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

[ding]

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.

Do you have any idea at all how the universe was created? I mean the details. The physical process. Have you spent any time at all looking into it?

Because it is quite spectacular and awe inspiring. All of the matter in the universe being created from nothing occupying the space of a single proton. With 2 billion times the amount of that matter being annihilated in matter / anti-matter collisions converting tremendous quantities of energy into radiation and propelling the matter that makes up our universe outward such that the universe expanded and cooled until such time that it produced beings that know and create and became aware of itself.

All the atoms in your body were created 14 billion years ago through a creative act of God.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

Well said Colin.

How do we argue with reasoning that proceeds from "God said it, it must be true". Forget that God has not been proven except by some wacked out logic that points to nature and exclaims "what other explanation can there be". It's a neat circle of nonsense.

 

[ding]

Well that's certainly one way to satisfy the ego when the ego knows there's no logical response to science, logic and reason.

 

[ding]

Personally I think it's great that people argue against polytheism. I would too. I just find it odd that they won't believe in God unless he does magic for them like polytheists believed the gods did.

 

[ding]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

 

[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.

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

View attachment 500347

View attachment 500343
View attachment 500388

This is too funny, the charts YOU provided state a current child mortality rate of 5%. Further, the one half one percent who die of starvation is how many times your damnable attempt to minimize with .0001 and sweep God's murderous fascination with punishing beings because for his poor design, and flailing inability to execute his plan without resort to pain, suffering and kids with two heads on a single set of shoulders.

Last, of those 99.5% who survived the famine, are those who live in hunger having a good time? Your ability to dismiss the world in front of you in defense of your pretend omnipotent is whacko.

 

[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

View attachment 500347

View attachment 500343
View attachment 500388

This is too funny, the charts YOU provided state a current child mortality rate of 5%. Further, the one half one percent who die of starvation is how many times your damnable attempt to minimize with .0001 and sweep God's murderous fascination with punishing beings because for his poor design, and flailing inability to execute his plan without resort to pain, suffering and kids with two heads on a single set of shoulders.

Last, of those 99.5% who survived the famine, are those who live in hunger having a good time? Your ability to dismiss the world in front of you in defense of your pretend omnipotent is whacko.

I can lead the horse to water...

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

 

[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.

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

View attachment 500347

View attachment 500343
View attachment 500388

This is too funny, the charts YOU provided state a current child mortality rate of 5%. Further, the one half one percent who die of starvation is how many times your damnable attempt to minimize with .0001 and sweep God's murderous fascination with punishing beings because for his poor design, and flailing inability to execute his plan without resort to pain, suffering and kids with two heads on a single set of shoulders.

Last, of those 99.5% who survived the famine, are those who live in hunger having a good time? Your ability to dismiss the world in front of you in defense of your pretend omnipotent is whacko.

I can lead the horse to water...

Likely tainted water. No thanks.

 

[ding]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

 

[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

View attachment 500347

View attachment 500343
View attachment 500388

This is too funny, the charts YOU provided state a current child mortality rate of 5%. Further, the one half one percent who die of starvation is how many times your damnable attempt to minimize with .0001 and sweep God's murderous fascination with punishing beings because for his poor design, and flailing inability to execute his plan without resort to pain, suffering and kids with two heads on a single set of shoulders.

Last, of those 99.5% who survived the famine, are those who live in hunger having a good time? Your ability to dismiss the world in front of you in defense of your pretend omnipotent is whacko.

I can lead the horse to water...

Likely tainted water. No thanks.

Unfortunately you have no proof. So you take it on faith.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for believing that?

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

 

[ding]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

You wrote, "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."

This is your criteria for God's existence. That God cannot tolerate ANY amount of human suffering. Therefore it is your expectation of what you think God should do. In other words, you cannot accept any God that would allow any human suffering.


What am I missing here?

 

[ding]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of my faith. But who are you to tell me what my faith is. So it can only be your definition. Your criteria. Your expectation for God.

 

[ding]

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.

So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.

And you don't think that is illogical?

I'm wondering why you don't discuss death at all? Isn't dying suffering? Don't we suffer when loved ones die?

I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.

Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.

If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.

If I said or suggested anything of the above nature, it would have been in the context of YOUR definition of God, not mine because I don't have one. I'm just tearing down your foolish attempts to make fact from faith.

But you keep digging, the pony that is God may be down there somewhere amongst all that bull you are shoveling.

It's hilarious that you are running away from your own argument now.

You have moving goalposts. Just how much human suffering do YOU believe God should accept before you will believe God exists.

Because it seems like the only reason you don't believe in God is because of suffering.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

 

[ding]

A Creator God is a core belief of monotheism. Monotheism rejects the unscientific belief that gods control all aspects of the material world. That's called magic and that's the error that people like FortFun and Blue Collar make when discussing Christianity. The birth of monotheism - Abram - rejected the polytheistic beliefs that different gods control different things. If your takeaway from the Bible that that is what the Bible teaches then you are reading it wrong.

Yes, your mono rejects the competition (poly and otherwise). Unfortunately, that doesn't automatically make your God a fact. He, she or it remain a matter of faith. Why do you insist on convincing others that what you take on faith is fact. How dense is that?

The universe popping into existence being created from nothing and being hardwired to produce intelligence is evidence of God. So whereas I have evidence for my beliefs you have none.

The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone. I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. My good reason for believing in God are the physical, biological and moral laws of nature. My confirmation was testing it for myself and being transformed. I don't care to convince you. I only cared about convincing myself.

So let me flip that around on you who are you trying to convince that you don't take it on faith that there is no God and what are your good reasons for that?

As to your first paragraph: your declarative statement of what is proof, is, well, simply a declaration, an empty epitaph.

As to the second: If you are doing all this simply to convince yourself, you can quit because you are there. Your mind is thoroughly closed.

As to the last: Proving a negative is illogical. How about you prove that I am wrong. Wait, don't bother, I can't bear another one of your long circular arguments of "I think, therefore God is".

You can't deal with the reality that I have theoretical proof using the light of reason to examine what was created and empirical proof by testing it through a relationship with the Trinity.

AND that you have no proof for your beliefs other than a weak as God didn't make a world devoid of suffering.

You take it on faith that God doesn't exist. You know you do. You can't prove a negative, right? So by definition you can have no proof, right? So you take it on faith.