Well I meant the free will problem as discussed by Platinga, whose argument seems to focus on the problem of evil in a scenario where god is supposed to be all-good and also allow free will.

As to your point, isn't the whole "plan" sort of like stealing signs in baseball? You know the pitch ahead of time, but it's not like knowing the pitch means you are actually the one pitching or will intervene to change what the pitch will be. The pitcher still has to throw the ball.

@ Putin
''Well I meant the free will problem as discussed by Platinga, whose argument seems to focus on the problem of evil in a scenario where god is supposed to be all-good and also allow free will. ''

My take on it is that we are, in this sence, made in God's image. We are/should be thus engaged on a cooperative effort with God to perfect/heal the world. How much more ambitous a plan is this than some sort of Nivanna- Shangrila-type creation? I hope I have not done a gross disservice to Platinga's views with this huge truncation.

As another great thinker wrote this is not a case so much of Man in search of God, but rather God in search of Man(Abraham Joshua Heschel).

@ fulhamish: "Hence, the first cause may be postulated to be outside of time.Hence, the first cause may be postulated to be outside of time."

Outside of time and outside of causation?

@ Jamie.
''Outside of time and outside of causation?''

Yes, absolutely this is what I believe to be a resonable hypothesis, at least as good as any other. In terms of logic rather than belief, however, I must remain an agnostic, having started the journey as a 'hard' atheist.

@ Jamie.
''Outside of time and outside of causation?''

I should add that the key word in the arguement from first cause is ''first''. Thank you

If everything needs a cause, why doesn't the first cause need a cause? That's inconsistent.

Becaue he/she/it is the FIRST (sorry to shout).

You make a good point though, it seems to me that one must either embrace the concept of infinity or argue from first cause, with all of their respective difficulties. My choice is the latter and, in my opinion, it as at least as good as yours. Didn't we start of by talking about the Big Bang?

"Because it is first" is not an answer. Why does that mean it doesn't have to follow the rule that you've said must apply in all other cases? How does the first cause get to break the rules?

I wonder if you could read again the reat of the post you quote Jamie? My answer lies within.

@ obi: "...infinity allows ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to occur, which means that NONE of it can have significance..."

You use the finite (Shakespeare) in infinite quanity as an example of lost significance over infinity. By my own admission, the finite would have no significance under an eternity of scrutiny. I claimed that there was significance to "eternal life" because it would be spent in an infinite scrutiny and study of an infinite being. Not infinite in just quantity, but in all characteristics. Both infinite breadth and infinite depth. It is experience without end, and not in the sense of repeated experience which loses significance, they would be infinite different experiences on an infinite scale, analogous to our multiple finite experience on a finite scale to which we can relate. Your scale of measure is different than mine by pointing to infinite quantity of finite quality, while I point to infinite quantity and infinite quality.

@ obi "While I am no thesit, Putin, I think you short-chane them greatly...

And ILLOGICALLY."

I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices this.

Putin33, you continue to put words in other people's mouths and then bash them over the head with your analysis of something they didn't say.

Obi, while I agree to some extent with your analysis of the "Faithful" and the "Thoughtful"
I actually do have to agree with Putin here. Unless God is assumed to exist completely outside the realm of the physical, then one would expect at least some evidence of his existence in the physical. Thus when I study science or history, I note the implications of what I am studying in light of the debate about whether God exists or natural causes only exist. The scientific method cannot study theological concepts, but the theological concept that God created the Universe which is physical, can be tested in some sense by whether there is any evidence that metaphysical being created the physical. It cannot be proved, but if there is "no" evidence then that theological concept doesn't make sense. If there is evidence then that assumption could be valid, but cannot be proved because it is outside the realm of the physical in which the means of proof currently reside. Starting from that theological concept that God created the Universe is no different that starting from the philosophical belief that the natural universe and natural causes are all there is. They are both assumptions and faith statements, and both can resort to the scientific method to test their assumptions but neither can prove their assumptions.

In general though the "Faithful" denies the physical, and the "Thoughtful" denies the metaphysical. There are few who attempt to recognize the inseperable nature of the two in light of the "Human Experience" as you say, and fewer still who can articulate a reasonable position founded on both. I don't claim I am able to articulate a reason position founded on both anymore than the rest of us in this discussion. I am just trying to point out that at the foundations of human experience, the "Thoughtful" has assumed that the metaphysical, whether or not it exists (and there is a wide range of thought on this in that camp) is either not observable and thus not able to be considered, or not worth considering, and resort to dealing with the physical world only. Using the scientific method to study the physical realm only and natural causes is admirable and commendable, but the simple fact that the physical world is all we can study with science, does not prove that the physical world is all there is or that the physical world is all that is worth considering.

I must call out the "Faithful" camp as well. In the past the "Faithful" have rejected science and it's proponents because they "threatened" their belief system. If we believe that God created us and the universe, its physical laws and its boundaries, that He is a God of Truth, and is in the business of restoring a fallen humanity into relationship with Himself for His glory and our joy, then why do we feel threatened by science? Science, which is the study of the physical world, in the end can only come up with true and valid statements about the physical laws that govern our world. Thus it describes the creation of our God and helps us better understand His purposes and attributes. I'm not speaking to anyone here, but mainly in light of the church in history trying to silence scientific progress. Science may come up with incorrect theories, (and has done so in the past) but rejecting science because of that is as or more fallacious than rejecting the existence of the metaphysical world simply because it can't be observed. We can reject bad theories, based on the "bad science" behind them, just as the flat world and the earth centered solar system were rejected in medieval times because of bad science behind those theories.

It is on this point that I have been attempting to call out the "scientific" description of origins of the universe and origins of life because "proof" is being claimed in the name of "science", when really a speculative theory (story?) labeled as "science" is used to describe something the scientific method cannot or has not observed.

Btw Putin, the argument that there is no tv in your house is equivalent to the statement that there is something in your house is a fallacious argument. The absence of a TV does not necessitate the presence of something.

And Putin, we are not attacking people as you are. We are trying to point out what we believe to be false ideas.. "attacking", if you will, ideas; not people.. try to understand the difference and practice it yourself.

@ obi

On the problems of degree, unimportance, and free will:

I assume a fallen humanity destined for hell and unable in and of itself to increase it's score or any individual's score from negative infinity to anything higher than negative infinity. Actually the continous scoring system doesn't apply. Let me change it to: all of humanity has a score of "rebellion" for which the Justice side of God requires a punishment of "death". Humanity cannot change their score, no one action we have taken is any more (or less) rebelious on God's infinite scale of Justice than any other. There is no degree. I'll use myself as the example. Suppose I tried to over throw the government. I am then considered a rebel. Dressing, speaking or acting like I'm not a rebel doesn't change the fact that I am a rebel and have done rebelious things. Setting up a monument to the people killed in my rebellion doesn't change the fact that I particiapted in the rebellion. I can say that I'm not a rebel, that I've changed my mind, but I am still classified as a rebel and will be punished as such. Game over for me right?

I posit that the human race is in a state of rebellion against God and that all memebers of the human race are born into this state. Nothing we can do changes our status. God alone can change that status, hence the life death and resurrection of Jesus. The simple acceptance of this payment of the penalty for our rebellion clears our name and satisfies God's Justice side. The offer of this "way out" is God's Mercy side. Thus humanity has a choice to accept or reject having our names cleared. If this is true then making any attempt to "increase my score" does nothing. There is no problem of degree, and everyone is equally unimportant on the rebellion scale, no matter how much we "do" to try, we cannont "un-rebel." We just accept the offer and are no longer counted as rebels.

We have "free-will" to accept or reject the offer. Complaining that we had no choice in whether we were born rebels or not is not the same as complaining that we have no free will. We do not have "total" free will, for we cannot "determine" everything around us to our liking. If we could we'd be God. Free will (a "limited" free will) in this viewpoint does not extend to ones ability to choose ones starting conditions, just one's path.

This is the premise of Christianity.

Stephen Hawking quote:
"In a world that is in chaos socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?" (from 2006)

Quote from New Statesman journal:
"We have fought too many 'wars to end war' to believe that we know how to end war."

Quote from Bible:
"I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." Jeremiah 10:23

Yes Man was given free will but it was to be tempered with divine education so as not to be used in evil ways. Adam chose to reject this guidance much like a child today (you have to curb their free will for their own good at times -I'm sure you know what I mean if you have a child). Adam wasn't experienced enough to take on the role of deciding for himself what was good and what was bad and what the consequences of bad were. He chose to disobey God and strike out on his own without Gods guidance and blessings. This had been prompted by Satan (a Rebellious Angel (yes Angels have free will too)) who implied that Mankind was able to decide for himself what was good and what was bad.

What would God do next? Wipe out the three rebels and start again?

The questions had been raised and there were many other Angelic onlookers who might also wonder about that issue if it was not tested. So God permitted these wrongdoers to continue living for a while to start the human family, and He has given the Devil a chance to prove whether his claim was true so that the issues could be settled once for all time.

During nearly all human history, Satan has had a free hand to work out his schemes of domination over mankind. Among other things, he has wielded influence over the political powers and has promoted religions that subtly direct worship to him rather than to Jehovah. Thus the Devil has become “the god of this system of things,” and he is called “the ruler of this world.” (2 Corinthians 4:4; John 12:31) Indeed, “the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19)

@obi - So in view of the above it hurts to read you blame God for Hitlers reign of terror or at least for being negligent in not stopping it. Some would claim that if he intervened too much in mans affairs or did not let it go long enough for man try out every way of governing (including communism, nuclear deterent and United Nations Organization which have only been recent additions to mans effort in this century) then it really proved nothing.

"For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he.  5 They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted" Deuteronomy 32 4+5

But ...

God also planned the way out. He promised Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Judah, King David that there would be a decendant of theirs that He would appoint to be King - that King is Jesus (so it was not ALL about dying for us). As King of Gods Heavenly Kingdom Jesus will rid the world of Satans influence and those that CHOOSE to accept him as ruler and accept his education program will receive the blessing promissed to Isaac "and by means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves".

This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ. John 17:3

And I forgot to mention that those that have died and are in sheol (unconscious state of nonexistence) will be raised to life again (including the 6 million Jews and 10000 Jehovahs Witnesses that Hitler tortured and killed).

"Do not marvel at this because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."John 5:28

"Btw Putin, the argument that there is no tv in your house is equivalent to the statement that there is something in your house is a fallacious argument. The absence of a TV does not necessitate the presence of something. "

This is a butchery of my statement and doesn't even make sense.

"And Putin, we are not attacking people as you are. We are trying to point out what we believe to be false ideas.. "attacking", if you will, ideas; not people.. try to understand the difference and practice it yourself."

Accusing scientists of acting in a cabal-like conspiracy to prevent your 'legitimate' views of intelligent design from being published in scientific journals is not an attack? Really? It's just calling out false ideas - eh?

And before you retaliate with your usual "you're putting words in my mouth line", I'll go back to the old habit of quoting people's words back to them at length, so then people can whine about posts being too long.

"Promoting this belief is what is expected in every journal paper or you can't publish, this is what is exclusively taught in the public school system, and this is what tries to laugh intelligent design off the table."

The part about 'exclusively taught in public school system' is an outright fantasy, since the real problem is over 30% of public school teachers don't even bother to teach evolution or scientific theories deemed hostile to creationist ideas as required by our education guidelines.

"
Putin33, you continue to put words in other people's mouths and then bash them over the head with your analysis of something they didn't say."

And yet you still haven't explained how we can verify the Big Bang while discarding the Big Bang theory. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself. But you and Draugnar will continue to claim I'm "distorting" your words, when I acknowledged repeatedly your supposed 'distinction', but heaven forbid I raised questions about how that distinction would work.

Well, I don't discard the Big Bang Theory. Of course, I'm one of those Christians who believes much of the OT was written as a morality and origin tale, and that there wer eno literal Adam and Eve or six days labor and a seventh of rest. But that's because the inclusion of the books of the Bible are a man made (albeit care, thought, and prayer was taken into assemblying it) and most of Genesis was written to explain the origins of man at a time when man couldn't undestand advanced concepts like DNA and evolution and a huge universe of which the earth was *not* the center and the solar system was but a speck of dust in comparison.

@Putin - " over 30% of public school teachers don't even bother to teach evolution or scientific theories deemed hostile to creationist ideas"

Over 30% of our school teachers don't teach science in any way shape or form. They are English teachers and Phys Ed and Foreign Language and World History and...

That is such a bogus statistic.

Science teachers, teachers whose subject matter should include evolution. And you claim I'm too annoying to respond to? For christ's sake stop being obnoxious.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7691384/only_28_of_science_teachers_teach_evolution.html

"Well, I don't discard the Big Bang Theory."

Then you don't believe in intelligent design? Good to hear.

No, I don't. Not in the way the IDers at the "Creation Museum" not 5 miles from my house propose it. I believe in a guiding hand from a supreme power, but the whole "reed rafts carried them from Africa to America" bull is just that, bull. Life evolved over time and Pangea split into the continents we now live on.

@ Putin33:

Who did I personally malign in the scientific community? If the motivation to prevent Intelligent Design stances from being published is anything other than the adamant insistence that since natural causes are all that science can study, every conclusion in science has to tell the story that the physical world is all there is, not just the natural cause for the particular law or phenomenon being studied, then please, BY ALL MEANS, correct my statement. If I did anything beyond stating this simple fact and requesting that the stance I called out be reconsidered or express frustration that my research (and not my viewpoint) is not allowed simply because of my stance on intelligent design. I was told that if my research included comments in support of the theory of evolution (and what I assume was meant here was the spontaneous generation view of the origin of life), I would have been able to publish, or that if the same research had been done by someone who supported the theory of evolution, that there would have been no rejection.

The research of countless other scientists who hold to ID is rejected, without consideration of the merit of the research itself, simply because of their belief that an Intelligent Designer was the originator of the Universe and of life in that Universe. They are laughed at for coming to a different conclusion about what story the evidence tells, while the people doing the laughing are doing nothing more than telling a story themselves and claiming it to be fact.

As far as the schools go, you yourself claim that it is mandated that the evolution story be taught in all classrooms. Forget the point that some percentange (signifcant or not) don't teach it, you still take the position that it should be taught. So it is irrelavent whether it is being followed or not, a policy exists and is supported by many that prevents possibly valid alternative views. Sounds remarkably like the medieval catholic church and Gallileo all over again, but with the roles reversed.

And trying one last time to point this out to you.

Big Bang theory DOES NOT, say what happend before the singularity. Speculative physics theories ATTACHED to the Big Bang theory, claim various natural causes of the Big Bang, but do not provide any observations or validation of their claims (or even make any claim on whether such validation is possible).

In addition, the only part of the Big Bang that has been observationally verified, is everything post Plank Epoch. That means that everything prior to the Plank Epoch is unverified and may or may not be verified in the future. This includes the singularity itself.


The virtual particle pairs that existed with net zero-energy as "nothing" before the formation of the singularity is also currently unverifiable, and while the physics of virtual particles is begining to be tested, this physics is unable to test whether these were the conditions prior to the singularity.

I also must point out that your association of the speculative physics with the proven facts and calling the whole jumble inseparable is the same false equivalence argument you accuse me of.

Even if I assume that the Big Bang theory includes all of the above, the theory itself is still unverified for every part pre-plank epoch. So even if my definition of the Big Bang is wrong, my points are no less valid. I then ammend my statement to say that I don't hold to all of the Big Bang theory and tell you the same thing I told you already multiple times, saying that I accept the observable verified portions of the theory and reject the rest because it assumes the physical world is all there is, and that natural causes are all that can be assumed. That premise is too narrow therfore I reject it. That premise which is take as an initial assumption is no less non-falsifiable btw than the initial assumption that the metaphysical exists.

@Leif:

Wait--so Christianity ranks everyone as being the same, namely, as you said, "negative infinity?"

If that's so:

-Why have Saints, raised up HIGHER than other people?
-Why have Sinners, dropped LOWER than other people?
-If we're all equally sinful/guilty, does that not also make us equally good/innocent?
-If we're all equal morally, why be MLK instead of Hitler? (HA! GODWIN'S LAW!) ;)
-If we're SET at negative infinity, how are INIVIDUALS culpable for a race's Fall?
-If individuals are NOT culpable, and the race is wholly damned, why have a Heaven?
-If individuals ARE culpable, how, if they were suffering the Sins of (Adam) the Father?
-If humanity IS at negative infinity and fallen, as you say, why doesn't Loving God FIX IT?

(Sorry for the lateness of my reply, busy last 24 hours.)

Saints are *not* raised up above others or sinners lower than others. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Some Christian sects (Catholicism) put Saint's above, but most of Protestantism believes we are all sinners and in need of his grace for redemption, henc ethe Sacrifice Chritst made for our sins. And the loving God did fix it, through the sacrifice *and* resurrection of Christ, the Savior. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosever believeth in him shall not die but have everlasting life."

Adam is not the Father, God in heaven is the Father. And we do not pay the price for sins commited by those who have gone before, but no one is without their own sins, except Christ who was sinless and without blame but took on our sins for Himself and was the sacrificial lamb for all time.

Quick answers:

-Why have Saints, raised up HIGHER than other people?
Saints who are above the rest of humanity and even above other Christains are a teaching of Catholicism. I don't subscribe to it, irrelevant

-Why have Sinners, dropped LOWER than other people?
Ditto

Caveat about the above two answers, since I'm not sure if you were referring to the catholic teaching on saints. If the question is really about the "saved" vs the "sinners", yes there would be a demarcation line. Sinners => guilty, saved => innocent. The the only difference is that saved have had their record expunged, while the sinners have not. God's desire is that all the sinners would seek Him to have their record expunged, but a truly loving God also has to be just and thus won't force people to choos Him or pardon them in spite of their rejection of Him.

-If we're all equally sinful/guilty, does that not also make us equally good/innocent?
Yes. Compared to each other none of us is better or worse than another, but not by the metric you use. By human metrics this isn't the case, but by God's metric it is.

-If we're all equal morally, why be MLK instead of Hitler? (HA! GODWIN'S LAW!) ;)
If both are headed to hell (and I'm not claiming either is or isn't), what exactly was the point of being one or the other? It makes no difference... The life one lives is not the point, the allegiance is. Note that if one truly repents of rebellion and accepts God's offer of a pardon, they have alligned themselves with God, a "righteous life" is the result of the transformation God offers along with the gift of pardon. Thus Hitlers wouldn't exist among the saved except as posers who aren't really saved. Note that God doesn't offer perfection and sinlessness in this life, thus Christians aren't perfect, but their lives should reflect the desires of the God they serve.

Done with the trivial questions.

-If we're SET at negative infinity, how are INIVIDUALS culpable for a race's Fall?
This assumes the Human race was created as individual entities which is a western idea. I don't adhere to this idea. Eastern philosophy understands this better than we do. Take a radical muslim family. If one member of that family brings dishonor to the family by breaking the law, the whole family and community are dishonored, and thus funerals for living family members and honor killings. Eastern cultures (primarily religious cultures) take for granted that one person's actions are not without effect on their family, neighbors and community. Annimistic religions are replete with instances where the witch doctor tries to exorcise the village of demons because the actions of one or a few were assumed to have brought consequences to the whole village or community. It is simply not a question of whether or not the rest of the village did anything to cause the problems. Note that this is how the ancient Jews viewed things as well. Israel thrived or floundered as a nation. They went to war with their neighbors and put entire races to death because of the child sacrifice practiced by some in those neighboring cultures. (I still owe you a separate thread on this topic, btw.) This point is one that I disagree with much of Western Christianity, in that I think they have embraced a non-biblical concept that the individual is more important than the community. If Humans were created as communal organisms, then the explanation of one member's fall easily explains the dire straits of all.

-If individuals are NOT culpable, and the race is wholly damned, why have a Heaven?
Individuals are culpable. The human race being damned does not exonorate the individual who is a member of that race. However, the "second Adam" Jesus Christ redeemed the Human race, and paid the penalty that was due the human race. He faced the prospect of eternal separation from His Father at the cross, but was found innocent, while paying for our crimes. Now the individuals in the human race have a choice. Who do they align themselves with? Their old father Adam? Or the "new Adam" Jesus Christ? There has been a split in the human community if you will. One segement will follow the old community, while one segment has chosen to follow the new. The offer is extended to all but some reject.

-If individuals ARE culpable, how, if they were suffering the Sins of (Adam) the Father?
Sin is threefold. What you do that you shouldn't, what you don't do that you should, and the state you are born in, the disease part if you will. The first two are symptoms the third is the cause. Because of the disease, they have exhibited their own symptoms. You pay for your own sins, among which are the sins you caused others to commit. A parent who doesn't raise their child to be a good citizen and models theivery and murder to their child is in some sense responsible if that child follows in their footsteps, however the child is also responsible if they make the same mistakes as their parent. See my above discussion and if that isn't clear I'll answer your follow up questions. And I do disagree with Draugnar on this point.

-If humanity IS at negative infinity and fallen, as you say, why doesn't Loving God FIX IT?
He has by dying for His creation. The fix is in place, the cosmic war is won, and all that remains is to mop up the resistance, but God is patient and not willing that any should perish, thus he gives us more time than we deserve. He is not interested in a quick end. He is in the buisness of saving people, thus he chooses to wait so that more will choose Him.

Unforunately the webdip forum removes redundance whitespace.. I tried to delineate my answers from the questions.. Hope it's clear enough.