Could God have Created a Different Universe?

[Mark Quayle]

Even if I grant Yahweh's existence, and that he possesses magic mind-reading powers, you have no means of gleaning what Yahweh has gleaned from my mind. Neither does Paul.

And if Yahweh can read my thoughts, he knows exactly the same thing that I know, which is that I don't believe he exists.

So why the complaint about Paul and me [not] having access to your thoughts? We don't even want to know your thoughts. I'm not gleaning your thoughts when I reference God's Word concerning anyone's thoughts. Romans 1, as far as it goes, is pretty clear what goes on in the thinking and motivations of the unbeliever. Notice you keep saying you don't believe, and I call you an unbeliever, yet you keep protesting that you don't believe. It doesn't say 'believe' but 'know'. There is a definite difference.

A person can know there is more to life than what appears on the surface, but ignore it until it is little more than a silly blurb in the background of their mind. They have failed to believe it or even consider it. Knowing God as it is referring to in Romans 1 (I assume it means at least knowing God exists, and knowing something about him, such as the fact that he is praiseworthy) doesn't mean the same kind or degree of knowing, as knowing yourself, but it is knowing, nonetheless. Brings to mind the silly notion that everybody by default is a born atheist! So knowing God as it means here, is not the same as believing God, or even believing he exists.

Nope. Intent is irrelevant. Content is what's relevant. The assertion is that the content of my thoughts contain the belief that Yahweh exists. They do not.

Any atheist can prove this to themselves, using the same intrapersonal means.

Paul was extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on information he had no access to. I suggest you refrain from doing the same.

The assertion is that "you knew God". I don't know how it got complicated to "The content of my thoughts contain the belief the Yahweh exists."

You are assuming Paul was predicating for himself an assertion on information he had no access to. You don't know this —not only that Paul had no access but that he was speaking for himself.

The notion that God exists must by definition include the ability/ possibility that God is able to say something and be repeated by Paul, or even to command Paul to say what he said, using precisely the very words Paul put down. Paul claims this very thing (that he was commanded by God to say some things and not commanded to say others). Don't cry about Paul reading your mind. If God exists, and commanded Paul to say something, the question of Paul's access to your thoughts is irrelevant.

So back to 'intent' (what is behind the thoughts —i.e. knowledge, and response to knowledge). It does not have to be conscious.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It doesn't say 'believe' but 'know'.

I neither believe nor know Yahweh exists, so that distinction doesn't help you.

The assertion is that "you knew God".

That assertion is false.

You are assuming Paul was predicating for himself an assertion on information he had no access to.

Correct. I am, in fact, assuming that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers.

The notion that God exists must by definition include the ability/ possibility that God is able to say something and be repeated by Paul

No it doesn't. I am under no obligation to grant that Paul had any means of reliably gleaning any information from or about Yahweh, any more than I am obligated to grant that he possessed magic mind-reading powers.

It wouldn't help, anyway. Since I don't know that Yahweh exists, the assertion that I do know would simply make a liar out of either Paul or Yahweh.

 

[TedT]

TedT said: ↑
Our free will was an absolute necessity to be able to fulfill the purpose for our creation ie to have loving marriage with GOD.

Is this your reasoning, or from Scripture?

Why did it [ED: our free will] have to be actually free?

Reasoning led by the Holy Spirit during years of prayerful study...

The Bible story of YHWH's interaction with HIS creation ends with the heavenly marriage of the Lamb, the state of the heavenly experience of full communion with GOD.

Now it seems prima facie that a real marriage (not just paper only, so to speak) to be based on real love, MUST BE ACCEPTED, not forced upon the chosen partner. I have many times faced arguments that a Stepford Wife unable to ever reject HIM or choose to sin would have been a better choice to avoid the suffering sin from a free will has caused but I can't countenance that....GOD is not such a piker.

We read bible references to holy and elect angels and we assume that Satan et al were not created to be evil but chose it by their free will so why do we gloss over that the other angels became holy and elect by their free will acceptance of GOD's marriage proposal and rejection Satan's pov?

TedT said: ↑
But the option to choose to be in total accord with HIM and HIS purposes was available to everyone from the start, not just the holy elect angels who chose it, so it is a fact that everyone might have chosen to be holy and there would have been no fall, no sin and no hell.

Yet you can't prove that they 'might have'.

Prove? What a strange thing to say... If everyone had a free will and could choose any option they wanted without being coerced to make that choice, it is reasonable to assume that the results of choosing will be spread across the options BUT it is also POSSIBLE that all the choices could have been ALL for one option and not the other or vice versa, especially when GOD was doing HIS best to influence us without any coercion to accept marriage proposal by teaching us HIS gospel, ie salvation from all sin to be found only in the Son.

Again, remind why our free will needed to be really free?

Without a free will but only doing what we were created to do:
1. we have no culpability for our sin because there was no mens rea, no intent to sin just an automatic choice foisted upon us. So sin, no judgement excet by injustice.

2. If we do not sin by our own free will uncoerced by any force, then we sin by GOD's will and He is the creator of evil in this universe, a hard position to accept in light of Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. etc etc.

You had a bite too? I thought that was Adam and Eve, and we inherited the sinful nature from them.

To eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is probably a metaphor for choosing to make your understanding of good and evil real by sinning.

Whether Adam and Eve lived in a garden with a real tree is immaterial, the metaphor holds that sin can only be judged upon a person who sins by their free will either by rejecting YHWH as their GOD and the Son as saviour or by rebelling against HIS command.

Inherited sin is a blasphemy forced upon the church by the previous decree that we are created on earth, not in heaven / Sheol previous to earth which butts hard against the scripture that
- we are conceived as sinners at conception,
- none are righteous, not even infants and
- the sinfulness of infants is proven by the death of infants as death is the wages for sin, not a consequence of life.

When they accepted the creation on earth theory of mankind by traducianism or the creationism of the soul at birth they they cut themselves off from humans becoming sinners by their own free will and so must blame Adam AND GOD for instituting the creation of HIS Bride by a system that forces her to live in abject corruption and suffering through no guilt of her own. Yikes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Correct. I am, in fact, assuming that neither you nor Paul possess magic mind-reading powers.

I hope you are reading my answers. Sounds like you aren't. I didn't say, nor is it necessary, for Paul or me to possess magic mind-reading powers, for God to say what he said about you.

No it doesn't. I am under no obligation to grant that Paul had any means of reliably gleaning any information from or about Yahweh, any more than I am obligated to grant that he possessed magic mind-reading powers.

see above

It wouldn't help, anyway. Since I don't know that Yahweh exists, the assertion that I do know would simply make a liar out of either Paul or Yahweh.

You have suppressed it. How would you know whether you, for example, were maybe even born with the knowledge, and had systematically suppressed it in favor of self-determination. Also, admit, if God exists, he would know you better than you know yourself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Reasoning led by the Holy Spirit during years of prayerful study...

The Bible story of YHWH's interaction with HIS creation ends with the heavenly marriage of the Lamb, the state of the heavenly experience of full communion with GOD.

Now it seems prima facie that a real marriage (not just paper only, so to speak) to be based on real love, MUST BE ACCEPTED, not forced upon the chosen partner. I have many times faced arguments that a Stepford Wife unable to ever reject HIM or choose to sin would have been a better choice to avoid the suffering sin from a free will has caused but I can't countenance that....GOD is not such a piker.

We read bible references to holy and elect angels and we assume that Satan et al were not created to be evil but chose it by their free will so why do we gloss over that the other angels became holy and elect by their free will acceptance of GOD's marriage proposal and rejection Satan's pov?

Huh? God proposed marriage to the angels? Where do you get this?

Nevertheless, the point that the Bride must, of her own will, accept the proposal, is not debated here, but whether God changing the will (regeneration) is a "forcing"/ a "coercion". You can well believe, that a will changed and built upon God himself, will happily accept the proposal.

Furthermore, the 'real love' you speak of cannot be of human origin, but of God. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

Prove? What a strange thing to say... If everyone had a free will and could choose any option they wanted without being coerced to make that choice, it is reasonable to assume that the results of choosing will be spread across the options BUT it is also POSSIBLE that all the choices could have been ALL for one option and not the other or vice versa, especially when GOD was doing HIS best to influence us without any coercion to accept marriage proposal by teaching us HIS gospel, ie salvation from all sin to be found only in the Son.

Wow this is complicated! Maybe you can restate it for me. I don't follow.

However, it seems plain you credit humans with intrinsic integrity, ability, all on their own! The Gospel says different.

Without a free will but only doing what we were created to do:
1. we have no culpability for our sin because there was no mens rea, no intent to sin just an automatic choice foisted upon us. So sin, no judgement excet by injustice.

2. If we do not sin by our own free will uncoerced by any force, then we sin by GOD's will and He is the creator of evil in this universe, a hard position to accept in light of Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. etc etc.

1. Wrong. Without free will, there is still will, and for the lost, will that is set against God, with full intent to sin (per Romans 8:5-8), whether the option chosen is recognized by the chooser as done in sin/rebellion, or not.

2. 'Uncaused' do you mean, by 'uncoerced'? But God causing 'all things, whatsoever shall come to pass' is not coercion. God may use coercion, but that is only one of the many things leading to the choice one makes. Jonah was coerced to obey, to do what he did not want to do, but he still chose to obey. His choice was caused by many things, with God at the head of them all, and in the end, he saw it better to obey than to not obey —in the final analysis, he did what he wanted at that moment of decision. The only uncaused thing is God, first cause.

To eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is probably a metaphor for choosing to make your understanding of good and evil real by sinning.

Oh boy, not this! Probably not a metaphor.

To eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is probably a metaphor for choosing to make your understanding of good and evil real by sinning.

Whether Adam and Eve lived in a garden with a real tree is immaterial, the metaphor holds that sin can only be judged upon a person who sins by their free will either by rejecting YHWH as their GOD and the Son as saviour or by rebelling against HIS command.

You can't see how God caused that sin be, by putting Adam into this situation to choose, not only knowing full well what the result would be when he made Adam, but planning it for the better final purpose, a people for himself —his dwelling place? He sinned of his 'free'will.

FWIW I used to admit to freewill, only in that our choices are real choices, with real results —not that they are unfettered and uncaused. Logically, there really is no way to get around the fact that they are caused. No, that doesn't mean we are robots. We do have will.

Inherited sin is a blasphemy forced upon the church by the previous decree that we are created on earth, not in heaven / Sheol previous to earth which butts hard against the scripture that
- we are conceived as sinners at conception,
- none are righteous, not even infants and
- the sinfulness of infants is proven by the death of infants as death is the wages for sin, not a consequence of life.

Are you not then butting hard against the Scripture that says in Adam all have sinned? But HOW does scripture that
- we are conceived as sinners at conception,
- none are righteous, not even infants and
- the sinfulness of infants is proven by the death of infants as death is the wages for sin, not a consequence of life,
work against the doctrine of original sin? Or do you differentiate between the doctrine of original sin and the doctrine of inherited sin?

When they accepted the creation on earth theory of mankind by traducianism or the creationism of the soul at birth they they cut themselves off from humans becoming sinners by their own free will and so must blame Adam AND GOD for instituting the creation of HIS Bride by a system that forces her to live in abject corruption and suffering through no guilt of her own. Yikes.

What? Who are you referring to by 'they', who do this? This is not the doctrine of original sin. What in the world are you talking about?

 

[TedT]

However, it seems plain you credit humans with intrinsic integrity, ability, all on their own! The Gospel says different.

When I talk like that I am referring to all of creation before any fall into sin or anyone has been flung to the earth to become human.

The gospel refers to sinful humans. Humans are all sinful when sown, (planted, not created,) into the earth Mat 13:36-39. Sinners do not have any of their original intrinsic integrity or abilities after they sin and become enslaved by sin. They must be reborn to have that restored.

 

[cvanwey]

@TedT I do not see a response to post #130?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I hope you are reading my answers. Sounds like you aren't. I didn't say, nor is it necessary, for Paul or me to possess magic mind-reading powers, for God to say what he said about you.

God didn’t say anything. Paul said it, making the assertion while purporting to speak on behalf of God.

And since the assertion is false, the simplest explanation is that Paul is a liar. Or mistaken.

You have suppressed it.

Was this “suppression” a willful, conscious act? Then the Bible is false, because I know I have done no such thing.

Was it an unconscious act? Then the Bible is false, because that would be an excuse, which creates an internal contradiction.

You hope I’m reading your responses? I hope you’re beginning to understand why predicating an assertion on information you have no access to is extremely unwise. Which is the case whether Yahweh exists or not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Was this “suppression” a willful, conscious act? Then the Bible is false, because I know I have done no such thing.

Willful, yes. Conscious, I can't say, as I have no access to your thoughts. I hope you don't expect me to accept your word concerning things you may not even be aware of. It may be possible for you to make a conscious decision without even reflecting on the fact that you have done so.

Was it an unconscious act? Then the Bible is false, because that would be an excuse, which creates an internal contradiction.

No, not being conscious of the motivation behind things you do, does not render you excused.

You hope I’m reading your responses? I hope you’re beginning to understand why predicating an assertion on information you have no access to is extremely unwise. Which is the case whether Yahweh exists or not.

How is that the case if Yahweh exists? It is he who asserts what Romans 1 says —not me.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I hope you don't expect me to accept your word concerning things you may not even be aware of.

Ah, thanks for reminding me of something important that I’ve neglected to mention up to this point:

I don’t care if you believe me or not. At all. Like, not even a little bit.

It is actually impossible - as of yet, anyway - for anyone to share the content of their thoughts directly. As such, you can’t rely on anything except someone’s own self-reporting. That’s just the reality we live in.

None of it matters to the point, though. As I said from the beginning, any atheist can prove the assertion wrong to themselves, using the same intrapersonal means. Our thoughts don’t need to be directly communicable, because every atheist can put the assertion to the same test individually.

If the claimed psychic says to me “just now, you were thinking of pink elephants”, and I wasn’t, I know that person is not actually psychic. I can’t prove to you that I wasn’t thinking of pink elephants, but that doesn’t actually matter. You can use the same method I used, and come to the same conclusion, on your own.

So by all means, keep believing that I secretly know Yahweh exists. It accomplishes nothing besides presenting another barrier to my accepting the Bible as the “word of god”, and becoming a christian.

No, not being conscious of the motivation behind things you do, does not render you excused

You keep coming back to motivation, as if it’s relevant. You haven’t even gotten that far yet. You’re still stuck on the first step - the act itself.

Forget motive. Was the actual act itself of “suppressing” conscious or subconscious? Might as well flip a coin. The Bible is wrong in either case.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

For anyone reading along, here’s a video that does a decent job summing up what I’ve been talking about.

Don’t use Romans 1 as an apologetic with atheists. It’s a terrible idea.

 

[Tinker Grey]

For anyone reading along, here’s a video that does a decent job summing up what I’ve been talking about.

Don’t use Romans 1 as an apologetic with atheists. It’s a terrible idea.

Paulogia is excellent.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah, thanks for reminding me of something important that I’ve neglected to mention up to this point:

I don’t care if you believe me or not. At all. Like, not even a little bit.

"Haha! Methinks thee protesteth too much!"

It is actually impossible - as of yet, anyway - for anyone to share the content of their thoughts directly. As such, you can’t rely on anything except someone’s own self-reporting. That’s just the reality we live in.

Of course! After all, one's thoughts are not the reality itself, nor do they even represent the reality well. They are just handles, and useful only for the one thinking them. (Granted the communication such as it is can compel a similar thought/handle in the mind of the listener, but they are not a complete transfer.)

None of it matters to the point, though. As I said from the beginning, any atheist can prove the assertion wrong to themselves, using the same intrapersonal means. Our thoughts don’t need to be directly communicable, because every atheist can put the assertion to the same test individually.

Of course. Like any 'proof', in the end it comes down to being convinced, regardless of by what method or means it is arrived at.

It needs mentioned here, the fact of anyone's inability to completely know themselves. It is good for a person, I think, to have their self-diagnoses severely shaken from time to time.

If the claimed psychic says to me “just now, you were thinking of pink elephants”, and I wasn’t, I know that person is not actually psychic. I can’t prove to you that I wasn’t thinking of pink elephants, but that doesn’t actually matter. You can use the same method I used, and come to the same conclusion, on your own.

Well demonstrated. But then, that is a human, who as we know has no access to your thoughts. God does; he even has better access to your thoughts than YOU have, or he is not God.

So by all means, keep believing that I secretly know Yahweh exists. It accomplishes nothing besides presenting another barrier to my accepting the Bible as the “word of god”, and becoming a christian.

You 'becoming a christian' is not my goal. And I'm confident there are many more places in the Bible, some even more galling to the atheist, than Romans 1.

Notice, I have been saying (or meant to say) 'knew', as Romans 1 does, not 'know'.

I don't know if I have expressed to you, or if it was to someone else, but FWIW in my mind Romans 1 is more condemning of me than to someone who (past tense) 'knew' but suppressed, the fact of God's existence. Because I (present tense) 'know', and yet I continually depend on my own thinking as though I have some integrity of my own to conceive of and understand the notion of God's existence —I am unable to see it all as God does— and what's worse, with every self-determining rebellion (sin) I commit, not only am I identifying with those who don't believe, but I am outright (present tense) suppressing the knowledge of God. It is not that I am stuck with a situation, but that I am trying to get away from God. I am thus actively calling God a liar, or at least, irrelevant.

You keep coming back to motivation, as if it’s relevant. You haven’t even gotten that far yet. You’re still stuck on the first step - the act itself.

Forget motive. Was the actual act itself of “suppressing” conscious or subconscious? Might as well flip a coin. The Bible is wrong in either case.

Wrong. Motive has everything to do with the act. The degree of moral judgement of a deed is according to the motive.

Don’t use Romans 1 as an apologetic with atheists. It’s a terrible idea.

Granted. But so are most Bible references. Either way, I'm not sure I meant to use it as an apologetic —i.e. I didn't mean to prove anything by using it— but to point out a concept: perhaps that of the ability of the mind to ignore what it doesn't like, I don't really remember, (haha, maybe my mind doesn't want to remember!).

Anyhow, like I have said, and this applies to many others of the references that bring up visceral objections from atheists and others, it is more condemning of me than of you. I meant no insult by using it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Well demonstrated. But then, that is a human, who as we know has no access to your thoughts. God does

Too bad you're not him. Neither is Paul. Nor do either of you have a reliable means of gleaning and relating information from him, even granting his existence.

So, that doesn't help you.

You 'becoming a christian' is not my goal.

But I bet you're not keen on putting up a bad showing, and discouraging any doubting Christians who might be reading along.

And I'm confident there are many more places in the Bible, some even more galling to the atheist, than Romans 1.

You are correct. If you somehow convinced me that Romans 1 wasn't fatally flawed, you'd still have a lot of work cut out for you.

Even if I didn't have other objections though, Romans 1 is enough on its own. That's the difference between our positions, in regard to the "word of God". For you to be right, every letter from Genesis to Revelation needs to be perfect. For me to be right, I only need one single flaw.

Wrong. Motive has everything to do with the act. The degree of moral judgement of a deed is according to the motive.

Again, you haven't established there was an act in the first place.

You are expounding on the ingredients of a nothing sandwich.

Granted. But so are most Bible references.

I'll do you one better - they all are. Unless you're having an argument about the internal coherence of the Bible, citing any scripture as an apologetic tactic is always a terrible idea. Some - like Romans 1 - are just more terrible than others.

 

[Halbhh]

You are saying that Evil had to exist before God could love?

Do you see me writing that? No. Of course not. If you don't know my view, I'm a mainstream Christian, and believe God created 100% of all that exists.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Halbhh said: ↑
So, for love to exist, evil had to be possible, and so would happen plenty, right along with the good things.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
You are saying that Evil had to exist before God could love?

Do you see me writing that? No. Of course not. If you don't know my view, I'm a mainstream Christian, and believe God created 100% of all that exists.

Then how can you say, "for love to exist, evil had to be possible."?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Too bad you're not him. Neither is Paul. Nor do either of you have a reliable means of gleaning and relating information from him, even granting his existence.

So, that doesn't help you.

So what's the problem?

But just so we have common ground, here, I'd appreciate you admitting you could be wrong. I could. You, nor I, know all our motives, nor even do we remember all of our earlier conscious thinking, or occasional thoughts, here and gone. We are all biased, and all of us suppress certain thoughts for various reasons, instead of giving them full consideration.

But I bet you're not keen on putting up a bad showing, and discouraging any doubting Christians who might be reading along.

Granted.

You are correct. If you somehow convinced me that Romans 1 wasn't fatally flawed, you'd still have a lot of work cut out for you.

Even if I didn't have other objections though, Romans 1 is enough on its own. That's the difference between our positions, in regard to the "word of God". For you to be right, every letter from Genesis to Revelation needs to be perfect. For me to be right, I only need one single flaw.

Every word in the originals, that is. I don't claim the KJV nor any other version, has NO error.

Also, just in case you glom with the rest of them onto the 'lists of inconsistencies' the things they claim are flaws are more than debateable. I see harder things to 'justify', 'explain away' etc than those of any list I've been handed.

Again, you haven't established there was an act in the first place.

You are expounding on the ingredients of a nothing sandwich.

You are the one who brought up 'the act', I think, back a few posts ago. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

I'll do you one better - they all are. Unless you're having an argument about the internal coherence of the Bible, citing any scripture as an apologetic tactic is always a terrible idea. Some - like Romans 1 - are just more terrible than others.

I assume you mean by "apologetic tactic", 'to prove anything concerning anything to someone who rejects the reference outright'. But if you mean, to demonstrate something by use of propositional logic depending on the presupposition that first cause exists, it is more than useful.

I'm also thinking there is some use in some ideas given in the Bible that may ring true with you, lol, for example, "It is better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman." And not that you can believe me here, though I see it every day, that "[his] word will not return to [him] void, but will accomplish everything for which [he sent] it." (and yes, there is a beautiful pun there.)

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If no answer meets this criteria then I suggest it is wrongly judged by your criteria of "in no way does it violate my free will" since all regeneration is by the gift of grace from GOD AGAINST our sinful, NOT our FREE, human will.

Only sinners are born on earth, ie, all humans are sinners.
Sinners are enslaved to the addictive power of evil and have lost their free will until they are reborn in the Spirit.

Rejecting the truth of these doctrines will interfere sadly with any desire to be saved, making your seeking salvation to be moot.

Ok, demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of the verses. I have other Christians tell me I have to make a free will choice using the same bible you have. How do I know if you, them or none of you are correct?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of the verses. I have other Christians tell me I have to make a free will choice using the same bible you have. How do I know if you, them or none of you are correct?

Ooh-ooh, pick me! pick me!

 

[Mark Quayle]

If no answer meets this criteria then I suggest it is wrongly judged by your criteria of "in no way does it violate my free will" since all regeneration is by the gift of grace from GOD AGAINST our sinful, NOT our FREE, human will.

Interesting take. I had not quite considered this separation before.

Do you then insist that the sinful will of the unregenerate is accompanied by a separate will, the Free will? That should sit nicely concerning the regenerated, at least, for some Calvinists, though obviously they would agree with me that the lost has no such free will (i.e. uncaused ability to choose without opposition to God)...