This is what atheist believe? Atheist believe that nothing created everything

[BreezeWood]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.

How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?

I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.

But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.

How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.

And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.

You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?

I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.

If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.

Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

Bravo for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.

I am happy that I pleased you. The faith I have - which I have never "preached" - is that good comes from bad. That is a fact. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's how we progress. That you can't see it is not my problem.

And as for your "gotcha" moment. You should have read the next sentence.

For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

You want me to quit defining your worldview as you try to define my worldview? No thanks. I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair. Which BTW is more proof that God is good. You can't shake the need for fairness or stop rationalizing that you are fair when you aren't. It's hardwired into you. And it's also the original sin.

I have no qualms with your expectation that the world can be an awful place. Just that you use it as an excuse to not believe in God. That's illogical. So we are right back where we started from.

I saw what you wrote in big blue letters before I answered. So what? And what gotcha moment?

I don't need an excuse not to believe in your god, your faith.

Mind your manners

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.

How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?

I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.

But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.

How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.

And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.

You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?

I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.

If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.

Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

Bravo for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.

And yet you feel that you have the right to preach that absolutely nothing created absolutely everything.

Get treated

Seriously, I'm beginning to think you are daft?

Please link me to where I said what you suggested above or just stand there with pants around your ankles and your ass exposed.

Quite to the contrary, I made reference to The First Law of Thermodynamics, in evidencing the POSSIBILITY that the universe is eternal.

I suspect that you'll turn my disbelief in your God as evidence of what I believe rather than evidence of what I do not believe. It fits with your bastardized logic.

The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything. Except now you are babbling that everything always was.

You believe in nothing and that is why you are stuck where you are.

You appear to be confessing that God does not always practice compassion, and that there are some things he cannot accomplish without allowing the presence of pain.

No. I am trying to explain to you that you don't have complete information and God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. I know I don't have complete information, and neither do you. Rather, you have faith that you wish to pedal as fact. No sale.

Thanks, but cutting and pasting a sermon of double-talk will not give me to surrender my senses. The message that God is compassionate but he's not quite all-powerful and unable to deliver his imperfect creations to a perfect place without first torturing newborns... along with a few other outburst of hellfire and damnation.

There's no double talk on my part, amigo. You think the bad vastly outweighs the good. It doesn't. The good vastly outweighs the bad. You can't understand why suffering has to occur. It occurs because suffering is a natural part of existence in the material world just as death is a natural part of existence in the material world. If you are going to not believe in God because of suffering or because you don't have perfect hair, you should have first complained about having to die. You think it is logical that God should have created utopia or there can be no God. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation because you don't know why God created existence in the first place. He does. You think God can't be omnipotent unless he created utopia. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. You think God can't be good or compassionate because there is suffering and death. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. With infinite wisdom and goodness God created a world where good arises from bad such that we get to experience the full spectrum of existence and that is a very good thing for us to experience.
So existence is natural rather than God's creation... more double talk. Are you saying Omnipotent God can't alter what is natural? I enjoyed you wanting to make good of God's work because there's more good than bad. I can entertain that POSSIBILITY on a world scale or at least from vantage of one who lives in a privilidged country. But PRAY TELL, where does that scale tip for an infant who lives a twisted and painful life only to die at age five?

DOUBLE-TALK: The world that God gifted to us would be boring without pain and evil (necessary tools to deliver us to God's Perfect Place). In other words, once you pass all the test and suffer, be prepared for boredom.

The only double talk is coming from you as you are the one who wants a material world without suffering or challenges. You want boring now. I have no idea what lies ahead but since it won't be the material world I suspect it will be a different level of amazing. Because unlike you I find this level amazing. Why could God have not started with the "different level of amazing"? I want a world with as little suffering as possible but I do not go though life with fairytale expectations. Quit pretending to be me... you suck at it.

Honestly, what a crock!
The crock is believing there can be no creator because you get to experience the full spectrum of existence. Rather than appreciate the gift that was given to you, you curse your own existence. Now that's a crock. I don't curse my existence. Can you cite an example of my doing so or will you point to my challenging your myths?

Your constant dishonest misrepresentation of my positions demonstrate an inability to honestly argue your convictions.

Continually, you toss strawmen (fallacy) for me to defend. It's becoming tiresome, and hence, I will simply footnote your straw and refuse to repeat myself.

God is faith, period. Quit preaching.

No. God is reality. Literally. As in existence. God IS. As in I AM which is a statement of existence. The first cause. The source of all reality. The material world is made up of mind stuff. I get that these things are what you believe but you should be careful how universally you declare what is simply your faith. You are beginning to sound like some dazed old man on the street corner mumbling about God.

Again... I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair.

If you keep arguing how bad everything is, I'll keep using that as a baseline. Because the moment you tell me how great existence is, that's the moment when your argument falls apart. So which is it? Is existence great or is it a burden? I believe most people believe existence is great but you'd never know it from your posts. I've clearly, and numerously, stated that the world is a mixed bag. I just said it again. It is you who sees everything through a single lens. God is good, God is great... ignore the dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine because these are all part of God's Plan. God IS because Ding said so. And just so there is no confusion, God might be but likely not in the mode as portrayed by Ding.

(The red comments above are Blue Collar's.)

I'm sorry but your faith proves nothing but your faith.

Yet dingy has you wrapped around his finger. He owns you

.

The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything.

.
have you proven matter and energy have not always existed, your formula -

* "fluctuating matter and energy" - bb is cyclical, your laws are after the successful event's occurrence - they are that success. using them for any other purpose is nefarious at best.

 

[Dr Grump]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

 

[Dusty]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.

How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?

I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.

But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.

How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.

And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.

You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?

I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.

If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.

Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

Bravo for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.

I am happy that I pleased you. The faith I have - which I have never "preached" - is that good comes from bad. That is a fact. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's how we progress. That you can't see it is not my problem.

And as for your "gotcha" moment. You should have read the next sentence.

For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

You want me to quit defining your worldview as you try to define my worldview? No thanks. I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair. Which BTW is more proof that God is good. You can't shake the need for fairness or stop rationalizing that you are fair when you aren't. It's hardwired into you. And it's also the original sin.

I have no qualms with your expectation that the world can be an awful place. Just that you use it as an excuse to not believe in God. That's illogical. So we are right back where we started from.

I saw what you wrote in big blue letters before I answered. So what? And what gotcha moment?

I don't need an excuse not to believe in your god, your faith.

Mind your manners

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

There is no fallacy in demanding a compassionate purpose in your God's tolerance for evil and suffering except to suggest that it is necessary in achieving his plan... in which case he is neither omnipotent nor a god at all. Is there a possibility that there is some unseen aspect of God which we are unable to grasp? I suppose there could be, but it can only be accepted as exactly that, a possibility - something taken on faith.

You set the standard for your God, not me. You deemed him both omnipotent and compassionate. It is your demand for this perfection, not mine. I'm simply holding your feet to the fire. I fully accept that the world is not perfect, but my point is not about the world's imperfection but about the imperfection of your God.

No intended offense, but you would do well to simply practice your faith and not try so hard to convince others that faith is proof. It is not.

How do you know what God's plan is to be able to judge his plan?

I don't and neither do you... at least not without indulging hearsay and faith.

But I'm not the one judging God as lacking. You are.

Believing there can be no creator because creation doesn't match your perception of what it should be is illogical.

How can I be judging what I do not see or know? That's your game. I'm judging what Christians define of God and comparing it to what populates the world.

And yet your basis for not believing in God is that you have found God lacking because the material world is not to your liking or to your perception of what you think God should have created.

You continue to dodge the question by drawing half-back conclusions about me.

Is your God, omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate?

I have not dodged anything. It is you who has dismissed my explanations such that I am having to repeat them over and over again as I just did in my last post which by the way addresses your logical fallacy of a good God allowing evil to exist.

If you are not dodging, why don't you simply answer yes or no to the question... instead of playing word games and pretending that I created the Christian notion of God.

Because in your silly worldview you think that means the world shouldn't be the way it is but as I explained you don't have complete information. God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. So YES, God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate.

Bravo for stepping part way into the light.

Let's be clear, I don't begrudge you or anyone their religious belief. I do take exception to those who preach to me with the false logic that faith is fact. It is not. Above, you suggest I'm wrong because I don't have complete information (God's Plan). That may be true, but it's not fact.. I'd also note that you don't know that plan either but are declining to "God Works in Mysterious Ways." You are taking it on faith and truly, I hope it gives you comfort, but it is not fact.

As to what I underscored, your use of the word "if" caste a shadow,. You are starting your syllogism with a premise that is not an accepted truth but a mere possibility.

One last thing, I would ask you to quit defining my worldview - then to label it as silly. Contrary to your remark, I expect the world to be awful (at times) because I do not take faith in the existence of a benevolent and all-powerful god.

And yet you feel that you have the right to preach that absolutely nothing created absolutely everything.

Get treated

Seriously, I'm beginning to think you are daft?

Please link me to where I said what you suggested above or just stand there with pants around your ankles and your ass exposed.

Quite to the contrary, I made reference to The First Law of Thermodynamics, in evidencing the POSSIBILITY that the universe is eternal.

I suspect that you'll turn my disbelief in your God as evidence of what I believe rather than evidence of what I do not believe. It fits with your bastardized logic.

The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything. Except now you are babbling that everything always was.

You believe in nothing and that is why you are stuck where you are.

You appear to be confessing that God does not always practice compassion, and that there are some things he cannot accomplish without allowing the presence of pain.

No. I am trying to explain to you that you don't have complete information and God does. For if God is omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate the world is the way it is for good reason even if you don't understand it. I know I don't have complete information, and neither do you. Rather, you have faith that you wish to pedal as fact. No sale.

Thanks, but cutting and pasting a sermon of double-talk will not give me to surrender my senses. The message that God is compassionate but he's not quite all-powerful and unable to deliver his imperfect creations to a perfect place without first torturing newborns... along with a few other outburst of hellfire and damnation.

There's no double talk on my part, amigo. You think the bad vastly outweighs the good. It doesn't. The good vastly outweighs the bad. You can't understand why suffering has to occur. It occurs because suffering is a natural part of existence in the material world just as death is a natural part of existence in the material world. If you are going to not believe in God because of suffering or because you don't have perfect hair, you should have first complained about having to die. You think it is logical that God should have created utopia or there can be no God. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation because you don't know why God created existence in the first place. He does. You think God can't be omnipotent unless he created utopia. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. You think God can't be good or compassionate because there is suffering and death. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. With infinite wisdom and goodness God created a world where good arises from bad such that we get to experience the full spectrum of existence and that is a very good thing for us to experience.
So existence is natural rather than God's creation... more double talk. Are you saying Omnipotent God can't alter what is natural? I enjoyed you wanting to make good of God's work because there's more good than bad. I can entertain that POSSIBILITY on a world scale or at least from vantage of one who lives in a privilidged country. But PRAY TELL, where does that scale tip for an infant who lives a twisted and painful life only to die at age five?

DOUBLE-TALK: The world that God gifted to us would be boring without pain and evil (necessary tools to deliver us to God's Perfect Place). In other words, once you pass all the test and suffer, be prepared for boredom.

The only double talk is coming from you as you are the one who wants a material world without suffering or challenges. You want boring now. I have no idea what lies ahead but since it won't be the material world I suspect it will be a different level of amazing. Because unlike you I find this level amazing. Why could God have not started with the "different level of amazing"? I want a world with as little suffering as possible but I do not go though life with fairytale expectations. Quit pretending to be me... you suck at it.

Honestly, what a crock!
The crock is believing there can be no creator because you get to experience the full spectrum of existence. Rather than appreciate the gift that was given to you, you curse your own existence. Now that's a crock. I don't curse my existence. Can you cite an example of my doing so or will you point to my challenging your myths?

Your constant dishonest misrepresentation of my positions demonstrate an inability to honestly argue your convictions.

Continually, you toss strawmen (fallacy) for me to defend. It's becoming tiresome, and hence, I will simply footnote your straw and refuse to repeat myself.

God is faith, period. Quit preaching.

No. God is reality. Literally. As in existence. God IS. As in I AM which is a statement of existence. The first cause. The source of all reality. The material world is made up of mind stuff. I get that these things are what you believe but you should be careful how universally you declare what is simply your faith. You are beginning to sound like some dazed old man on the street corner mumbling about God.

Again... I think I will keep pointing out the flaws in your worldview as you try to point out the flaws in mine. It only seems fair.

If you keep arguing how bad everything is, I'll keep using that as a baseline. Because the moment you tell me how great existence is, that's the moment when your argument falls apart. So which is it? Is existence great or is it a burden? I believe most people believe existence is great but you'd never know it from your posts. I've clearly, and numerously, stated that the world is a mixed bag. I just said it again. It is you who sees everything through a single lens. God is good, God is great... ignore the dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine because these are all part of God's Plan. God IS because Ding said so. And just so there is no confusion, God might be but likely not in the mode as portrayed by Ding.

(The red comments above are Blue Collar's.)

I'm sorry but your faith proves nothing but your faith.

Yet dingy has you wrapped around his finger. He owns you

.

The first law of thermodynamics does not explain where any of the fluctuating matter or energy came from, so again according to you nothing created everything.

.
have you proven matter and energy have not always existed, your formula -

* "fluctuating matter and energy" - bb is cyclical, your laws are after the successful event's occurrence - they are that success. using them for any other purpose is nefarious at best.

Dude the fact is that the blithering idiot physicist that proposed your dumb theory can not even prove mathematically that the universe even exist, and as a result of that they invented dark matter to make galaxies moving at 5 times light speed possible which also violates your science.

God wins

 

[Dusty]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

I do not have a theory on that, just like you have no theory on how nothing created everything. That said God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I've clearly, and numerously, stated that the world is a mixed bag. I just said it again. It is you who sees everything through a single lens. God is good, God is great... ignore the dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine because these are all part of God's Plan. God IS because Ding said so. And just so there is no confusion, God might be but likely not in the mode as portrayed by Ding.

Bravo for stepping part way into the light.

But it's more than a mixed bag. It is overwhelmingly good. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You point to things that are 0.001% and ignore the other 99.999%. And you call it a mixed bag. I am not the one who is single minded. The one that is single minded tries to define reality using the 0.001% percentile outcome.

I don't ignore dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine. I point out that they serve a purpose which is not to say they are desirable but that they lead to desirable future outcomes. I don't think I would ever use dead babies as any justification for anything. There's something ghoulish about using the suffering of others to make a stupid point on an anonymous internet discussion forum. I actually hope you have done something for them in real life other than to use their suffering to make a point on a message board. Because otherwise, I'd probably have to say you don't really give a fuck about dead babies if all you have ever done is use them as a chip in an online message board. That wouldn't be a good look. But putting that aside, AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU BEFORE, I suspect the parents of that minuscule subset of all babies that you wish to define reality by loved them more than you ever loved your kids because they faced adversity. You look at adversity as something that should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately that's not life. That's not existence. And until you experience the full spectrum of life - the good and the bad - you cannot have a proper perspective on life. Just as salt makes sugar taste sweeter. Adversity and suffering makes success and happiness taste sweeter too. Forest fires, like war, serve a purpose. It clears out old growth so new growth can occur. War serves a similar purpose in that it allows lessons to be learned both in victory and in defeat. Famines and pestilence serves as a reminder that life is fragile and precious. From the ashes of every tragedy resolution and new growth springs forward. Similar to my comment about dead babies, I hope you have made contributions to food banks and relief efforts. Otherwise your use of those tragedies rings hollow as well.

My perception of God is based upon the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. I believe it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and I believe that there must be a first cause and that that first cause must be eternal and unchanging which means beyond energy and matter. I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.

You minimize tragedy in this world in a twisted attempt to defend your God's lack of compassion. Care to share where you got the .0001 tragedy rate? How about a link?

Currently, there are more than three-quarters of a billion people in the world suffering from malnutrition. That's virtually 10% of the world population. The child mortality rate (children who die before age five) runs anywhere from a few percentage points to ten points depending on the country. In the 14th century the Black Death wiped out a third of Europe's population in the span of six years. In the modern twentieth century hundreds of millions died in war and millions more paid other prices.

Most people are aware that the Vietnam War cost 50,000 American Lives. What they don't see is that almost another half million Americans were wounded... and that doesn't account to the mental scars. The US Military commanded a 10:1 kill ratio in Nam; that's another 500,000. And we have still to address the millions of civilian casualties throughout Indochina. In Cambodia alone an estimated 1.5 to 2.2 million people perished (nearly 25% of the country's population). What about the orphans, the widows, the mothers who endured their personal pain and losses.

You marginalize tragedy in the world and attack my character solely to defend your fairytales of 99.999% good. I find your conduct in that regard to be disgusting.

If God is both compassionate and omnipotent, he could achieve his plan without cowering to evil. I look at the world and I see reality, good and bad. On a personal and material level, I have much - but I don't pretend, as you, that world problems are a trifle.

You look at the world with your eyes closed, and dare to speak of logic? God is this, God is that, he has a plan that we don't understand, don't even know. That isn't logic, it's simple declarative, what some might call bullshit.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

I saw what you wrote in big blue letters before I answered. So what? And what gotcha moment?

I don't need an excuse not to believe in your god, your faith.

Mind your manners

If you saw what I wrote as answers to your questions why did you keep asking the same questions?

He's not MY God. He is the creator of existence and I don't care if you believe in Him or not. Never have. Never will. It's your loss. Not mine.

My manners have been fine. I've seen some of your exchanges with other posters, I'm a saint compared to the way you guys have behaved. Your only complaint against me is my flipping your argument back around on you. That has nothing to do with manners and everything to do with logic.

Yeah, I oft give what I get and don't apologize for it. Consider it part of certain things I do, in a certain way, to achieve a certain result. Pun intended.

You have not flipped my argument back on me because I didn't arrive with an argument but with a riddle, a paradox, that ruffled your feathers and placed the Christian notion of God in a box.

I chose to quietly accept your confession of finally confessing belief in God's Omnipotence (etc) rather than grind you with I told so. Thank you.

If you simply said this is what I believe and punctuate that you take it on faith... I'd be done with it.

So you choose to lower your standards on purpose? Because no one is forcing you to do that, right? You could just as easily choose to not jump off of a bridge because someone else did it.

My feathers haven't been ruffled. You gave me an opportunity to participate in the conflict and confusion process. Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. This is me participating in that process.

I love how your pride requires you to declare victory.

Again... you are displaying no less certainty than I am, but for some odd reason it's my certainty that seems to ruffle your feathers whereas yours doesn't even register on your meter.

About the only things for which I've expressed certainty, is that your confessed definition of God is irrational and based entirely on faith, not fact, but faith. Own it.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

I do not have a theory on that, just like you have no theory on how nothing created everything. That said God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

Outside our universe... that's rich.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

"Why could God have not started with the "different level of amazing"? I want a world with as little suffering as possible but I do not go though life with fairytale expectations. Quit pretending to be me... you suck at it." BLUE COLLAR

I have already addressed this too. You don't have perfect information. God does. The best answer I have found to that question is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see emphasized text)...

"But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures."


And also from MLK (see emphasized text)...

"...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression..."

So you've explained God's strange behavior by ascribing it the adverb "certain" which I take as another dodge in revealing God's Plan (other than saying it must consist of certain things and executed in a certain way in order to produce certain results. God has a plan and we should take faith in it because, well, he's God and we know this because he has a certain plan.

Unbelievable.

I don't really see it as strange. God created existence so that we could share in His existence. What we make of it is up to us. What would be strange is if I believed like a polytheist and expected God to magic for me like you do. That would be strange behavior for the creator of existence. You get to experience the full spectrum of existence and your conclusion from that is that you think it should have been done better.

Those "certain" results that you are scoffing at are what define and develop human character. Apparently you believe we should all just do good out of the gate and never waver from it. And you think that is reality? So here you are the recipient of the most precious and rare gift - a being that knows and creates - and given the opportunity to overcome challenges and adversity and you complain that God should have made life easier?

I've never understood how anyone could make the kind of arguments you are making with a straight face to be honest.

How do you know God created existence? Is this unsupported statement an example of your logic. Wow, Aristotle must be rolling over in his grave.

Can you build me a logical proof, perhaps a simple syllogism?

The difference between you and I is that I don't take anything on raw faith. I'm attracted to some ideas of time and space and being, but I don't make religion out of it. To the degree that I might take some notions briefly to heart or hope, I keep such FAITH to myself.

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

 

[Colin norris]

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

Solve the Riddle.

I don't see a riddle. I see confusion on your part.

The Riddle that you either did not see, or perhaps suggest is not a riddle, was at Post# 589.

Yes, I confess to a certain amount of confusion, unlike yourself and many religious people who profess to have all the answers.

You are making assumptions that just aren't true. I've addressed this a number of times. God created existence. All existence is good. You are blaming God for man's failure.

So, God created existence. I assume that God also created man as it'd be pretty hard that there be much of anything without existence.

Why does God not wish to take responsibility for man's flawed design?

It may be more technically accurate to say God is existence. But be that as it may be, He created our existence; the material world.

He doesn't. That's you blaming God for it. Thinking you would have done a better job. I guess in your world there would be no death, no illness, only good things. In fact, bad wouldn't even have meaning. Not sure you have thought that through but to each his own as they say.

Oh, I've thought about it and concede that the description of boring comes to mind.

But then, I'm not an omnipotent who should be able to design the thrill of a a roller coaster without subjecting small children to cancer, or a lifetime with two heads and one set of shoulders? Wow, does your God also pull the wings from flies?

Again, I point to the riddle... If God is unable to overcome evil and suffering why call him God?

I'm not sure how one designs the thrill of victory without the agony of defeat. Whatever will you do with all of those people who don't die in your world?

Let me help. We play a round of golf, I sink a hole in one and your ball lands in the water. You're disappointed but still alive and anxious for another day, another challenge.

As for all of those dead people, that's God's problem. He made the rules. He let them die.

I see it a little different. Your ball lands in the water and you curse why God didn't make it so you would never have to suffer adversity. My ball lands in the water and I ask myself what it was I was supposed to learn. Down the road you hit a hole in one and feel nothing because you expect God to have made a world where all of your shots go in the hole. I make a hole in one and am elated because I know that not all shots go in the hole and it's because not all shots go in the hole that I feel so much joy over the ones that do.

There's a very large difference between simple adversity and the real ugly that exist in the world.

What possible purpose is there to a child born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age? Would you dismiss that with, "It's okay, there will be other children"? And what was the gain to the dead infant? What lesson and wisdom do you assign to the extermination of six million Jews and how do you justify it to the six million? When religious people lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve?

You treat the victims of all the suffering as if they are unthinking, unfeeling golf balls.

There is no way around the wisdom reflected by the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence, he created man, he created all, and hence, is responsible for the product. It's that fucking simple.

No, I wouldn't dismiss it. Would you dismiss the overwhelmingly number of children who are born perfectly healthy?

Do you think the parents of children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age love them less? Or do they love them more because of it? Do you think that children born with a twisted agonized body only to die at a tender age don't have a positive affect upon the world? I think they do. I think the same would apply to the stillborn infant too.

What lesson and wisdom do I assign to the extermination of six million Jews? That's it's a bad idea to dehumanize human life and that when one does predictable consequences will ensue. How do I justify it to the six million? I don't. Life is not a value transaction. But some may argue that the establishment of Israel would not have occurred without it? How many lives did that end up saving in your cold hard value assessment? The question is will you only see the bad that comes from things or will you take a more balanced view.

When religious people (who were Democrats) lawfully owned, beat and raped other people in this country, what GODLY purpose did that serve? That human life is precious and that we have inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures and that humans are not property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. When religious people (who were Republicans) fought to end that injustice did you give them credit or learn anything from their efforts?

There is a away around the Epicurean Paradox. God created existence. Existence is good. Good is extant. Evil is not extant. It only exists as the absence of good.

The means by which you dismiss my questions suggest that Hitler really wasn't a bad fellow. God sent him to teach us about humanity, and Adolph obliged. Each of your attempts to excuse evil and suffering ignores victims as if they were mere currency in the purchase of God's Not-so-intelligent Design. Not a single thing you said of the agonized-twisted infant addressed the plight and suffering of that little PERSON. The child was disposable in a warped proof of God's Greater Good.

Apparently, God deems that the end justifies the means so long as good exceeds evil.

Your way around the Paradox is just another bogus effort to ignore God's inability to provide good without the use/presence of evil. As the riddle ask, "whence comes evil".

I'm not sure why you brought political parties into the conversation, but would remind you that somewhere in the middle or the prior century a contingent of Dems changed sides.
Hey, as I use to say in a different time and place... shit happens (unless you're a rabid reactionary).

I didn't dismiss your questions. I answered your questions. What question do you think I dismissed?

What does a bad fellow mean exactly? I don't believe anyone is all bad or all good. Do you? Do you think you are a good fellow? Do you do all good at all times? So to correct your assumption, I believe Hitler did some very bad things. It would be super nice if you stopped putting words in my mouth and then trying to bash me for the words you put there. That's not nice.

Who said God sent Hitler to teach us about humanity? You keep making false assumptions. You could just ask me and you could avoid having to hear my corrections. I believe it must be you who thinks God is turning knobs and controlling events on earth because it sure isn't me who believes that. God created existence. He imparted His attributes upon man. Man must choose to do good or bad. There is a self compensating feature of existence. Error eventually fails and truth is eventually discovered. Many times that discovery is a result of something bad that happened.

I never excused evil. Can you show me where I excused evil? Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. That's not me excusing men who choose to do evil. That's stating reality. It is also reality that good comes from evil. That's not excusing evil either.

I didn't ignore the victims or the suffering of victims. In no way is my saying that good comes from bad a justification for evil or suffering. That's just stating reality. A reality you would most likely have no problem accepting if we weren't discussing God as the creator of existence. It's your bias that is clouding your judgement and results in your inability to take balanced positions an anything related to God.

It is a logical fallacy to say that unless everything is perfect there can be no creator.

You defined what is perfect. I don't recall even using the word.

There is no logical fallacy in insisting that one who tolerates evil and suffering is not God in the sense of a compassionate omnipotent. I am prepared that you will dodge the compassion issue by suggesting something on the order of God's Plan, that he works in mysterious ways. "In God We Trust", right?

I won't answer your lengthy post as I have another life. No offense, but this is not the medium for dissertations.

However, I allow for your right to faith. You need to do the same for me. The reality is that you have no proof, and I have no disproof (the latter a logical fallacy).

That's exactly what you are insinuating with your logical fallacy that God cannot exist unless this world meets your standard of perfection. It's a ridiculous assertion.

Of course I have proof. Existence is proof. It's not an accident that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence. What evidence were you expecting to find? You want God to do some magic for you or something?

Existence is proof only of existence, not of God.

No, I'm not asking God to do magic because I don't believe in magic nor do I believe in your definition of God. I believe there is a lot we do not understand and likely never will.

You are just expecting God to provide a perfect existence for you.

Be that as it may, it's not a coincidence that the universe popped into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence.

I'm not expecting anything from God. I don't even believe in your God.

I'm expecting you to justify your God's performance in this imperfect world given his supposed omnipotence and compassion. You want me to simply accept that he has a plan based on the notion that intelligence requires your God's intervention. Your attempting to sell me faith and I ain't buying.

I am expecting you to explain how nothing created everything which is what you believe

Expect all you want. I don't pretend to have anything but opinions and do not offer them as fact.

My conversation (here) challenges those who pedal their faith as fact - specifically as regards the existence of an omnipotent, compassionate and all-knowing god. I see no evidence of such an entity.

God as described in the bible is actually the ultimate scientist as he knows all and can do anything with that knowledge.

This is completely scientific unlike nothing creating everything as atheist believe

The fact is, there is no God and never has been, regardless what it says in your bible. Its a myth.
No where in the bible does it say He's the ultimate scientist. You are now so arrogant you are speaking in behalf of your God and claiming to know how he thinks. You don't. You can't even prove his sci fence let alone quote him.
So cut your childish crap and keep your silly predictions to yourself unless you have irrefutable evidence.

 

[Grumblenuts]

God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

Once upon a time, there was everything and God said "I require more!" She waved Her mighty rabbit's foot and, {poof} nothing happened. So God pointed her big, holy syringe deep.. deep into a dark, dark corner, well beneath even the most stubborn of dust bunnies. Then She yanked the plunger with all Her might.. Lo and behold, that plunger slid back revealing Her creation of some new void. It was nothing really, but She thought "Cool, good, wow, what the hell? That nothing appears to take up space!" Then God said "Hey, maybe that's what GrumbleNuts has been talking about.. Hmm,.. the Aether.. the Aether.. Perhaps I'm just a superfluous figment of people's imaginations after all and the Aether has always been what's real?.. Wow, fuck me!"

 

[Hollie]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

I do not have a theory on that, just like you have no theory on how nothing created everything. That said God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

Ii suppose that's the fun part for believers in magic and supernaturalism. Your gods who were created from nothing were created from nothing in specific places; extra-universal gods.

 

[Colin norris]

Nothing Created Everything

Richard Dawkins is arguably the modern poster boy for Charles Darwin. However, a key difference radically separates the two men. Darwin b...

www.goodreads.com

It's really that simple, everything that is, came to be what it is, because nothing decided to write genetic code

And yet deists believe that something (a god) created everything. Yet when asked where that something came from orginally, they claim that the something was already there. Somehow it is okay to believe a something was just 'there' from the get-go (and when was the get-go?), but that the building blocks of life (which have been proven over and over again happened over billions of years, not 6,000 years) were created over a vast amount of time is unbelievable. Go figure.

This is real simple, you believe that absolutely nothing, created everything. So can you explain how this happens and also how the concept is scientific?

No you can not do either, but please try as I need the laugh

Can you please explain your own theory how a being that came from nothing created everything.
I need a good laugh.

I do not have a theory on that, just like you have no theory on how nothing created everything. That said God may well be from outside our universe, which is the newest theory of galactic expansion

Well there is a theory on how everything came to being but it's not a theory now. It's a fact. Its called evolution and is proven a thousand times and supported by DNA. Unlike yours which is based on faith and a bible. Both very reliable sources nowadays.

You needed worry about where God is because it never existed other than in your head. Furthermore, it's not a theory, it's total crap.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well there is a theory on how everything came to being but it's not a theory now. It's a fact. Its called evolution and is proven a thousand times and supported by DNA.

The only evolution theory I'm aware of remains distinct from "everything" other than "the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
Oh, and it's now considered both fact and theory.

 

[ding]

I've clearly, and numerously, stated that the world is a mixed bag. I just said it again. It is you who sees everything through a single lens. God is good, God is great... ignore the dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine because these are all part of God's Plan. God IS because Ding said so. And just so there is no confusion, God might be but likely not in the mode as portrayed by Ding.

Bravo for stepping part way into the light.

But it's more than a mixed bag. It is overwhelmingly good. You are literally trying to define the rule by exception. You point to things that are 0.001% and ignore the other 99.999%. And you call it a mixed bag. I am not the one who is single minded. The one that is single minded tries to define reality using the 0.001% percentile outcome.

I don't ignore dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine. I point out that they serve a purpose which is not to say they are desirable but that they lead to desirable future outcomes. I don't think I would ever use dead babies as any justification for anything. There's something ghoulish about using the suffering of others to make a stupid point on an anonymous internet discussion forum. I actually hope you have done something for them in real life other than to use their suffering to make a point on a message board. Because otherwise, I'd probably have to say you don't really give a fuck about dead babies if all you have ever done is use them as a chip in an online message board. That wouldn't be a good look. But putting that aside, AS I HAVE ALREADY TOLD YOU BEFORE, I suspect the parents of that minuscule subset of all babies that you wish to define reality by loved them more than you ever loved your kids because they faced adversity. You look at adversity as something that should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately that's not life. That's not existence. And until you experience the full spectrum of life - the good and the bad - you cannot have a proper perspective on life. Just as salt makes sugar taste sweeter. Adversity and suffering makes success and happiness taste sweeter too. Forest fires, like war, serve a purpose. It clears out old growth so new growth can occur. War serves a similar purpose in that it allows lessons to be learned both in victory and in defeat. Famines and pestilence serves as a reminder that life is fragile and precious. From the ashes of every tragedy resolution and new growth springs forward. Similar to my comment about dead babies, I hope you have made contributions to food banks and relief efforts. Otherwise your use of those tragedies rings hollow as well.

My perception of God is based upon the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. I believe it is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence and I believe that there must be a first cause and that that first cause must be eternal and unchanging which means beyond energy and matter. I believe that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create. This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes. My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. The polar opposite of those attributes are not extant. They only exist as the negation of the attribute. And that's how I know God is good and compassionate. Because good and compassion exist.

You minimize tragedy in this world in a twisted attempt to defend your God's lack of compassion. Care to share where you got the .0001 tragedy rate? How about a link?

Currently, there are more than three-quarters of a billion people in the world suffering from malnutrition. That's virtually 10% of the world population. The child mortality rate (children who die before age five) runs anywhere from a few percentage points to ten points depending on the country. In the 14th century the Black Death wiped out a third of Europe's population in the span of six years. In the modern twentieth century hundreds of millions died in war and millions more paid other prices.

Most people are aware that the Vietnam War cost 50,000 American Lives. What they don't see is that almost another half million Americans were wounded... and that doesn't account to the mental scars. The US Military commanded a 10:1 kill ratio in Nam; that's another 500,000. And we have still to address the millions of civilian casualties throughout Indochina. In Cambodia alone an estimated 1.5 to 2.2 million people perished (nearly 25% of the country's population). What about the orphans, the widows, the mothers who endured their personal pain and losses.

You marginalize tragedy in the world and attack my character solely to defend your fairytales of 99.999% good. I find your conduct in that regard to be disgusting.

If God is both compassionate and omnipotent, he could achieve his plan without cowering to evil. I look at the world and I see reality, good and bad. On a personal and material level, I have much - but I don't pretend, as you, that world problems are a trifle.

You look at the world with your eyes closed, and dare to speak of logic? God is this, God is that, he has a plan that we don't understand, don't even know. That isn't logic, it's simple declarative, what some might call bullshit.

You are trying to define the rule by the exception and you are over estimating tragedy and underestimating all that is good.

The death rate per famine from 2010 to 2016 was 0.5 people per 100,000 or 0.0005% (0.000005)

From 2010 to 2016 there were approximately 100,000 annual deaths from war out of 7 billion people or 0.0014% (0.000014)

Global child mortality since 1800​

Since the beginning of the age of the Enlightenment the mortality of children has declined rapidly. Child mortality in rich countries today is much lower than 1%. This is a very recent development and was only reached after a hundredfold decline in child mortality in these countries. In early-modern times, child mortality was very high; in 18th century Sweden every third child died, and in 19th century Germany every second child died. With declining poverty and increasing knowledge and service in the health sector, child mortality around the world is declining very rapidly: Global child mortality fell from 19% in 1960 to just below 4% in 2017; while 4% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement.
One reason why we do not hear about how global living conditions are improving in the media is that these are the slow processes that never make the headlines: A century ago every third child died before it was five years old, almost a century later the child mortality rate has fallen to 4%. We will not learn about this development from the news as such a slow development is never fast enough to make a headline. The headline that could have been published on every average day in the last century is “The global child mortality rate fell by 0.0008 percentage points since yesterday”. Big countries like Brazil and China reduced their child mortality rates 10-fold over the last 4 decades. Other countries – especially in Africa – still have high child mortality rates, but it’s not true that these countries are not making progress. In Sub-Saharan Africa, child mortality has been continuously falling for the last 50 years (1 in 4 children died in the early 60s – today it is less than 1 in 10). Over the last decade this improvement has been happening faster than ever before. Rising prosperity, rising education and the spread of health care around the globe are the major drivers of this progress.

Child and Infant Mortality

Child mortality remains one of the world’s largest problems and is a painful reminder of work yet to be done. With global data on where, when, and how child deaths occur, we can accelerate efforts to prevent them.

ourworldindata.org

 

[ding]

You marginalize tragedy in the world and attack my character solely to defend your fairytales of 99.999% good.

I do not marginalize anything. I present things as they are in reality. I never attacked your character. Feel free to show me where I did.

I am defending reality, not fairytales. Your perception of God is fairytales which is why everything you see is skewed to fairytales. There isn't one single thing that you will accept because your fairytale bias is preventing you from being objective. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world you would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

As I said before, I don't ignore dead babies, wars, pestilence and famine. I point out that they serve a purpose which is not to say they are desirable but that they lead to desirable future outcomes. You look at adversity as something that should be avoided at all costs. Unfortunately that's not life. That's not existence. And until you experience the full spectrum of life - the good and the bad - you cannot have a proper perspective on life. Just as salt makes sugar taste sweeter. Adversity and suffering makes success and happiness taste sweeter too. Forest fires, like war, serve a purpose. It clears out old growth so new growth can occur. War serves a similar purpose in that it allows lessons to be learned both in victory and in defeat. Famines and pestilence serves as a reminder that life is fragile and precious. From the ashes of every tragedy resolution and new growth springs forward.

There is good and compassion in the world because the constant presence of mind imbued His creation with His attributes. You are making an argument of exception to define the rule. That is not reality. The world is overwhelming good and compassionate despite your fringe arguments.

I find your conduct in that regard to be disgusting.

Says the guy who is using the suffering of babies to win an argument based upon exceptions. What have you ever done to alleviate the suffering of babies? Besides blame God for it an use it as a reason to not believe in God.

 

[ding]

If God is both compassionate and omnipotent, he could achieve his plan without cowering to evil. I look at the world and I see reality, good and bad. On a personal and material level, I have much - but I don't pretend, as you, that world problems are a trifle.

I've never said the world's problems are trivial. I say that by any objective measure the good vastly outweighs the bad. That's not trivializing the bad. That is stating reality.

Evil is the absence of good. Evil is not extant. God created existence. All existence is good.

You can't understand why suffering has to occur. It occurs because suffering is a natural part of existence in the material world just as death is a natural part of existence in the material world. If you are going to not believe in God because of suffering or because you don't have perfect hair, you should have first complained about having to die. You think it is logical that God should have created utopia or there can be no God. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation because you don't know why God created existence in the first place. He does. You think God can't be omnipotent unless he created utopia. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. You think God can't be good or compassionate because there is suffering and death. I say you don't have perfect knowledge to make that calculation. He does. With infinite wisdom and goodness God created a world where good arises from bad such that we get to experience the full spectrum of existence and that is a very good thing for us to experience.

How many times am I going to have to address the same point?

 

[ding]

You look at the world with your eyes closed, and dare to speak of logic? God is this, God is that, he has a plan that we don't understand, don't even know. That isn't logic, it's simple declarative, what some might call bullshit.

I don't look at the world with my eyes closed. I look at the world as it exists in reality. By any objective measure the world is overwhelmingly good.

God's plan is to let us experience existence and to learn from the consequences of our actions. This is how we progress. This is how good comes from bad. It is 100% logical.

Polytheists believe gods control the events of the world. Monotheists believe that God created the material world and allows man free will to learn from their mistakes. You are making an argument against polytheism and applying it to monotheism which is illogical.

 

[ding]

I saw what you wrote in big blue letters before I answered. So what? And what gotcha moment?

I don't need an excuse not to believe in your god, your faith.

Mind your manners

If you saw what I wrote as answers to your questions why did you keep asking the same questions?

He's not MY God. He is the creator of existence and I don't care if you believe in Him or not. Never have. Never will. It's your loss. Not mine.

My manners have been fine. I've seen some of your exchanges with other posters, I'm a saint compared to the way you guys have behaved. Your only complaint against me is my flipping your argument back around on you. That has nothing to do with manners and everything to do with logic.

Yeah, I oft give what I get and don't apologize for it. Consider it part of certain things I do, in a certain way, to achieve a certain result. Pun intended.

You have not flipped my argument back on me because I didn't arrive with an argument but with a riddle, a paradox, that ruffled your feathers and placed the Christian notion of God in a box.

I chose to quietly accept your confession of finally confessing belief in God's Omnipotence (etc) rather than grind you with I told so. Thank you.

If you simply said this is what I believe and punctuate that you take it on faith... I'd be done with it.

So you choose to lower your standards on purpose? Because no one is forcing you to do that, right? You could just as easily choose to not jump off of a bridge because someone else did it.

My feathers haven't been ruffled. You gave me an opportunity to participate in the conflict and confusion process. Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. This is me participating in that process.

I love how your pride requires you to declare victory.

Again... you are displaying no less certainty than I am, but for some odd reason it's my certainty that seems to ruffle your feathers whereas yours doesn't even register on your meter.

About the only things for which I've expressed certainty, is that your confessed definition of God is irrational and based entirely on faith, not fact, but faith. Own it.

I never denied I am certain God exists. I have never denied that I am certain that good comes from bad.

You on the other hand are certain God does not exist and are bothered by my being certain that God does exist.

Can you explain to me why you think my confessed definition of God is irrational and based entirely on faith?

 

[ding]

"Why could God have not started with the "different level of amazing"? I want a world with as little suffering as possible but I do not go though life with fairytale expectations. Quit pretending to be me... you suck at it." BLUE COLLAR

I have already addressed this too. You don't have perfect information. God does. The best answer I have found to that question is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see emphasized text)...

"But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures."


And also from MLK (see emphasized text)...

"...We are never to think of God's power in terms of what he could conceivably do by the exercise of what we may call sheer omnipotence which crushes all obstacles in its path. We are always to think of God's power in terms of his purpose. If what he did by sheer omnipotence defeated his purpose, then, however startling and impressive, it would be an expression of weakness, not of power. Indeed, a good definition of power is "ability to achieve purpose. This applies to the power of a gun, or a drug, or an argument, or even a sermon! Does it achieve its end? Does it fulfill its purpose?

We must realize that God's power is not put forward to get certain things done, but to get them done in a certain way, and with certain results in the lives of those who do them. We can see this clearly in human illustrations. My purpose in doing a crossword puzzle is not to fill in certain words. I could fill them in easily by waiting for tomorrow morning's paper. Filling them in without the answers is harder but much more satisfying, for it calls out resourcefulness, ingenuity, and discipline which by the easier way would find no self expression..."

So you've explained God's strange behavior by ascribing it the adverb "certain" which I take as another dodge in revealing God's Plan (other than saying it must consist of certain things and executed in a certain way in order to produce certain results. God has a plan and we should take faith in it because, well, he's God and we know this because he has a certain plan.

Unbelievable.

I don't really see it as strange. God created existence so that we could share in His existence. What we make of it is up to us. What would be strange is if I believed like a polytheist and expected God to magic for me like you do. That would be strange behavior for the creator of existence. You get to experience the full spectrum of existence and your conclusion from that is that you think it should have been done better.

Those "certain" results that you are scoffing at are what define and develop human character. Apparently you believe we should all just do good out of the gate and never waver from it. And you think that is reality? So here you are the recipient of the most precious and rare gift - a being that knows and creates - and given the opportunity to overcome challenges and adversity and you complain that God should have made life easier?

I've never understood how anyone could make the kind of arguments you are making with a straight face to be honest.

How do you know God created existence? Is this unsupported statement an example of your logic. Wow, Aristotle must be rolling over in his grave.

Can you build me a logical proof, perhaps a simple syllogism?

The difference between you and I is that I don't take anything on raw faith. I'm attracted to some ideas of time and space and being, but I don't make religion out of it. To the degree that I might take some notions briefly to heart or hope, I keep such FAITH to myself.

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

Haven't I already answered this before? How many more times do you need to hear it before you will remember it?

Try organizing your supposed logic into a syllogism... and get back to me.

The presence of matter creates space and time which precludes matter from being an eternal source.

Matter is not unchanging which precludes matter from being an eternal source.

But let me expound upon this for you. I'll emphasis the key point.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

 

[ding]

The difference between you and I is that I don't take anything on raw faith. I'm attracted to some ideas of time and space and being, but I don't make religion out of it. To the degree that I might take some notions briefly to heart or hope, I keep such FAITH to myself.

I think the difference between us is that your bias prevents you from seeing reality. I have reasons for believing God exists. Some of which I explained in my last post. You are the one who takes it on faith that God does not exist.

This is a discussion message board. You are in the religion and ethics subforum of that discussion forum where people discuss their beliefs and faith. No one is forcing you to be here. It almost sounds like you are arguing that people should keep their beliefs to themselves.

You start from an unproven premise: God Exist. You then parade this faith as if it is a given. But there is no proof, and your illogical ideas on how a compassionate omnipotent can tolerate any amount of human suffering makes a mockery of your faith.

Incorrect, I do not start from an unproven premise that God exists. I started from the premise that there are only two options; either the material world was created by "something" which is beyond energy and matter - which in reality must be no thing - or that it wasn't. I then proceeded to evaluate the only evidence at my disposal which is creation itself. In fact, I just walked you through my examination in the last post. Only then was I able to conclude that God must exist. But I didn't stop there. I tested it. It is because I tested it and was transformed that I became certain.

So what have you done to test it? Because if you say to me you have done nothing, then you are starting from an unproven premise and take it on faith that God does not exist.

With your last sentence you prove that you believe life must be free of adversity, challenges and suffering for you to believe God exists. That is totally illogical.