Why can a perfect being not have free will? Does God not have free will?
Have I ever had the ability to control something but chose to let it work itself out? Of course, but I'm not omniscient. An all-knowing God knows what will happen before it happens, so it's not like the story of the apple in the garden of eden would surprise it.
Humans are imperfect beings, and I totally agree with you on all points about effective parenting requiring saying "no," punishment, etc. We truly do become stronger with pain.
But to compare humans with God is to compare imperfection with perfection.
Why would God, as a Perfect being, set up such a system wherein harming people is the only way to teach them and make them grow? A Perfect being wouldn't have to do that, and could achieve the exact same thing without doing it.
We really are running in circles here!
[For the record, I don't reject God because I feel I have been hurt in some way. I reject God on the basis of logic (e.g. the problem of evil), and because the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than one any religion could ever dream of describing.]
OK, so God has this great plan, which we lowly humans know nothing about. Got it.
The point is this. Why must God harm something to achieve his goal?
Is it because he wants to? No, he is all-loving. Is it because he has to? No, he is all-knowing and all-powerful. A tri-omni God must achieve its goal without causing harm.
We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.
being benevolent does not neccessarily mean never causing unecessary harm
The Christian God, some believe, is purely benevolent, all-loving. How could unnecessary harm be justified by such a being?
the problems with evolution for self-centered and selfish individuals would be NECESSARY harm anyway to the greater good of survival of the fitest genome, so your agrument fails on that as well.
No, that's exactly my point: why would an omniscient, omnipotent God use evolution, which necessarily harms certain individuals, rather than something else which does not?
Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.
Of course God could've used evolution-- he could've done anything we invent him to have done!
I can't help wonder though, if it's the Chritian omni-God whom you propose could've used evolution to create species. If so, it brings us to the Problem of Evil:
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he can create species any damn way he pleases.
If God is benevolent, he would never cause unnecessary harm.
How would one who acknowledges that evolution is not "nice" reconcile this?
"Monkeys split off into homanids, whcich spurred a few failed attempts (neandrathals, hom-habilis, etc) and then finally us."
Yes, but meanwhile monkeys also evolved away from that branch point. It is theoretically possible that our common monkey ancestor still exists, unchanged, as a modern species. But it's not likely.
I'm sure you know this, but just in case any fundies are reading... We didn't come from modern monkeys; we and modern monkeys came from the same monkey-like ancestor.
What I was getting at was that I don't know of an non-religious ethical argument which states that embryos should be protected as much as (or more than) a fully developed person. A non-religious argument won't contain such claims that embryos have human souls or spirits or that they're rebirthed or whatever, but these are the only types of arguments you ever see against stem cell research.
Restated: Show me one (non-Buddhist) atheist who is ethically against stem cell research.
Just to be clear, CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) gets less than 20% of its funding from state, local, and federal government combined. So yes, it is government-funded, but not as much as it is publically-funded (25%).
Slashdot Mirror
Why can a perfect being not have free will? Does God not have free will?
Have I ever had the ability to control something but chose to let it work itself out? Of course, but I'm not omniscient. An all-knowing God knows what will happen before it happens, so it's not like the story of the apple in the garden of eden would surprise it.
Humans are imperfect beings, and I totally agree with you on all points about effective parenting requiring saying "no," punishment, etc. We truly do become stronger with pain.
But to compare humans with God is to compare imperfection with perfection.
Why would God, as a Perfect being, set up such a system wherein harming people is the only way to teach them and make them grow? A Perfect being wouldn't have to do that, and could achieve the exact same thing without doing it.
We really are running in circles here!
[For the record, I don't reject God because I feel I have been hurt in some way. I reject God on the basis of logic (e.g. the problem of evil), and because the universe as revealed by science is way more amazing than one any religion could ever dream of describing.]
Mormon pee.
OK, so God has this great plan, which we lowly humans know nothing about. Got it.
The point is this. Why must God harm something to achieve his goal?
Is it because he wants to? No, he is all-loving. Is it because he has to? No, he is all-knowing and all-powerful. A tri-omni God must achieve its goal without causing harm.
Designatio unius est exclusio alterius.
We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.
Yea, because pharma is, like, so broke.
you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm
But if God is omniscient and omnipotent, all harm (or, Evil) is unnecessary, because the same effect could be acheived through unharmful means.
being benevolent does not neccessarily mean never causing unecessary harm
The Christian God, some believe, is purely benevolent, all-loving. How could unnecessary harm be justified by such a being?
the problems with evolution for self-centered and selfish individuals would be NECESSARY harm anyway to the greater good of survival of the fitest genome, so your agrument fails on that as well.
No, that's exactly my point: why would an omniscient, omnipotent God use evolution, which necessarily harms certain individuals, rather than something else which does not?
Almost as bad are the number of people who claim that God couldn't possibly have used evolution to create the species.
Of course God could've used evolution-- he could've done anything we invent him to have done!
I can't help wonder though, if it's the Chritian omni-God whom you propose could've used evolution to create species. If so, it brings us to the Problem of Evil:
If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he can create species any damn way he pleases.
If God is benevolent, he would never cause unnecessary harm.
How would one who acknowledges that evolution is not "nice" reconcile this?
"Monkeys split off into homanids, whcich spurred a few failed attempts (neandrathals, hom-habilis, etc) and then finally us."
Yes, but meanwhile monkeys also evolved away from that branch point. It is theoretically possible that our common monkey ancestor still exists, unchanged, as a modern species. But it's not likely.
I'm sure you know this, but just in case any fundies are reading... We didn't come from modern monkeys; we and modern monkeys came from the same monkey-like ancestor.
check out kurt wenner's sidewalk art. pretty amazing...
and it burns burns burns, the ring of fire
Oh come on, it would be utterly fascinating to find anything remotely as complex and intelligent as cattle out there!
Maybe it's just us 'mericans, but damnit ain't no word 'round these parts, dammit.
Don't forget:
Real released something decent, light on the ads, and it's downloadable with a single click from real.com.
Take me Jebus.
There's no argument against stem cell research in general, just the specific research that uses stem cells from embryos.
Fine, embryonic stem cell research.
And arguing against destroying embryos doesn't have be be religion-based... it can simply be ethics.
You're right. But, as I said in another reply, I've never heard that argument. Have you?
What I was getting at was that I don't know of an non-religious ethical argument which states that embryos should be protected as much as (or more than) a fully developed person. A non-religious argument won't contain such claims that embryos have human souls or spirits or that they're rebirthed or whatever, but these are the only types of arguments you ever see against stem cell research.
Restated: Show me one (non-Buddhist) atheist who is ethically against stem cell research.
OK, but that's completely beside the point.
Name one argument against stem cell research that's not based on religious views.
Thanks. :-)
Whatever. Notice it's posted in the science section? Nerds aren't exclusively into technology, you know.
What the fuck is this garbage?
Can you say ad hominem?
Just to be clear, CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) gets less than 20% of its funding from state, local, and federal government combined. So yes, it is government-funded, but not as much as it is publically-funded (25%).
Everything-as-an-object in, for example, Ruby and Smalltalk.