Discussion in 'Religion' started by Greatest I am, Nov 27, 2016.
Humanity is maturing . Humanity is becoming aware of the faults of god .
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
God is a speculation, a made up entity and so can have any powers his superstitious creators give him.
Do you know what a dog is thinking? Of course you do not but nevertheless you are prepared to make up something that you think the dog may think and you make up what a God may think.
Can you not understand that making up stuff has no bearing on reality.
Making up a God does not make it real and any thing that exists to account for a God is nothing more than some humans guess work.
If God had a problem humanity had it worse. Hell is no fault of a pacifist.
God's plan IS infinite. Nothing is left to chance. Everything which happens must be God's will, or else God is not completely powerful (and therefore not God, by definition).
God is involved to every degree...and must be if He is to be God.
Do you suspect you have some power which God lacks?
I'm speaking for myself and for common sense. And so long as we are just saying what we think here and there I think you should read more carefully, think more clearly, and put more consideration into your responses.
The case has been made. That God is evil is a resolution for theodicy, as defined by Plantinga regarding the question of why God permits evil. Atheists tend to flee into the comfort of knowing that 'God' is arguably a linguistic placeholder for death anxiety and confusion as to the nature of the universe. Theists tend to flee into abstraction. They will argue that evil doesn't really exist and thus is not part of God's nature. However, that is question-begging and unsatisfactory. Other attempts to answer the question show an over-complicated scenario where by God uses evil to enact a great design...which fails as it destroys God by definition (the traditional definition, circular as it is) to include evil as part of His essence.
It is more satisfactory, however not psychologically appealing, to resolve the issue by understanding God's evilness is so great that it must exist. It has no flaws. It has no problem of good as I've described, and resolves the other common philosophical problems theists love to point out that God solves for them just as well.
I explained in detail why your argument-by-analogy failed. You may call it over-thinking. I call it defeating your point.
That seems right.
You would obviously commit suicide no earlier than His Darkness commands.
I did, and you presented nothing to counter those points.
It is not, as I explained why you are wrong/off-base.
You aren't the score-keeper.
Another miss on your part...
You will experience all of the terror, dread, despair, pain, and so on...which His Darkness plans for you specifically for as long as He wishes.
Any happiness you experience along the way will come to an end at the time of His choosing.
What God wants God gets, and it looks like what God wants is probably evil. Human joy becomes crushed. Human beauty and art is destroyed over time. Eventually, everything will come to waste and our being alive in the meantime to recognize this allows for the recognition of God's evilness in the privation of everything good which comes to be in due course (an evil in itself...the looming existential terror waiting for all humans to experience).
Claims of God being wholly omnipotent are greatly exaggerated.
Can God create a rock so big he cannot lift it?
God's existence had better be predicated on a little mroe than these fully absolutes.
I think you'll find that scriptures don't make such an explicit claim. But people do interpret that way.
Nope. There are those who see God as the Great Watchmaker. He winds up the universe (set initial conditions), then lets it go.
There is no logical reason why God must be controlling everything.
Ah, the old common sense fallacy.
You do not get to speak for other people.
A content-free point.
It is as easy for me to tell you to put more thoguht and cosnideration into your responses. Such taxtics do not furrher the discussion.
An ad hom upon a group.
They can't be right; after all they're atheists!
Compare with a prosecutor's claim:
Of course the Defendent's guilty your honor! He's a murderer!
You are not helping yourself with these fallacious arguments.
Circular. As above, you attempt to use your conclusion as the basis for your premise.
No, you didn't.
A bunch of atheists tend to a bunch of conservations. They look after the animals. ...
They do not invoke God in their actions. Animals are terrified, yet the humans are not doing evil; they are saving the animals. The animals are not in a postion to comprehend the good that the humans are doing.
This is cop out.
Did you choose Cheerios for breakfast this morning because God commanded it?
Perhaps I missed them. Show me where you have made the points that you attribute to Nagel.
I am a scorekeeper in this part of the discussion.
Contains no argument. Thus, to strike it from the discussion, a mere response of wrong is sufficient.
Contains no argument. Thus, to strike it from the discussion, a mere response of wrong is sufficient.
If you're going to say that a god doesn't exist, please feel free to provide proof that isn't anything more than human guess work. Saying that a God does not exist does not make it true and anything that exists to account for it is comes down to the basis of human assumptions and human guess work.
It has been well-established here that you can't prove a negative.
That applies equally to God, ghosts, leprechauns and Santa Claus. In fact, the list of things that might exist is infinite.
While philosophically we cannot rule out the existence of little magical green irishmen with pots of gold, and large magical bearded men who hand out gifts, and an infinite list of other things - it is not an auspicious foundation upon which to build a rational view of nature.
So, what we do is build a view of nature that does not invoke things unless there is a need to invoke them.
Yet its ok to make a God.
On what slender fact do you rely.
How about we do it this way... You claim there is a God then you provide the proof.
If I say I have a unicorn in my bedroom upon who should the burden of proof rest. Me or you?
Do you think it would be reasonable for me to suggest that it be up o you to prove that there is no unicorn in my bedroom. I dont think so.
You fail to see the concept of God is made up that is unfortunate.
You can believe what you wish but do not expect me to prove you are wrong why do you not prove, to yourself, why you are right.
Thanks for your post.
You cannot use a logical contradiction as a defense to it being pointed out that everything which happens must be God's will. Here, you are trying to defend God's plan to kill children with tornado's by pointing out that God can't create a rock so heavy that He can't lift it. That doesn't work, as we obviously see the children get killed by the tornadoes. What's left to explain is the nature of God's plan and it looks like it's probably evil.
If you know your bible then you'll know God's plan leaves out nothing...as I have said.
Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.
The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.
I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.’ From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that I will bring about; what I have planned, that I will do
They are wrong. If you have power which God lacks then God isn't God by definition. The deist position is very weak. When examined, it falls apart regarding the nature of intentionality, experience/qualia, nature of omnipotence/omniscience...you will end up with a personal God, and when you keep digging you'll find that God is probably evil.
You don't get to say that I do not.
It was turnabout.
All you are doing is reiterating that you refuse to read my earlier comments. I'm simply pointing that out. There's no need for you to point out again that I've pointed out that you didn't actually read/understand what I previously said.
Hardly. That's not even an argument. I'm correctly pointing out the common style of defense to certain arguments. You are simply flailing because His Darkness has commanded you to respond.
Observations are not circular.
You are just repeating yourself. I am sorry but there is no need for me to do the same.
No, it is rather true by the definition of God.
A chicken biscuit, actually...and yes.
That would serve no purpose as you also refused to read the link. You can read that link and reread the conversation as His Darkness wishes...perhaps he is ready to show His countenance to you.
Then you aren't doing a very good job.
It's called elaboration...not preaching. There is no need to argue for what is by definition true. That would be madness.
Again, you are just repeating your lack of understanding of the argument in question.
Everything I've said has been accurate.
God's plan appears to be terrible and you don't have to accept it.
Our conversation is over for now, I'm afraid, as nothing more need be said here which hasn't been already.
...several paragraphs of response deleted...
This comment renders everything written under the name Great Old One moot:
God is making you say the things you are saying. The entity that calls itself Great Old One has no free will, no choice, no thought of its own. It believes it is literally a sock puppet of God (not meant to offend - that is what you are claiming). What do I gain by talking to a puppet?
I'm going go talk to some people. With thoughts.
Your thoughts and actions are the thoughts and actions of His Darkness...as are my own.
You're doing so well. You're beginning to understand at last.
Yes. Exactly...and no offense taken. That is precisely what I am saying. My position is that you are also a sock puppet of an Evil God, as is every other person and creature in the universe.
It seems that God is commanding one of his puppets to preach the truth to another of his puppets (B), while simultaneously commanding the second puppet to set the status of the first puppet to 'Ignore'.
Mysterious ways indeed.
In the old Testament, Satan is the left hand man of God. Satan is given dominion over the earth. Satan retains this position of power until Revelations, when he is thrown from heaven. Much of the evil attributed to God of the old Testament is connected to Satan, who was given the position of Lord of the Earth. This is reflected in the New Testament; temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness. Satan offers Jesus all the kingdoms of the world; complete wealth and power, if Jesus would bow and worship him. Jesus does not say this is a con, or you cannot do this, nor you do not have authority to promise this. Rather he says it is written you shall worship only God. Jesus knew Satan had the authority, but Jesus was not going to worship a middleman, but only the big guy at the top, who has a different agenda.
The reason Satan is given authority over the earth, which include the humans, is due to the symbolism of Adam and Eve. Satan was part of paradise, in the beginning of Genesis, and is symbolically connected to the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge of good and evil is connected to laws, rules, regulations, which help people differentiated between the good and evil paths. When Adam and Eve choose knowledge of good and evil, over natural instinct, they were removed from paradise of instinct, and sent to the earth, where death appears. Death is now conscious since it is called evil and life is called good. Under instinct, death is part of the balance of the whole and is not separate and distinct. Satan is given dominion over the corruptible humans, whom he had corrupted.
The problem with law is several fold. Firstly, not all law is objective law. Many laws are subjective, such as PC laws of noises and sounds. When law is subjective, good can be called evil and evil can be called good, in the name of the law, to favor one side of power.
Secondly, even objective law is not made for the righteous man. You do not need a law to tell a good person not to murder. Even without law, they will not do this. Law is created for the criminals. Yet law is applied to both the good and the evil; Lady Justice is blind. If you treat the good, like the evil, via law, the good will start to become evil, since this what are teach. The good may express this as angry self righteous ,that can justify persecuting anyone who violates even subjective law; PC police. They do evil in the name of good.
The title of this topic should be why do so many humans worship Satan and mistake him for God, thereby attributing wrong attributes? People on the left appear to be the most ardent worshippers of Satan, even if many claim to be atheists. The reason is, Satan is connected to knowledge of good and evil, while those on the left like to make the most laws; objective and subjective.
Trump is correlated to Satan, by the left, yet he is reducing the number of laws, undermining the power of Satan. When you remove a law, you free the good people from false accusations; lady justice is blind to the good people. However, you also free the criminal from the law. There is a net gain of good, since the criminal not respect the law, anyway. He was already free, with the law teaching him how to prosper by pointing out the path of evil.
If you make a law about hacking, using a new device that was invented, you teach criminals, who ignore the law, how to hack, in the latest way. The good people will avoid this and will submit to the law, while still being subject to false accusations.
All you need to do is look at history and then look at the laws that men created that allowed them the authority to evil. Torturing people was good during the Spanish Inquisition since this was done in the name of good; subjective to give the power of evil.
Do you actually believe what you type, wellwisher?
I am not a Christian. I am a Gnostic Christian.
Yes, I can read the odd scripture literally as some can maker sense that way.
Most of those will not be quoted by so called believers.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
In my opinion it's more rational to believe that God just does not exist and never existed rather than to believe that God is evil.
But if God does exist then he must indeed be very evil because he lets good and innocent people on this shitty planet suffer for no valid reason or worse God even tortures and commits genocide against people directly.
When you look at the state of the human condition on this planet you realize that life is completely meaningless and that human life really isn't worth much.
Also this planet is mostly a shithole and so is humanity in fact because good people suffer on this planet for no reason and with no way for them of ever finding happiness and everlasting bliss.
See, when I look at the state of the human condition on this planet I realize that life is has meaning and that human life really is worth a lot. (Though we have a long way to go.)
My point was that we live in a cruel Capitalistic society where no one cares about one another and everyone only wants to make the most money at any cost, even if the cost includes hurting other people's wellbeing.
Is it really a good world we live in? A world where no one really likes or cares each other and a world where there is too much permissiveless and alienation of the average worker.
No wonder so many young people commit suicide because sometimes the society we live in is not a society worth living in.
The horrible truth, horribilis veritate. We create our own truths. Who is to say one is better than the other in this regard?
Yes religion has been, is, and will be abused. It's in our nature to do so. Religions have caused much harm, but they have also produced much goodness. You have to take the bad with the good. The fact that we can write these things without fear of retribution is a demonstration we have come a long way. As mankind's circumstances change our need for religion will also change.
And my point that is that your point is a personal opinion that speaks only for one person. It's broad, generalized and indefensible.
Opinions are fine to have, but let's not mistake this one for an assertion in a debate.
Separate names with a comma.