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

[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

.

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

.
you did not answer the question ... has there ever been a time matter or energy have not existed - your proof.

Do you have proof that matter and energy have always existed? You are too dumb to know that you infer the big bang which clearly points to a previous period.

Play on stupid

.

Do you have proof that matter and energy have always existed? You are too dumb to know that you infer the big bang which clearly points to a previous period.

* "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.

.
I provided an explanation for their eternal existence, in one form or another whether in cataclysm or not - something you have yet to refute.

And how do you know about the beginning of time, other than your schizoid brain that makes up whatever it needs I mean

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

.
no, that is not possible only repentance from evil to have occurred is not in itself good. required.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I was a nonbeliever for many years. Been there, done that. Why would I go back to that

For example:

What Made Me Turn To Atheism by Carl Zimmerling (April 2000) - Freedom From Religion Foundation

It really started over sixty years ago in (Nazi) Germany where I was born and where I spent my childhood and youth, while I was raised by moderately C...

ffrf.org

 

[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.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y 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.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

But more important than that is you revealing the true reason your mind is closed to God. And that reason is illogical. You can see with your own eyes that good comes from bad. You don't need a religion to tell you that.

You failed to identify the error in the Paradox.

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?

Thanks for going the extra mile. Getting ding so exposed and forthcoming is no small feat. Bravo. Your success has now drawn in reinforcements.. More work is your reward, LOL

Certainly, he seems unsure of what he really believes as regards the definition of God (omnipotent, all-knowing and compassionate). His religious commitment accepts the definition but it is all too obvious that he recognizes the illogic. If he'd just accept that he shouldn't insist to others that his faith is fact, he could close his wound.

Honestly, there is a part of me that does not enjoy undermining another's faith. Who am I to infringe upon what gives someone comfort? I suppose I justify it because I detect a mean spirit. After all, you and I are going to hell.

 

[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.

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

.

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

.
you did not answer the question ... has there ever been a time matter or energy have not existed - your proof.

Do you have proof that matter and energy have always existed? You are too dumb to know that you infer the big bang which clearly points to a previous period.

Play on stupid

.

Do you have proof that matter and energy have always existed? You are too dumb to know that you infer the big bang which clearly points to a previous period.

* "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.

.
I provided an explanation for their eternal existence, in one form or another whether in cataclysm or not - something you have yet to refute.

And how do you know about the beginning of time, other than your schizoid brain that makes up whatever it needs I mean

.

And how do you know about the beginning of time, other than your schizoid brain that makes up whatever it needs I mean

.
in one form or another matter and energy have always existed, cyclical bb can be measures of time within eternity is all that is being calibrated.

 

[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".

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.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

.
no, that is not possible only repentance from evil to have occurred is not in itself good. required.

No offense - but I don't follow,

 

[BreezeWood]

The problem with your argument here is that, and let's assume God created everything, that either God was created from nothing, or God wasn't even created.

So, if God wasn't created, then things being created from nothing is more plausible than something not even being created.

If God was created, then God was created from nothing. Which means things can be created from nothing, which means you don't need a God.

Or, God was created from something, who created God? Another God? And who created that God?

Your belief system is just as wacky, if not more so, than atheists' belief system.

I don't mean to be rude but I'm amazed that anyone is even asking that question ("who created God?") let alone a few people. It shows a blatant lack of understanding on the entire concept of God. God is the First Cause, which has to be eternal. The Creator is uncreated. The buck stops there.

You said that both theism and atheism are wacky, well I agree with you on the latter. To me what is truly wacky is to believe that everything - all of creation, which clearly shows order, design and complexity - is the result of dumb luck, no intelligence. That's like believing the Sistine Chapel could put itself together, with no architect or artist, just pure luck! And some atheists call our beliefs magical? What could be more magical than something (everything) coming from nothing, all by itself? As I always say, I'm awed by the faith of atheists. Personally I could never have that much faith.

Why would you be amazed by anyone asking ''who created the gods''? Religionists tend to insist that their gods are eternal and uncreated but that is nothing more than a ''... because I say so" statement and requires unquestioning belief in partisan dogma. I'm amazed anyone would expect others to accept that.

As to the religioners belief in ''design'', I have to acknowledge that I don’t know exactly what religioners means by “designed”. ”. Do they mean simply that something has a pattern to it (as in “the design of a snowflake”), or do they mean something that has a “function”, or must there necessarily be some teleology involved? I think it’s incumbent on religioners to make clear what they mean. Does ''design'' involve a man in a long flowing beard, wearing a nightgown and floating in the clouds who waves his hand and the magic apoears?

He didn't ask how God can be eternal (that's a different question) he asked who created God? My point was that shows a blatant lack of understanding on the whole idea of God. One doesn't have to believe in God to understand the basic concept of God. Unless one is brand new to these types of debates, I assumed that atheists have heard many times before that God is eternal. Now if he would've said "explain how can God be eternal?" then I wouldn't have said that I'm amazed anyone is asking that.

As for the word designed, I'm just going by the basic definition. Something that is designed requires intention, thought, a plan. It's the difference between a pile of sand on the beach that was formed by pure chance (the wind blowing it together) and an elaborate sandcastle on the beach… which obviously didn't come together by chance, it was designed and created.

In the same way that it would be absurd to assert that the sandcastle came together by dumb luck, it is absurd and blind to assert that genetic code, the human mind, and everything in creation seen and unseen came together by dumb luck, no intelligence involved.

In fact, believing that is a form of blindness. Not physical blindness obviously but a different type of blindness. You don't see that now because you're still an atheist. If/when that changes, you will realize that you once were blind. And by the way, debating this on the Internet is probably not going to change your mind, so imo it's kind of a waste of time. If you sincerely, truly want to be convinced then my advice to all atheists is to change your attitude, because God is the one who opens people's eyes, but it's probably not gonna happen with a prideful, stubborn, "I demand proof!!!!!1" type of attitude.

Well then, who did create your gods? You may find that question audacious because you're still a religionist. When you discover the error of your ways, you will realize the depth of your indoctrination.

Yes, the ''I demand proof'', worldview is a failing of those who don't accept ''... because I say so'', claims. Thus, you must admit to being prideful and stubborn in regard to your disbelief in the gidsbof Shintoism.

I guess I gave you too much credit, I thought you could do much better than that. That response was basically the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I? La La La La La"

As for the second thing you said, that is disingenuous. There are tons of books on these topics out there, and lots of people who devote their life to apologetics. And the Bible itself tells believers to be ready with answers for those who ask questions. So it never has been a "just because I say so" situation. The answers are there if you are sincere in finding them. If you are sincere and genuine then you wouldn't even spend so much time here bickering and mocking other views, you would be doing research on your own, reading books and doing searches on the Internet to find the answers you're looking for.

Intentionally or not, you missed the point. There's nothing wrong with wanting proof, it's a very good thing to ask questions and seek the truth. What I was talking about was a bad attitude. Someone who is genuinely interested in truth doesn't arrogantly demand others to prove everything to them, while mocking and knee-jerkingly dismissing all responses. Seek and you will find! And the reason you will find is because IF (keyword: if) you are sincere, intellectually honest and with a modicum of humility, God will open your eyes. You will probably mock and laugh at that, but just remember what I said.

I guess you had hopes your online proselytizing would yield positive results? Books about apologetics are intended to do what? Convince the believers what they want to believe is true? That's hardly seeking truth. Thats seeking to confirm predefined biases.

I think you missed the point. There is every reason to hold believers to a standard other than, ''... because the bible says so''. There are better standards than that, the standards of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing why their model is true, and show cause, and display testable evidence then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.

Proponents of religious doctrine must show why their source material establishes their claims as true and the other(s) not. Why one having preeminence over the other? What's missing from the formula that each can insist theirs is valid and the other is not?

The standards of proof of course.

I find it funny that you demand answers, but then when believers answer your questions, you accuse them of "proselytizing" - as if you were just minding your own business and believers posted to you out of the blue, to try to convert you. lol. I haven't seen that here, I just see people arguing or responding to questions asked or claims made.

But I can definitely see now why the Bible says what it says about arguing with certain types of people.

I find it funny that you presume anyone is demanding answers. You seem to take offense at others challenging religious belief in a public discussion forum that you choose to enter.

I'm not clear as to what answers believers have offered? I wrote earlier, ''One of the favorite games of rsligioners is equivocation, so it’s important to pin them down on a precise meaning. Religioners can't seem to state what they mean by “design''. That was met with not just equivocation but sidestepping. So tell us about supernatural design.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears that you're purposely ignoring what I'm saying and trying to accuse me of the exact opposite.

Let me say this again, I think it's probably the 4th time now. It's GOOD that you're asking questions, and there are plenty of people who devote their time to answering your questions in-depth. We don't have a problem at all with your questions… what I have been talking about is the attitude most atheists have, a very arrogant, bitter, hostile- toward-Christianity attitude... which leads me to believe that you are not sincere or open to changing your views, you simply want to fight and try to win atheist vs theist internet squabbles.

Again, for the fourth or fifth time, if you were sincere and genuine in your search, you wouldn't be here on USMB all the time, you would be going to places where you can find good, in-depth answers to your questions.

Well, similarly, are you open to changing your religious views? Are you sincerely seeking truth or just accepting the religious views you were given. Your comments seem to describe a pattern of behavior common among Christians toward non-Christians; “a very arrogant, bitter, hostility” toward those who don’t believe as you do.

I think what believers miss is that non-belief in your religion and your gods is a conclusion that applies to other religions and their gods. The non-believer actually has made the journey of discovery and concluded that belief in your particular gods is as relevant as belief in any of the other gods.

I found it more than just a little arrogant to suggest, ‘’if you are sincere, intellectually honest and with a modicum of humility, God will open your eyes”. I suspect you are referencing your particular gods but believers in competing gods will make similar claims.

I can only think that, ’if you are sincere, intellectually honest and with a modicum of humility, the Shinto gods will open your eyes”. Obviously, if you reject that, you are not sincere, intellectually honest and possess not a modicum of humility.

Convert, heathen.

I was a nonbeliever for many years. Been there, done that. Why would I go back to that when I have already seen and experienced God in my life, for the last 20 years? My life has radically changed, and I have been transformed, I am not the same person I used to be… just like a baby can't go back into the womb, once you've gone through spiritual birth you cannot go back to being unborn.

As for the second paragraph, no, Christianity is very different than any of the other world religions. I don't have time right now to get into this too much because I have to go in a few minutes but I just wanted to respond real quick to a couple things you said.

.

I was a nonbeliever for many years. Been there, done that. Why would I go back to that when I have already seen and experienced God in my life

.
if that were true you would know religion is not the reason for their existence. pandering one side or the other is one in the same.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

.
no, that is not possible only repentance from evil to have occurred is not in itself good. required.

No offense - but I don't follow,

.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

no, that is not possible only repentance from evil to have occurred is not in itself good. required.

No offense - but I don't follow,

.
the religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - for admission to the Everlasting says otherwise. and in particular if the blemish is too great that spirit is doomed to perish - for who chooses to accomplish the feat. life of possible - immortality, or at least more borrowed time..

 

[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.

The inability to prove a negative results in a draw, not a win for you and your figments. You are the one who has postured a belief system. Without thoroughly dismissing your God, it is possible to poke holes in your beliefs... so much or it is irrational: a compassionate omnipotent who let's millions, billions suffer.

I don't look at this as winning or losing.

I started from disbelief. So I would say I had thoroughly dismissed God.

I told you how Christianity reconciles suffering with a compassionate omnipotent God. Everything works for good. You keep dismissing it. Not on the grounds that it's not what Christianity teaches but on the grounds that you don't think that's what Christianity SHOULD teach because you find it repulsive. You - personally - cannot accept a compassionate omnipotent God that allows any suffering whatsoever.

And that's just a stupid belief.

I do not believe that you can call something God (Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate) then to suggest that God tolerates evil because he has no choice but to allow evil in correcting/teaching what he designed. Now, that's stupid.

That's probably because you do not believe that good comes from bad.

I believe that good can come from bad. I just don't think it's an absolute.

Ok

 

[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.

That's your expectation of what you think my definition should be. That's not my definition. You called my definition a mockery of mGod uses it all for y 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.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

I haven't read all 47 pages of this thread so pardon my ignorance on your position… but you're an atheist, right? If so, how do you define evil, and what is your basis? In other words, how do you account for evil itself? According to your worldview, this is just a physical world of rocks and trees and dirt… You don't believe morality is objective and universal, in the same way that 2+2 = 4, right?

First, I find the label of atheist is too confining. Generally, I have questions not answers.

I see evil as perspective, a something contrary to the welfare of a given state. Though I must confess that on a human level there appears to be insane forces without objective beyond the destructive.

No, there is very obviously something more present than rocks and dirt. If I may borrow the title of a book I read a time back, Consciousness Comes to Mind. Do I pretend to know the answer to what is termed the hard question? No, I do not. Do you?

If by objective morality you mean the opposite of relativism, my best answer is no; 2+2 does not add up to rationalizing a vote for Donald Trump.

 

[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 mGod uses it all for y 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.

So, you no longer claim God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate? That's great. We are making progress in your recovery.

If you are offended by my telling your what your faith is, I would remind you that you have many times suggested what mine is and I don't even have a faith. Go figure.

I do believe God is Omnipotent, All-knowing and Compassionate and whole bunch of other really good things. I disagree with what you say that must mean. I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach.

The fourth word in your next to last sentence should be "rationalized".

What is the error in the paradox? Be specific. Here, I'll print a short version of it for you.

“If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able, then He is not omnipotent. If He is able, but not willing, then He is malevolent. If He is both willing and able, whence comes evil?"

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

But more important than that is you revealing the true reason your mind is closed to God. And that reason is illogical. You can see with your own eyes that good comes from bad. You don't need a religion to tell you that.

You failed to identify the error in the Paradox.

As to what I underscored, thanks for the naked opinion of me. Is this what you pass off as logic?

Sure I did. Let me add emphasis to where it did.

Christianity teaches and Christians believe that God is not the author of evil -- physical or moral evils. Christianity teaches that God's omnipotence and compassion are augmented with wisdom and logic and love. And in God's infinite wisdom he created a world where his creatures could experience all aspects - the good and the bad - of existence. And that whatever happens eventually leads to good. Because an omnipotent and compassionate God would never allow it any other way than to produce an ultimate good.

So, what you are saying is all is well that ends well.

I can buy that in a strictly mechanistic world, a kind of salvage relief. However, there's something objectionable about a conscious omnipotent who more than just tolerates, but selects, unspeakable horrors as a means to good.

That's not what I am saying.

Not sure why you think God selects unspeakable horrors as a means to good. That's certainly not a Christian view.

 

[ding]

Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions.

Not so often opinions like, "I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach."

That sort of opining reveals much about your respect of logic. You simply posit some internal "error" to deny the paradox, argue "faith", and stab at your interlocutor with "you think" straw. Sorry, your desperation has rarely been so plain.

I believe that good can come from bad.

And vice-versa. It's not like any of it comes with labels.

Given that it's my faith and not yours or his it would be unusual if either of you understood it better than I do. But that shouldn't prevent either of you from making an earnest effort to understand it rather than try to tear it down.

 

[ding]

And vice-versa. It's not like any of it comes with labels.

Absolutely. It's a cycle. When one becomes satisfied he becomes proud. When one is humbled he becomes humble. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success just as failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. But it's the successful behaviors which are extant. Failed behaviors are the negation of successful behaviors. So failed behaviors are not extant.

 

[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.

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?

When I refer to God, I refer to God as you have defined. I challenge not God for I simply don't believe there is a God. It would be obtuse of me to define what I do not believe exist.
What I challenge is your contradictory definition of your God.

Get it?

 

[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?

When I refer to God, I refer to God as you have defined. I challenge not God for I simply don't believe there is a God. It would be obtuse of me to define what I do not believe exist.
What I challenge is your contradictory definition of your God.

Get it?

You are defining God how you think I should be defining God rather than how I define God. I've explained it to you numerous times. This is you trying to impose your will upon me.

 

[BLUE COLLAR]

Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions.

Not so often opinions like, "I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach."

That sort of opining reveals much about your respect of logic. You simply posit some internal "error" to deny the paradox, argue "faith", and stab at your interlocutor with "you think" straw. Sorry, your desperation has rarely been so plain.

I believe that good can come from bad.

And vice-versa. It's not like any of it comes with labels.

Given that it's my faith and not yours or his it would be unusual if either of you understood it better than I do. But that shouldn't prevent either of you from making an earnest effort to understand it rather than try to tear it down.

I have some sympathy for your complaint - but only if you have used the word faith in earnest.

That said, when you reach a point in the discourse where it is difficult to answer logically, you should simply fall back on: I cannot explain, it is something I take on faith that pleases my sensitivities.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions.

Not so often opinions like, "I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach."

That sort of opining reveals much about your respect of logic. You simply posit some internal "error" to deny the paradox, argue "faith", and stab at your interlocutor with "you think" straw. Sorry, your desperation has rarely been so plain.

I believe that good can come from bad.

And vice-versa. It's not like any of it comes with labels.

Given that it's my faith and not yours or his it would be unusual if either of you understood it better than I do. But that shouldn't prevent either of you from making an earnest effort to understand it rather than try to tear it down.

Oh, like we've never down this road before
Like you treat "Socialism" in your sig? There, there now, little crybaby

 

[ding]

Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions.

Not so often opinions like, "I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach."

That sort of opining reveals much about your respect of logic. You simply posit some internal "error" to deny the paradox, argue "faith", and stab at your interlocutor with "you think" straw. Sorry, your desperation has rarely been so plain.

I believe that good can come from bad.

And vice-versa. It's not like any of it comes with labels.

Given that it's my faith and not yours or his it would be unusual if either of you understood it better than I do. But that shouldn't prevent either of you from making an earnest effort to understand it rather than try to tear it down.

I have some sympathy for your complaint - but only if you have used the word faith in earnest.

That said, when you reach a point in the discourse where it is difficult to answer logically, you should simply fall back on: I cannot explain, it is something I take on faith that pleases my sensitivities.

No offense but I don't believe you do have sympathy for my complaint. You have a need to be seen as being right. I have already explained to you my position on faith and how I arrived at believing God exits and how I arrived at determining God's attribute and the the purpose for existence. All of those views are based upon observations of the natural world and logic. You have a need to think I am not being logical but that just isn't the case.

You criticize what you don't believe and understand to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe.

 

[ding]

Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions.

Not so often opinions like, "I reject your stupid paradox because the error is within the paradox. Our faith teaches that God uses it all for good. So we have reconciled why suffering exists. You haven't and you think our faith should teach that instead of what it does teach."

That sort of opining reveals much about your respect of logic. You simply posit some internal "error" to deny the paradox, argue "faith", and stab at your interlocutor with "you think" straw. Sorry, your desperation has rarely been so plain.

I believe that good can come from bad.

And vice-versa. It's not like any of it comes with labels.

Given that it's my faith and not yours or his it would be unusual if either of you understood it better than I do. But that shouldn't prevent either of you from making an earnest effort to understand it rather than try to tear it down.

Oh, like we've never down this road before
Like you treat "Socialism" in your sig? There, there now, little crybaby

You are looking for a fight, aren't you?

 

[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.

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?

When I refer to God, I refer to God as you have defined. I challenge not God for I simply don't believe there is a God. It would be obtuse of me to define what I do not believe exist.
What I challenge is your contradictory definition of your God.

Get it?

You are defining God how you think I should be defining God rather than how I define God. I've explained it to you numerous times. This is you trying to impose your will upon me.

We began down this road when I popped in and introduced the Epicurean Paradox, a riddle that challenges the popular notion of God. Your inability to deal with that box spurned endless arguments between us, and frankly, I haven't enjoyed most of it while remaining resolute that you have no answer but to insult reason and logic.

Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.