• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Fallacies in Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tim_The_Enchanter

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
684
Location
Magikarp
That's speciesism right there, then.
Actually, in Christianity, the only creatures that get into heaven are humans who live apart from sin and accept Jebus Chritiano. All other animals just die cuz they don't have souls.

I'm pretty sure the fallen angels cannot redeem themselves so the only angels in heaven started out there.
 

Mr.Lombardi34

Smash Ace
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
759
Location
Swimmin' in a fish bowl, year after year
Okay, so how about eor's original argument? God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. He created a world with sin, then gets mad at us for sinning, and then sends us to hell if we don't believe in him. He leaves nothing more than a book to prove his existence, mind you.
 

Tim_The_Enchanter

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
684
Location
Magikarp
Okay, so how about eor's original argument? God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. He created a world with sin, then gets mad at us for sinning, and then sends us to hell if we don't believe in him. He leaves nothing more than a book to prove his existence, mind you.
I'm not saying there aren't fallacies in Christianity. I'm just shooting down all of yours :]

I'm not a Christian, I just know a lot of religious history.

Look at my other posts in this thread, they're kinda amazing.
 

Quicksand

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
91
Location
Atlanta, Ga
Thou shalt not kill

-God
Nope, sorry. It's "Thou shalt not ratsach."

Ratsach is the Hebrew word for manslaughter or murder, or as Hebrew lexicon John Parkhurst says "in the Bible, ratsahh denotes manslaughter or murder, i.e. either the accidental or wilful taking away of a man’s life". This is different than the word kill (to slay) which is used in the Bible to denote just punishment or hunting of animals. So the 6th commandment isn't not to kill, it's not to take human life unlawfully.
 

Quicksand

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
91
Location
Atlanta, Ga
Okay, so how about eor's original argument? God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. He created a world with sin, then gets mad at us for sinning, and then sends us to hell if we don't believe in him. He leaves nothing more than a book to prove his existence, mind you.
God does not send anyone to hell (if by hell you mean an eternity of fiery torment). The Bible states that all living creatures are souls (Gen 1:20, 21), and that the soul dies at the death of the body, and that the wicked along with the righteous souls goto hell (hebrew - sheol, greek - hades) (Job 14:13, Ps 9:17, Acts 2:25-27), which is nothing more than the grave, a state of physical non-existence. (Eccl. 9:5, 10)

Eccl. 9:5, 10: "5 The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all. 10 All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going."

Omniscience is not a condition of being. For God to exercise his omniscience at all times would take away our free will, which is against his purpose.

He did not create a world with sin. Creation is not the same as manifestation.
 

Quicksand

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
91
Location
Atlanta, Ga
God is all-knowing. If he chooses not to know something, that is something he does not know.
Is someone who has the capacity to bench press 750 lbs weak because he decides only do bench press 225? No he isn't. Just because he chooses to bench press 225 doesn't mean he can't do 750. He's still strong.

God chooses to let people go to hell, a place of eternal suffering. He is all-powerful, and could prevent such a fate if he wanted to.
I'm guessing you didn't read my post, because I explained how hell is not a place of eternal suffering, nor is the idea supported anywhere in the Bible.
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
Is someone who has the capacity to bench press 750 lbs weak because he decides only do bench press 225? No he isn't. Just because he chooses to bench press 225 doesn't mean he can't do 750. He's still strong.
its possible to choose to benchpress different weights. its not possible to "not know" something and still be omniscient. hes either omniscient, in which case he knows all, or he isnt, in which case he doesnt. playing word games cant save you.
 

yossarian22

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
204
Okay, so how about eor's original argument? God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful. He created a world with sin, then gets mad at us for sinning, and then sends us to hell if we don't believe in him. He leaves nothing more than a book to prove his existence, mind you.
What a cliched, tired argument. This was addressed over a dozen times by various apologists.

All-loving is a a fundamentally weak and subjective term. A loving parent can still punish a child for instance.
an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot create a universe and give its inhabitants free will
Sure it can.

If we consider freewill "acting of one's own volition", then freewill is a certain possibility with an omniscient and omnipotent god. It does not matter that somebody/thing knows what we will do, assuming that this omnipotent god does not interfere.
 

HyugaRicdeau

Baller/Shot-caller
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
3,883
Location
Portland, OR
Slippi.gg
DRZ#283
Sure it can.

If we consider freewill "acting of one's own volition", then freewill is a certain possibility with an omniscient and omnipotent god. It does not matter that somebody/thing knows what we will do, assuming that this omnipotent god does not interfere.
This only argues that there could coexist free will (to the extent that you agree such a thing is even a meaningful or realizable concept) and an omnipotent/omniscient god "on the sidelines." It doesn't address the fact that the god in question is supposed to have created the universe, which IS "interfering." It's no different than setting a wind-up toy in motion, since the god will have had foreknowledge of events that will transpire AND he will have set them in motion.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
You still have some twisted view of what free will means, Yossarian. I don't get it. If your future actions are already predetermined by some supernatural being, that means you're not choosing anything. You're just a machine with an elaborate delusion of free will.

The existence of both an omniscient being and free will is impossible.
 

yossarian22

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
204
This only argues that there could coexist free will (to the extent that you agree such a thing is even a meaningful or realizable concept)
This is the large problem. If we use an idiotic form of freewill, it is not surprising in the least that we find it problematic. The type of freewill (the ability to choose between A and B) utilized by many is not a coherent concept. It demands that a specific set of rules is in place, but that these rules are broken when applied to the mind. So of course we find that it is garbage and never very consistent in various philosophical contexts. It cannot stand by itself. That is why I consider it "acting of one's own volition". It does not matter how I came to my decision, be it deterministic particles or a soul.

Now, you can call this intellectually dishonest, but my view of it is not inconsistent with virtually every definition of freewill.
and an omnipotent/omniscient god "on the sidelines." It doesn't address the fact that the god in question is supposed to have created the universe, which IS "interfering." It's no different than setting a wind-up toy in motion, since the god will have had foreknowledge of events that will transpire AND he will have set them in motion.
Again, that does not matter, because you are still acting of your own volition unless that god actually interferes with your decision process. God might have caused you to make that decision, and may even know what you are going to do, but that still does not take away the fact that you chose.

This seems to be more of a debate between causality and freewill than of freewill and omnipotence.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
"Of your own volition"? You're just playing word games, yossarian.

Volition just means choice. How exactly would you go about choosing anything?! It violates everything we know about the world.

If it is possible to know the actions of an agent before hand, then their actions were not chosen by that agent. Plain and simple. Their actions were instead determined by other factors. (Be it natural laws or an omniscient being)
 

HyugaRicdeau

Baller/Shot-caller
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
3,883
Location
Portland, OR
Slippi.gg
DRZ#283
That is why I consider it "acting of one's own volition". It does not matter how I came to my decision, be it deterministic particles or a soul.
Well if you can be said to act of your own volition at the behest of deterministic particles, what's stopping you from saying that, say, other particles act of their own volition when subjected to forces from particles in a deterministic way? It shouldn't matter WHO the act was carried out by.

Now, you can call this intellectually dishonest, but my view of it is not inconsistent with virtually every definition of freewill.
Maybe it's not 'inconsistent,' but it is basically useless.

Again, that does not matter, because you are still acting of your own volition unless that god actually interferes with your decision process. God might have caused you to make that decision, and may even know what you are going to do, but that still does not take away the fact that you chose.
But this is just looking at the 'most proximate cause' and saying THAT is a 'choice' without considering the causes behind that choice; I'd say it is taking it out of context. It's like looking at some Rube Goldberg device and saying "the marble knocked over the egg and cracked it into my breakfast" without acknowledging that there was a long series of complicated events that deterministically led to that, AND (to make an analogy with god) that you set up the device and 'pushed the button' in the beginning with full knowledge of what was to come.
 

arrowhead

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
723
Location
under a rock
Again, that does not matter, because you are still acting of your own volition unless that god actually interferes with your decision process.
he's the one that PROGRAMMED our decision process for us. god IS interfering with our decision process because he decided exactly what we were going to do before he made us.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
What a cliched, tired argument. This was addressed over a dozen times by various apologists.

All-loving is a a fundamentally weak and subjective term. A loving parent can still punish a child for instance..
The Parent didn't create sin, so your analogy is irrelevant, furthermore a parent won't cast their child away for eternal ****ation for sinning.

as far as the parent/god argument goes, if god is a parent DCF would have jailed him a long time ago.


Again, that does not matter, because you are still acting of your own volition unless that god actually interferes with your decision process. God might have caused you to make that decision, and may even know what you are going to do, but that still does not take away the fact that you chose.
How is it a choice if your actions are already determined? All it creates is an illusion of free will, regardless what you pick god knew you were going to pick it.
 

JesiahTEG

Smash Master
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Messages
4,126
Location
Rochester, NY
Wars where hundreds and thousands of people die horrible deaths aren't good. The Holocaust, where people were captured and burned alive, is not good. I'm glad there's an all powerful and loving being ruling above us that sits by and watches this happen.
 

yossarian22

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
204
"Of your own volition"? You're just playing word games, yossarian.
If I am, then you are doing the same.
Volition just means choice. How exactly would you go about choosing anything?! It violates everything we know about the world.
Again, it does not matter how I choose something. If I make a choice through deterministic particles, it is still a choice, even though I could do nothing else given the circumstances.

But we are discussing Christianity, aren't we? With souls and suchforth?
Well if you can be said to act of your own volition at the behest of deterministic particles,
I can be. After all, what am I?
I could also be some sort of dualistic entity with a soul far removed from the physical world and its laws.
what's stopping you from saying that, say, other particles act of their own volition when subjected to forces from particles in a deterministic way?
Because you are arguing that these particles can be considered a being equivalent to that of a human. I hope you see how idiot that tact is, as it is fundamentally nihilistic and contra to the Christian system.

Maybe it's not 'inconsistent,' but it is basically useless.
If we do not have freewill, we cannot save morality and the legal system and all sorts of cruft under varying philosophical world views. The morality thing is a much larger debate admittedly. There are a variety of arguments showing that one can be morally responsible for one's actions even if they did not have a choice (I think I presented one argument in the freewill thread)
It's like looking at some Rube Goldberg device and saying "the marble knocked over the egg and cracked it into my breakfast" without acknowledging that there was a long series of complicated events that deterministically led to that, AND (to make an analogy with god) that you set up the device and 'pushed the button' in the beginning with full knowledge of what was to come.
We are discussing the Christian world view, weren't we? I just put in the whole "deterministic particles" to make a point. We could start a new thread on the definition of a self if you so desire. Arguing from reductionism requires that I reject an omnipotent God [reductionism demands it, and it leads to a more rigorous system], while the "soul" conveniently provided by Christianity is a convenient loophole.
he's the one that PROGRAMMED our decision process for us.
How is it a choice if your actions are already determined? All it creates is an illusion of free will, regardless what you pick god knew you were going to pick it.
I am getting very tired of repeating myself.

There are a huge number of problems with Christianity, but the freewill against omnipotence is not one of them.

The Parent didn't create sin, so your analogy is irrelevant, furthermore a parent won't cast their child away for eternal ****ation for sinning.

as far as the parent/god argument goes, if god is a parent DCF would have jailed him a long time ago.
Great, you reemphasized my point. All-loving is a garbage terms that means absolutely nothing in an objective sense, so any discussion that revolves around the definition of the word will go nowhere because both sides will spend the entire time yelling about what all-loving actually means. Basing an argument off of a fundamentally subjective term is an exercise in idiocy.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
If I am, then you are doing the same.

Again, it does not matter how I choose something. If I make a choice through deterministic particles, it is still a choice, even though I could do nothing else given the circumstances.

But we are discussing Christianity, aren't we? With souls and suchforth?
How completely absurd. Choice in a deterministic world? What nonsense. For as well spoken as you are, Yossarian, you manage to say the most ridiculous things.

A deterministic world is the ultimate example of a world where there is no choice. According to your crazy definition of "choice" rocks make choices about where exactly to go when falling down a hill.

The mechanism by which choice is made absolutely DOES matter, because when you start to try to explain it, you realize that there is no way to reconcile "choice" with the known laws of nature. Thus, we reject the notion of Free Will and Choice.


A concept such as the "soul" does not help the situation any at all, either. Any interactions the body has with a "supernatural" entity such as the soul violates causality and everything else we know about the world.

Saying "the soul is responsible for Free Will" is just a quick reply to those not intelligent enough to realize that it's not a sufficient answer.
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
a soul doesnt solve the problem, even in principle. the soul's actions are STILL deterministic if omniscience exists.
 

HyugaRicdeau

Baller/Shot-caller
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
3,883
Location
Portland, OR
Slippi.gg
DRZ#283
I can be. After all, what am I?

Because you are arguing that these particles can be considered a being equivalent to that of a human. I hope you see how idiot that tact is, as it is fundamentally nihilistic and contra to the Christian system.
Well I completely don't understand your point then. You admit to being a collection of particles, but then you go on to say that I'm not allowed to say that these particles constitute a human?

My point in my post (though I didn't actually argue anything, I just posed a question, but I will argue it here) was that, IF acting at the behest of deterministic particles is a "choice", then simple particles have the same amount of "choice" in their path of existence as humans do, ecause there is no reason that arranging a set of particles in a certain way suddenly changes anything. I'm arguing that YOUR definition amounts to saying "these particles can be considered a being equivalent to that of a human," with respect to the nature of "choice," obviously not in EVERY respect. So really, I'm arguing that if your definition is in fact the Christian position, then it leads to a conclusion that is "fundamentally nihilistic and contra to the Christian system." I'm not necessarily saying that definition is applicable to the real world.

If we do not have freewill, we cannot save morality and the legal system and all sorts of cruft under varying philosophical world views.
Sure you can. If I can't be blamed for murdering someone, the justice system then can't be blamed for doing whatever it is they do to me as punishment. Nothing about not having free will makes it "wrong" to have a justice system, because even if there were no possible moral standard anymore, you'd have no basis on which to judge the acts of the court!
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Great, you reemphasized my point. All-loving is a garbage terms that means absolutely nothing in an objective sense, so any discussion that revolves around the definition of the word will go nowhere because both sides will spend the entire time yelling about what all-loving actually means. Basing an argument off of a fundamentally subjective term is an exercise in idiocy.
No I haven't I'm emphasizing the claim that gods omni-benevolence is a fallacy because his character has shown to be not all loving, in fact his character has shown him to be more xenophobic then anything else.
 

Quicksand

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
91
Location
Atlanta, Ga
"Of your own volition"? You're just playing word games, yossarian.

Volition just means choice. How exactly would you go about choosing anything?! It violates everything we know about the world.

If it is possible to know the actions of an agent before hand, then their actions were not chosen by that agent. Plain and simple. Their actions were instead determined by other factors. (Be it natural laws or an omniscient being)
Because the capacity to exercise omniscience need not be in effect all the time.
 

HyugaRicdeau

Baller/Shot-caller
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
3,883
Location
Portland, OR
Slippi.gg
DRZ#283
Because the capacity to exercise omniscience need not be in effect all the time.
That doesn't really even make sense, but even if it did, it wouldn't matter; the mere possibility of omniscience being able to be excercised is sufficient. The fact that ANY future event would be 'knowable' by the creator of the universe is enough to conflict with free will.
 

Sudsy86_

Smash Ace
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
594
Location
Upstate, NY
The Parent didn't create sin, so your analogy is irrelevant, furthermore a parent won't cast their child away for eternal ****ation for sinning.
Under the assumption God created because, for whatever reason, it/ He wants to, we have no rational argument for a God who truly loves us at all, much less all-loving.

However, I wouldn't necessarily assert exactly that; assuming some moral law exists and, perhaps, some sort of standard for living ( likely for some "greater" purpose) exists, it is still possible for an all-loving God to eternally punish someone, assuming they've had a chance to satisfy the standards or moral law.

Assuming "love" denotes some sort of a desire for justice, an eternal punishment is not incompatible with love.

If "love" indicates, in particular, a desire for justice FOR THEIR OWN GOOD, then, maybe it is.
I would just need a highly specified, likely knit-picky definition of "love" to give an answer.
 

Mr.Lombardi34

Smash Ace
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
759
Location
Swimmin' in a fish bowl, year after year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo3nPKRksY8

So you're saying that God loves us in a way that can't be explained (And doesn't make sense)? We can't debate if you always give the cop-out "He works in a weird way" excuse. He sends someone into hell, where he will never see that person ever again. That person will then be tortured forever, and never get out. Even if the person learns something from it, it doesn't matter, because they can't get out. If God LOVED that person, would he really do that? Does it express love to cause eternal pain to someone?

Seriously, it doesn't make you question God AT ALL? You honestly still believe fully in God's ability to be all-loving, and your trust isn't phased a little by this?

Anyways: Dodge this
 

yossarian22

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
204
No I haven't I'm emphasizing the claim that gods omni-benevolence is a fallacy because his character has shown to be not all loving, in fact his character has shown him to be more xenophobic then anything else.
Are you reading what I wrote?
All this can ever be is
You: "Hah, see he is not all loving!"
Me: "Hah, you just proved that he is all loving!"
You: "Nuh-uh"
Me: "Ya-huh"
continued ad nauseam.

You can't show that god is not all loving because "love" means whatever I want it to be.
 

snex

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 3, 2002
Messages
3,085
Location
Chicago, IL
You can't show that god is not all loving because "love" means whatever I want it to be.
we dont need a perfectly fleshed out definition of "love" to know that sending somebody to be eternally tortured can never be a part of that definition.
 

yossarian22

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
204
then the concept of an all-loving god is meaningless and people have no reason to worship him except out of fear.
Sure, whatever.

I'm not in this for the defense of Christianity. Just pointing out that appealing to "all loving" is idiotic. My knowledge of Christianity is incidental at best, so I really couldn't defend Christianity without spending more time and effort than I care for.

we dont need a perfectly fleshed out definition of "love" to know that sending somebody to be eternally tortured can never be a part of that definition.
Ignoring the context shows nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom