whether you accept that answer is up to you. I'm not saying you're not entitled to question God. You are. But remember that some questions have been crossing the eyes of learned Rabbis much smarter than me for a couple thousand yrs now. I might have some answers. I might not, but can get you in the right direction. But all too often, I shall be as mystified as you.

[fappenhosen]

Cool things & existence have nothing to do w/ each other. Some things that exist are indeed cool, but many things that exist are manifestly uncool. Nevertheless, in things that think, continued existence is almost always preferred over non-existence (in the case of humans, causing non-existence in oneself would constitute suicide). So God's existence is neither cool nor uncool, in the sense that he is neither a cool or uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence, as you have indicated by your dislike for loaded pistols near your head. Ergo, God exists.

wut.

A man with five balls is neither a cool nor uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence. Ergo a man with five balls exists.

A goat with a dolphin's head is neither a cool nor uncool thing. But existence is indeed better than non-existence. Ergo...