Challenge the Atheist!

[numan]

We like to flatter ourselves that our puny fleeting existence is important to an immortal deity capable of creating an infinite universe. So if there is such a deity, then we are probably just one of his absurd little jokes.

I have long suspected that the Universe has a strong sense of irony.
.

 

[hobelim]

Depends on the chapter and verse.

But who is to say there is any truth beyond the truth found in fairy tales?

Lets see what truth can be found first. Lets face it. As highly evolved, rational, and intelligent modern humans like to think of themselves here we are 5000 years later still trying with great difficulty to understand the identity of a talking snake in a fairy tale written for the children of who some people like to deride as ignorant superstitious nomads.


One truth beyond any truth found in fairy tales is that reality is much stranger.

Odd that the such highly evolved would start going backwards. Some scientists say we are devolving now. If that is the case, do you think at some point man will become a monkey again? Or is that just a monkey myth, and could never happen because a man could never turn into a monkey.

"Our Saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other (he searches for the contrary of saved) damned."

"Saved from what?"

"We are all born mad. Some remain so."


- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

It is your myth that a snake was talking to Eve.
According to scripture, she was seduced by a very charming, intelligent, convincing individual.
Snake is what he became.

No he was a serpent from the beginning, a religious deceiver, perceived as illuminated or holy or semi divine. What he became was a pusilanimous low life.

Nothing much is changed. religious deceivers are still percieved as holy men or prophets of God, yet like serpents they are always on the prowl for the gullible and unaware...


Thats why Jesus prayed "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

He was praying for the day when religious deceivers, actors and lying frauds would no longer be able to deceive people into thinking they were pious holy men and would be percived as the pusilanimous low lifes that God condemned them as..

 

[hortysir]

We like to flatter ourselves that our puny fleeting existence is important to an immortal deity capable of creating an infinite universe. So if there is such a deity, then we are probably just one of his absurd little jokes.

I have long suspected that the Universe has a strong sense of irony.
.

hence......YOU

 

[PratchettFan]

Isn't God supposed to be omnipresent?

Evil and pain exist, so God cannot be all-benevolent.

God cannot make a stone bigger than He can roll, so He cannot be omnipotent.

Gödel's Proof demonstrates that God cannot be omniscient.

Religious madmen always have some silly reason why a Good God would allow pain and suffering. A standard ploy is that God permits it in order that humans may have free-will. But a Good God who was also omnipotent AND all-knowing obviously could create a world free of suffering AND in which humans could have free will (presuming that free will is actually something worth having).

So the apologists for God are just peddling another load of tommy-rot.

The only way out of the problem (for them) is to admit that God is NOT all-powerful AND/OR not all-knowing.

They could weasel out by claiming that, as making a stone bigger than He could move involves a contradiction to the concept of an all-powerful God, it is a reasonable limitation on the power of God that He cannot do something which involves a logical contradiction -- like making a square circle. Then they could claim that a world without suffering involves a logical contradiction.

That would be fine -- if they could explain what the logical contradiction is. Since they have never figured out such a thing, they should not be surprised if some of us distrust their simple-minded notions of deity.

In the spirit of philosophical brotherhood, I will suggest a way that might save their notions of God from logical inanity. I warn you that it involves considerable knowledge of some of the most subtle and advanced areas of modern mathematics. You had better think carefully about the work of Gregory Chaitin, for example.

Perhaps it is logically impossible to predict the optimal history of an infinite universe a priori -- it would require an Infinite Mind greater than the infinity of all the orders of mathematical infinity.

So we may all play out our lives over and over in the Mind of God -- with some changes each time -- so that He may ultimately form an asymptotic approximation to the Optimum Universal History.

God need not thank me for my help -- I'm always willing to give a hand to a Deity who tries to make an honest effort.
.

You have a very specifically limited view of God. That is interesting given the utter lack of any information upon which to base that view.

In terms of pain and suffering. If your parents had kept you all safe and warm, never let you out, never allowed you to skin your knee or bump your head, would they have been doing you a favor? If this life is merely a stepping stone in the existence of an eternal soul, then what could some discomfort in this life mean in the grand scheme? How can one, for example, come to understand the suffering of others and develop empathy if they have never suffered themselves?

I have no idea if there is a God, but it does seem to me your approach is rather silly. If there is no God, why bother? If there is, do you really think it so limited?

 

[BreezeWood]

We like to flatter ourselves that our puny fleeting existence is important to an immortal deity capable of creating an infinite universe. So if there is such a deity, then we are probably just one of his absurd little jokes.

I have long suspected that the Universe has a strong sense of irony.
.

such as death,

whereas the attainable Everlasting exists for those simply willing to reach its presence.

 

[dblack]

We like to flatter ourselves that our puny fleeting existence is important to an immortal deity capable of creating an infinite universe. So if there is such a deity, then we are probably just one of his absurd little jokes.

I have long suspected that the Universe has a strong sense of irony.
.

such as death,

whereas the attainable Everlasting exists for those simply willing to reach its presence.

There's an attainable "everlasting"-ness to death, I suppose. Doesn't sound like much consolation for a conscious mind purposed for survival, however. Granted, accepting oblivion might minimize a sense of pain and struggle as we face death, but - to quote "The Princess Bride" - "Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something".

 

[numan]

Evil and pain exist, so God cannot be all-benevolent.

God cannot make a stone bigger than He can roll, so He cannot be omnipotent.

Gödel's Proof demonstrates that God cannot be omniscient.

Religious madmen always have some silly reason why a Good God would allow pain and suffering. A standard ploy is that God permits it in order that humans may have free-will. But a Good God who was also omnipotent AND all-knowing obviously could create a world free of suffering AND in which humans could have free will (presuming that free will is actually something worth having).

So the apologists for God are just peddling another load of tommy-rot.

The only way out of the problem (for them) is to admit that God is NOT all-powerful AND/OR not all-knowing.

They could weasel out by claiming that, as making a stone bigger than He could move involves a contradiction to the concept of an all-powerful God, it is a reasonable limitation on the power of God that He cannot do something which involves a logical contradiction -- like making a square circle. Then they could claim that a world without suffering involves a logical contradiction.

That would be fine -- if they could explain what the logical contradiction is. Since they have never figured out such a thing, they should not be surprised if some of us distrust their simple-minded notions of deity.

In the spirit of philosophical brotherhood, I will suggest a way that might save their notions of God from logical inanity. I warn you that it involves considerable knowledge of some of the most subtle and advanced areas of modern mathematics. You had better think carefully about the work of Gregory Chaitin, for example.

Perhaps it is logically impossible to predict the optimal history of an infinite universe a priori -- it would require an Infinite Mind greater than the infinity of all the orders of mathematical infinity.

So we may all play out our lives over and over in the Mind of God -- with some changes each time -- so that He may ultimately form an asymptotic approximation to the Optimum Universal History.

God need not thank me for my help -- I'm always willing to give a hand to a Deity who tries to make an honest effort.

You have a very specifically limited view of God. That is interesting given the utter lack of any information upon which to base that view.

In terms of pain and suffering. If your parents had kept you all safe and warm, never let you out, never allowed you to skin your knee or bump your head, would they have been doing you a favor? If this life is merely a stepping stone in the existence of an eternal soul, then what could some discomfort in this life mean in the grand scheme? How can one, for example, come to understand the suffering of others and develop empathy if they have never suffered themselves?

I am sure an infinitely powerful and all-knowing God could figure out a way to do it.

I have no idea if there is a God, but it does seem to me your approach is rather silly. If there is no God, why bother? If there is, do you really think it so limited?

You are being illogical. I criticized a commonly held view of God, and you are now saying that I hold that view of God!! · ·

In fact, I have no view of God. I think the word "God" is a meaningless word representing the mental incoherence of common folk, which they use to save themselves the trouble of thinking deeply about fundamental questions.
.

 

[HUGGY]

Religious madmen always have some silly reason why a Good God would allow pain and suffering. A standard ploy is that God permits it in order that humans may have free-will. But a Good God who was also omnipotent AND all-knowing obviously could create a world free of suffering AND in which humans could have free will (presuming that free will is actually something worth having).

So the apologists for God are just peddling another load of tommy-rot.

The only way out of the problem (for them) is to admit that God is NOT all-powerful AND/OR not all-knowing.

They could weasel out by claiming that, as making a stone bigger than He could move involves a contradiction to the concept of an all-powerful God, it is a reasonable limitation on the power of God that He cannot do something which involves a logical contradiction -- like making a square circle. Then they could claim that a world without suffering involves a logical contradiction.

That would be fine -- if they could explain what the logical contradiction is. Since they have never figured out such a thing, they should not be surprised if some of us distrust their simple-minded notions of deity.

In the spirit of philosophical brotherhood, I will suggest a way that might save their notions of God from logical inanity. I warn you that it involves considerable knowledge of some of the most subtle and advanced areas of modern mathematics. You had better think carefully about the work of Gregory Chaitin, for example.

Perhaps it is logically impossible to predict the optimal history of an infinite universe a priori -- it would require an Infinite Mind greater than the infinity of all the orders of mathematical infinity.

So we may all play out our lives over and over in the Mind of God -- with some changes each time -- so that He may ultimately form an asymptotic approximation to the Optimum Universal History.

God need not thank me for my help -- I'm always willing to give a hand to a Deity who tries to make an honest effort.

You have a very specifically limited view of God. That is interesting given the utter lack of any information upon which to base that view.

In terms of pain and suffering. If your parents had kept you all safe and warm, never let you out, never allowed you to skin your knee or bump your head, would they have been doing you a favor? If this life is merely a stepping stone in the existence of an eternal soul, then what could some discomfort in this life mean in the grand scheme? How can one, for example, come to understand the suffering of others and develop empathy if they have never suffered themselves?

I am sure an infinitely powerful and all-knowing God could figure out a way to do it.

I have no idea if there is a God, but it does seem to me your approach is rather silly. If there is no God, why bother? If there is, do you really think it so limited?

You are being illogical. I criticized a commonly held view of God, and you are now saying that I hold that view of God!! · ·

In fact, I have no view of God. I think the word "God" is a meaningless word representing the mental incoherence of common folk, which they use to save themselves the trouble of thinking deeply about fundamental questions.
.

I know this sounds crazy but I'm beginning to wonder if "God" is something perpetuated by aliens to keep the human race stupid and compliant. What better way to control us than have us control ourselves. Or... most humans are just weak minded retards.

 

[numan]

'
Here are some quotes about God which I have gathered over the years. I certainly don't agree with many of them, but I think they all can provoke interesting thought :

God is an excellent servant, but a bad master.
---yours truly

God is so useful as a metaphor that if "He" did not exist, it would
be necessary to invent "Him". But to take this metaphor as a literal
fact is not only the grossest form of superstition, but also
deplorable bad taste.
---yours truly

God is so Great he does not even need to exist.
---anon.

I don't mind God ---it's his fan club I can't stand.
---yours truly's friend

God wants spiritual fruit, not religious nuts.
---anon.

God: that which has no definition.
---Joseph Albo

We perceive Truth as a coherence which cannot be formulated.
---T. S. Eliot

The One is the formless Form.
---Plotinus

Matter resembles the form of Formlessness
--- if there coud be such a thing.
---Plotinus

Evil and pain exist, so God cannot be all-benevolent.
God cannot make a stone bigger than he can roll, so He cannot be omnipotent.
Gödel's Proof exists, so God cannot be omniscient.
---your truly

Just because something does not exist does not mean that it cannot
affect the world. The gods of the various religions do not exist, yet
they affect the world [usually negatively].
---yours truly

The only excuse for God is that he does not exist.
---Nietzsche

Shelley was an atheist.... He never trifled with the word "God"; he
knew that it meant a personal First Cause, Almighty Creator, and
Supreme Judge and Ruler of the Universe, and that it did not mean
anything else, never had meant anything else, and never whilst the
English language lasted would mean anything else. Knowing perfectly
well that there was no such person, he did not pretend that the
question was an open one, or imply, by calling himself an Agnostic,
that there might be such a person for all he knew to the contrary. He
did know to the contrary; and he said so.
---George Bernard Shaw

[God is] the superior power of Reason...revealed in a universe
which defies human reason.
---Albert Einstein

God is truth, and light his shadow.
---yours truly

The sun itself is the dark simulacrum, and light is the shadow of God.
---Sir Thomas Browne

Art is nature speeded up and God slowed down.
---Malcolm de Chazal

The universe is one of God's thoughts.
---Friedrich Schiller

God is, after all, ultimate reality. And you can't argue that ultimate
reality doesn't really exist. You can only ask what it's all about.
---Logan Pearsall Smith

What is the chief end of man?: "To glorify God and enjoy Him forever."
---Shorter Catechism of the Anglican Church

What is the chief end of man?: "To glorify Beauty and enjoy it forever."
---yours truly

Common meaning of "God": that which is beyond human control.
[cf. the legal term, "an act of God," or Bismarck's "God has given us
on our flank the French...."]
---yours truly

If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the
people he gave it to.
---Dorothy Parker

God has a gift for playing beautifully on poor fiddles.
---anon.

God is light. ---1 John 1:5
God is love. ---1 John 4:16
God is spirit. ---John 4:24

God appears, and God is Light,
To those poor souls who dwell in Night;
But does a Human Form display
To those who dwell in realms of Day.
---William Blake, Auguries of Innocence

Saint Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be
conceived" [id quo maius cogitari nequit]. Since it is greater to
exist in fact than merely in thought, God must necessarily exist.
[And God is the only entity of which this is true, since there is only one "greatest"]
Anselm did not mention it, but by the same argument one may prove
that the devil does not exist, for the devil is the diametrical opposite to God.
Therefore, he is "that than which nothing lesser can be conceived"
[id quo minor cogitari nequit].
Since it is lesser to exist merely in thought than in fact,
the devil necessarily can not exist.
---yours truly

We easily perceive the three lines and angles of a triangle as a
simple object --- as a unity which is present to our consciousness all-at-once.
Saint Thomas Aquinas defines an angelic consciousness as one
which is able to perceive all the theorems and consequences of geometry
as a single, simple unified object, with as much ease and as concretely
as we perceive the triangle.
[Saint Thomas would be very surprised to learn how nearly a good modern
mathematician approaches angelic consciousness]
---yours truly

Perhaps it is logically impossible to predict the optimal history of an
infinite universe a priori [it would require a computer program of a
complexity greater than all the infinities of mathematics
[vide the mathematical work of Gregory Chaitin].
So we all play out our lives over and over again in God's Mind so that He
may form an asymptotic approximation to the optimal universal history.
---yours truly

God's literary ability has unaccountably declined over time. The Old
Testament has many sections of high artistic merit. The Greek of the
New Testament is mediocre, with a few section worthy of praise, but
well below the standards of Homer, Pindar, and countless other
masters of the language. When He wrote the Book of Mormon, He had
developed a tin ear and the style of an illiterate.
---yours truly

It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when He wished to become
an author ---and that He did not learn it better.
---Nietzche, Beyond Good and Evil
.

 

[numan]

I know this sounds crazy but I'm beginning to wonder if "God" is something perpetuated by aliens to keep the human race stupid and compliant. What better way to control us than have us control ourselves. Or... most humans are just weak minded retards.

Humans have no trouble keeping themselves stupid and compliant.
The aid of aliens would be quite superfluous.
.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Lets see what truth can be found first. Lets face it. As highly evolved, rational, and intelligent modern humans like to think of themselves here we are 5000 years later still trying with great difficulty to understand the identity of a talking snake in a fairy tale written for the children of who some people like to deride as ignorant superstitious nomads.


One truth beyond any truth found in fairy tales is that reality is much stranger.

Odd that the such highly evolved would start going backwards. Some scientists say we are devolving now. If that is the case, do you think at some point man will become a monkey again? Or is that just a monkey myth, and could never happen because a man could never turn into a monkey.

"Our Saviour. Two thieves. One is supposed to have been saved and the other (he searches for the contrary of saved) damned."

"Saved from what?"

"We are all born mad. Some remain so."


- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

It is your myth that a snake was talking to Eve.
According to scripture, she was seduced by a very charming, intelligent, convincing individual.
Snake is what he became.

No he was a serpent from the beginning, a religious deceiver, perceived as illuminated or holy or semi divine. What he became was a pusilanimous low life.

Nothing much is changed. religious deceivers are still percieved as holy men or prophets of God, yet like serpents they are always on the prowl for the gullible and unaware...


Thats why Jesus prayed "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

He was praying for the day when religious deceivers, actors and lying frauds would no longer be able to deceive people into thinking they were pious holy men and would be percived as the pusilanimous low lifes that God condemned them as..

If he was a serpent from the beginning, it would have been redundant of God to turn him into one, again. He was, from the beginning a music director, charming, intelligent, and held in high regard, until pride took him down.

Christ was praying for the day when God's will triumphs over Satan's will on earth. As it is in Heaven.
You don't get to make up your own version of the Bible because you lack understanding of the one that already exists.

And how about that prophesy you keep ignoring...........
So was Israel reborn in a day or not?
Did the Jews return to their ancient language or not?
Has rain increased in Israel or not?
Did they become fruitful because of an increase in rain or not?
Are they surrounded by their enemies, or not?
Has the Roman Empire reunited or not?
A simple yes or no is all that is required to tell if there is someone that can see the end from the beginning......

 

[PratchettFan]

Religious madmen always have some silly reason why a Good God would allow pain and suffering. A standard ploy is that God permits it in order that humans may have free-will. But a Good God who was also omnipotent AND all-knowing obviously could create a world free of suffering AND in which humans could have free will (presuming that free will is actually something worth having).

So the apologists for God are just peddling another load of tommy-rot.

The only way out of the problem (for them) is to admit that God is NOT all-powerful AND/OR not all-knowing.

They could weasel out by claiming that, as making a stone bigger than He could move involves a contradiction to the concept of an all-powerful God, it is a reasonable limitation on the power of God that He cannot do something which involves a logical contradiction -- like making a square circle. Then they could claim that a world without suffering involves a logical contradiction.

That would be fine -- if they could explain what the logical contradiction is. Since they have never figured out such a thing, they should not be surprised if some of us distrust their simple-minded notions of deity.

In the spirit of philosophical brotherhood, I will suggest a way that might save their notions of God from logical inanity. I warn you that it involves considerable knowledge of some of the most subtle and advanced areas of modern mathematics. You had better think carefully about the work of Gregory Chaitin, for example.

Perhaps it is logically impossible to predict the optimal history of an infinite universe a priori -- it would require an Infinite Mind greater than the infinity of all the orders of mathematical infinity.

So we may all play out our lives over and over in the Mind of God -- with some changes each time -- so that He may ultimately form an asymptotic approximation to the Optimum Universal History.

God need not thank me for my help -- I'm always willing to give a hand to a Deity who tries to make an honest effort.

You have a very specifically limited view of God. That is interesting given the utter lack of any information upon which to base that view.

In terms of pain and suffering. If your parents had kept you all safe and warm, never let you out, never allowed you to skin your knee or bump your head, would they have been doing you a favor? If this life is merely a stepping stone in the existence of an eternal soul, then what could some discomfort in this life mean in the grand scheme? How can one, for example, come to understand the suffering of others and develop empathy if they have never suffered themselves?

I am sure an infinitely powerful and all-knowing God could figure out a way to do it.

I have no idea if there is a God, but it does seem to me your approach is rather silly. If there is no God, why bother? If there is, do you really think it so limited?

You are being illogical. I criticized a commonly held view of God, and you are now saying that I hold that view of God!! · ·

In fact, I have no view of God. I think the word "God" is a meaningless word representing the mental incoherence of common folk, which they use to save themselves the trouble of thinking deeply about fundamental questions.
.

I sure looks to me like you hold that view. You weren't willing to consider any other view. As to your claim you hold no view... I doubt it. If you hold no view, what are you doing here talking about it? Just to prove your superiority to the "common folk"? Are you an evangelical Atheist here to show the lessor beings the true way?

 

[hobelim]

If he was a serpent from the beginning, it would have been redundant of God to turn him into one, again. He was, from the beginning a music director, charming, intelligent, and held in high regard, until pride took him down

Genesis 3; "The serpent was more crafty than any wild creatures that God had made."


According to scripture, the serpent was a serpent from its creation. Its condemnation as a low life came later specifically for misleading the gullible to disregard the commands of God.

Discussing anything else in scripture with you is pointless if you are not in agreement with that.

Do you believe that Jesus abolished divine law???

 

[BreezeWood]

I have long suspected that the Universe has a strong sense of irony.
.

such as death,

whereas the attainable Everlasting exists for those simply willing to reach its presence.

There's an attainable "everlasting"-ness to death, I suppose. Doesn't sound like much consolation for a conscious mind purposed for survival, however (No). Granted, accepting oblivion might minimize a sense of pain and struggle as we face death, but - to quote "The Princess Bride" - "Life IS pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something".

Granted, accepting oblivion might minimize a sense of pain and struggle as we face death, but ...

^, sad and makes no sense - Atheism is embracing oblivion while facing death as the (only) solution to pain and struggle - a fan of Mr numan or just defeatism ... how about the progression of Energy to an Apex and escape ?


* how old is the Garden of modern Life ? ~ 500 million years - continuous, generational and every species today from that time to the present, Mr Gator. What is the conveyance of DNA from one generation to the next with evolvement in properties over time - that is to one physiological form to another ?

answer - an Everlasting DNA engineer ...

 

[numan]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..........

What is it with you? that you keep posting the same thing over and over?

Are you a recording machine? A human would have something new to say.

"Seven days without prayer makes you weak"

It would seem, from your example, that seven days with prayer makes your mind weak !!
.

 

[oldfart]

I find it curious that in this discussion and most of the ones like it I have seen, non-believers in the traditional Christian God go to considerable lengths to define the type of deity they do not believe in. Apparent believers in such a God (usually identified by their Biblical quotations) act as if a definition of God is not only apparent, but has been agreed upon by everyone. Since this is an obvious counter factual, they simply keep talking past the points raised. In time the first group realizes the entire discussion is futile and go away. To the believers, these discussions are simply a form of intellectual masturbation; achieving nothing but engendering a feeling of satisfaction.

[/observation]

 

[The Irish Ram]

If he was a serpent from the beginning, it would have been redundant of God to turn him into one, again. He was, from the beginning a music director, charming, intelligent, and held in high regard, until pride took him down

Genesis 3; "The serpent was more crafty than any wild creatures that God had made."


According to scripture, the serpent was a serpent from its creation. Its condemnation as a low life came later specifically for misleading the gullible to disregard the commands of God.

Discussing anything else in scripture with you is pointless if you are not in agreement with that.

Do you believe that Jesus abolished divine law???

According to scripture, you are wrong.

Here is a description of Lucifer/ Satan before he fell:

Ezekiel 28:12-14
"You were the seal of perfection,
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
You were in Eden, the garden of God;
Every precious stone was your covering:
The sardius, topaz, and diamond,
Beryl, onyx, and jasper,
Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald with gold.
The workmanship of your timbrels and pipes
Was prepared for you on the day you were created.
You were the anointed cherub who covers;
I established you;
You were on the holy mountain of God;
You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones......

After his fall he is described as serpent, dragon, Assyrian, satan...........

The serpent he inhabited was not what we consider a snake to be. For one thing it had legs. Satan, like us, is a spiritual being, and spirits are eternal. The serpent lost his legs, Satan did not, he just left the serpent. Satan is not omnipresent, but is multidimensional, and can come and go. He was not inhabiting a serpent when he tempted Christ in the desert. Satan stood, and spoke, which means unlike the snake, he had feet and vocal chords, and a solid understanding of scripture, reciting it, in that instance.
Since spirits are eternal, Christ will restrain him and his followers and rid us of all the damage Satan is responsible for.

As for Divine law, If you are referring to the law God gave Moses, Christ came to and did fulfill the law, not abolish it, and made a new covenant with us based on His forgiveness, not our capability to obey the law.

 

[KevinWestern]

I find it curious that in this discussion and most of the ones like it I have seen, non-believers in the traditional Christian God go to considerable lengths to define the type of deity they do not believe in. Apparent believers in such a God (usually identified by their Biblical quotations) act as if a definition of God is not only apparent, but has been agreed upon by everyone. Since this is an obvious counter factual, they simply keep talking past the points raised. In time the first group realizes the entire discussion is futile and go away. To the believers, these discussions are simply a form of intellectual masturbation; achieving nothing but engendering a feeling of satisfaction.

[/observation]

Lol, pretty much sums it up.

Since neither the Athiest position or Christian position can ever be proven (at least in the foreseeable future), I like to stay right smack dab in the middle and embark on my own open-ended spiritual journey to land wherever seems right.

Fact is, a God could very well exist so I’m not removing that from the playbook entirely.


.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't think the presence of pain and suffering is disproof of a benevolent god.

Think about it this way--children are spanked as a form of discipline. The parents spank their children not because they are evil, posses hatred or even angry, but because they want their child to survive into adulthood and live a full and meaningful life.

Thus this is a case where the subject experience pain(the child) and the parents administered the pain because they are benevolent.

Of course some of you are going to ask "How is a spanking benovolent?" I is in the sense that there exist a greater purpose for the child being spanked. If the parents allow the child to run any which way, the greater purpose for that child is not realized. That would be a tragedy, which is due to a lack of benevolence to that child.

Hey--maybe I could make a good charlatan? I can argue that pain and suffering is a form of benevolence. Very anti-intuitive, yes?

 

[The Irish Ram]

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH..........

What is it with you? that you keep posting the same thing over and over?

Are you a recording machine? A human would have something new to say.

"Seven days without prayer makes you weak"

It would seem, from your example, that seven days with prayer makes your mind weak !!
.

Those Blahs are prophesy that you can't refute, yet are unwilling to acknowledge.
I keep posting them because you keep ignoring them.
Let's continue to study your hypothesis that no one can predict the future:

Amos 8:9 And it shall come to pass in that day, says the Lord God, That I will make the sun go down, (proof He controls what He created) at noon, (because He is not vague) and I will darken the earth in broad daylight.

The pagan Syrian historian Thallus, who was alive at the time of Jesus' death occurred has confirmed that darkness covered the earth at the very time recorded in the Gospels.

The Christian writer Tertullian indicated that this supernatural darkness was recorded in the Roman archives that could still be consulted. "At the same time at noonday there was a great darkness..........."

Lucian, spoke of the public archives which recorded these supernatural events as follows: "Look into your annals; there you will find that in the time of Pilate, when Christ suffered, the sun was obscured, and the light of the day was interrupted with darkness."

It was recorded in China as well.


So, almost 800 years before He did it, God told Amos He would do it. At noon.
800 years later He did it. At noon.

And before you try to mislabel the act as an eclipse, look to Jewish tradition to realize that Passover takes place on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of Christ falls on the day before the passover.
The fact that there was a full moon present makes it certain that this darkness was not an eclipse but that it was a supernatural event.

Since no man can predict the future, how did Amos nail this future occurrence so accurately?
^ That requires an answer, not an assault. Unless you aren't up to it.

Oh, and Father, forgive the fool who says in his heart, "There is no God".