What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.

Paradoxes typically arise from false assumptions, which then lead to inconsistencies between observed and expected behaviour. Sometimes paradoxes occur in simple logical or linguistic situations, such as the famous Liar Paradox (“This sentence is false.”).

 
Last edited:

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions. :rolleyes:
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.
So, while I think I am right, you think you are wrong?

I'm down with that... if you insist.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
No offense, but perhaps you should worry about yourself and not others. I'm not sure I could ever respect myself if I discarded my convictions to gain the respect of someone else. Could you?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Yes, because I'm always so reluctant to share my opinions. :rolleyes:
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.
So, while I think I am right, you think you are wrong?

I'm down with that... if you insist.
Not sure how you arrived at that but no. That's not correct.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.
At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.

I have never ask you to move off your convictions other than to except them as faith and not preach them as fact.

As for your explanation, simply saying something isn't is not an explanation. It's just a statement. Put some hair on it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.
At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.

I have never ask you to move off your convictions other than to except them as faith ann not preach them as fact.

As for your explanation, simply saying something isn't is not an explanation. It's just a statement. Put some hair on it.
No offense but you became arrogant the moment you continued to persist in trying to "persuade" me to believe as you do.

Your continued attempts to try to "persuade" me to believe as you do, demonstrate that you are trying to get me to move off of my convictions.

My explanation was God is omnipotent and compassionate because he would never allow an evil that did not produce an ultimate good. How many times do I need to explain it before you will stop saying that "simply saying something isn't is not an explanation?"

FWIW this is you still trying to force me to believe as you do.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
No offense, but perhaps you should worry about yourself and not others. I'm not sure I could ever respect myself if I discarded my convictions to gain the respect of someone else. Could you?
No, like you, I would not.

But again, you miss the point. I haven't ask you to discard your faith, I've simply ask you not to shove it into my face as objective fact.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
No offense, but perhaps you should worry about yourself and not others. I'm not sure I could ever respect myself if I discarded my convictions to gain the respect of someone else. Could you?
No, like you, I would not.

But again, you miss the point. I haven't ask you to discard your faith, I've simply ask you not to shove it into my face as objective fact.
I never shoved anything in your face. My beliefs were expressed organically through the course of my defending my beliefs from your attacks on my beliefs. I'm not the aggressor here.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.
At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.

I have never ask you to move off your convictions other than to except them as faith ann not preach them as fact.

As for your explanation, simply saying something isn't is not an explanation. It's just a statement. Put some hair on it.
No offense but you became arrogant the moment you continued to persist in trying to "persuade" me to believe as you do.

Your continued attempts to try to "persuade" me to believe as you do, demonstrate that you are trying to get me to move off of my convictions.

My explanation was God is omnipotent and compassionate because he would never allow an evil that did not produce an ultimate good. How many times do I need to explain it before you will stop saying that "simply saying something isn't is not an explanation?"

FWIW this is you still trying to force me to believe as you do.
Try to burn this into your brain, I'm not asking you to either give up your faith or believe as I do. Why do I suspect that you'll have some reason why my words don't have meaning.

I'm sorry but I don't tolerate horrific suffering or dead babies, on the presumption of an ultimate good. Feel free to lash your back with whip.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
No offense, but perhaps you should worry about yourself and not others. I'm not sure I could ever respect myself if I discarded my convictions to gain the respect of someone else. Could you?
No, like you, I would not.

But again, you miss the point. I haven't ask you to discard your faith, I've simply ask you not to shove it into my face as objective fact.
I never shoved anything in your face. My beliefs were expressed organically through the course of my defending my beliefs from your attacks on my beliefs. I'm not the aggressor here.
Well then, if you are not attempting to convince me that your faith is not object fact, we can part friends. Thanks.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.
At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.

I have never ask you to move off your convictions other than to except them as faith ann not preach them as fact.

As for your explanation, simply saying something isn't is not an explanation. It's just a statement. Put some hair on it.
No offense but you became arrogant the moment you continued to persist in trying to "persuade" me to believe as you do.

Your continued attempts to try to "persuade" me to believe as you do, demonstrate that you are trying to get me to move off of my convictions.

My explanation was God is omnipotent and compassionate because he would never allow an evil that did not produce an ultimate good. How many times do I need to explain it before you will stop saying that "simply saying something isn't is not an explanation?"

FWIW this is you still trying to force me to believe as you do.
Try to burn this into your brain, I'm not asking you to either give up your faith or believe as I do. Why do I suspect that you'll have some reason why my words don't have meaning.

I'm sorry but I don't tolerate horrific suffering or dead babies, on the presumption of an ultimate good. Feel free to lash your back with whip.
Of course you are asking me to believe as you do. That's why this conversation is still going on. It's not what people say that demonstrates what they believe it what they do that demonstrates what they believe. So yes, I have a reason why I don't believe the words you are saying. It's because your actions contradict your words.

Considering that suffering exists and babies die, apparently you do tolerate it. Have you done anything to stop it?

I'm not lashing back with my whip. I am defending myself from your attacks on my beliefs.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
No offense, but perhaps you should worry about yourself and not others. I'm not sure I could ever respect myself if I discarded my convictions to gain the respect of someone else. Could you?
No, like you, I would not.

But again, you miss the point. I haven't ask you to discard your faith, I've simply ask you not to shove it into my face as objective fact.
I never shoved anything in your face. My beliefs were expressed organically through the course of my defending my beliefs from your attacks on my beliefs. I'm not the aggressor here.
Well then, if you are not attempting to convince me that your faith is not object fact, we can part friends. Thanks.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I believe I have said that about three other times. I am defending my beliefs from your attack. My faith is based upon objective truth. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. I couldn't care less.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
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..
I could add to that the notion of recurrence or what is presented in some Eastern Philosophy as a cyclical serpent.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.
At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.

I have never ask you to move off your convictions other than to except them as faith ann not preach them as fact.

As for your explanation, simply saying something isn't is not an explanation. It's just a statement. Put some hair on it.
No offense but you became arrogant the moment you continued to persist in trying to "persuade" me to believe as you do.

Your continued attempts to try to "persuade" me to believe as you do, demonstrate that you are trying to get me to move off of my convictions.

My explanation was God is omnipotent and compassionate because he would never allow an evil that did not produce an ultimate good. How many times do I need to explain it before you will stop saying that "simply saying something isn't is not an explanation?"

FWIW this is you still trying to force me to believe as you do.
Try to burn this into your brain, I'm not asking you to either give up your faith or believe as I do. Why do I suspect that you'll have some reason why my words don't have meaning.

I'm sorry but I don't tolerate horrific suffering or dead babies, on the presumption of an ultimate good. Feel free to lash your back with whip.
Of course you are asking me to believe as you do. That's why this conversation is still going on. It's not what people say that demonstrates what they believe it what they do that demonstrates what they believe. So yes, I have a reason why I don't believe the words you are saying. It's because your actions contradict your words.

Considering that suffering exists and babies die, apparently you do tolerate it. Have you done anything to stop it?

I'm not lashing back with my whip. I am defending myself from your attacks on my beliefs.
As to what I bolded of yours:

The only of my actions to which you have been exposed are my written words in this medium, and I believe I've been reasonably consistent. I think what you are ineptly trying to say is that you don't trust me because I've attacked your definition of God and hurt your feelings.

I could share some of my life with you, but how much I do to defend children has no bearing on your definition of God. You're simply attacking the messenger in a fallacious defense of your definition.
 

BLUE COLLAR

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2021
Messages
713
Reaction score
205
Points
143
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
No offense, but perhaps you should worry about yourself and not others. I'm not sure I could ever respect myself if I discarded my convictions to gain the respect of someone else. Could you?
No, like you, I would not.

But again, you miss the point. I haven't ask you to discard your faith, I've simply ask you not to shove it into my face as objective fact.
I never shoved anything in your face. My beliefs were expressed organically through the course of my defending my beliefs from your attacks on my beliefs. I'm not the aggressor here.
Well then, if you are not attempting to convince me that your faith is not object fact, we can part friends. Thanks.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I believe I have said that about three other times. I am defending my beliefs from your attack. My faith is based upon objective truth. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. I couldn't care less.
Well, if your faith in a supernatural definition of God (at odds with the world around us) is also objective reality, what can I say but that you are out of touch.

Good luck.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,846
Reaction score
1,645
Points
140

"Atheist believe that nothing created everything"

Atheists? You believe what now about people who explicitly "lack belief"? Why should we care about your sick fantasies regarding us?
You criticize what you don't believe and understand to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe.
Here's an idea. Tell your mirror.

"Atheist believe"

Wrong. Atheists lack belief. It's your choice and decision to keep shoveling your vapid, tiresome crap at us. Ours is to reject your proclamations of faith as compelling, logical, or scientific evidence for "belief" in any gods. Because they're simply not and you know it.
 
Last edited:

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
11,147
Reaction score
671
Points
85
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.
I disagree. I explained why there was no paradox. So since you keep bringing it up, it's your inability to get me to agree with you that is creating the problem for you. The same goes for my convictions. It's your inability to get me to move off of my convictions that is causing problems for you.
At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.

I have never ask you to move off your convictions other than to except them as faith ann not preach them as fact.

As for your explanation, simply saying something isn't is not an explanation. It's just a statement. Put some hair on it.
No offense but you became arrogant the moment you continued to persist in trying to "persuade" me to believe as you do.

Your continued attempts to try to "persuade" me to believe as you do, demonstrate that you are trying to get me to move off of my convictions.

My explanation was God is omnipotent and compassionate because he would never allow an evil that did not produce an ultimate good. How many times do I need to explain it before you will stop saying that "simply saying something isn't is not an explanation?"

FWIW this is you still trying to force me to believe as you do.
.
My explanation was God is omnipotent and compassionate because he (they) would never allow an evil that did not produce an ultimate good.
.
evil is persistent irregardless an all powerful deity and by its definition would never lead to an acceptable outcome, there is a difference in overcoming an obstacle and its inevitable existence.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top