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.
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.
Yes, I have only been exposed to what you have written in this conversation. You have been consistent in trying to get me to believe as you do. What I have written has been clear and concise and conveyed exactly what I intended to convey. Your accusing me of having hurt feelings is you projecting because I won't agree with you.

I am not attacking the messenger. You stated that you do not accept suffering and the death of babies. Noble words for sure but without actions it's just lip service. I hope you are doing things that make a difference. That would just prove my point that good comes from bad.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,842
Reaction score
5,067
Points
290
Man all this real estate arguing over what amounts to an irrelevant thing.

How we got here isn't nearly as important as how we as conscious beings act while we are here.
 
Last edited:

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.
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.
Humans define supernatural as anything beyond the material world. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time. So by definition these laws would be defined as supernatural prior to the creation of space and time. My point here is we define things as supernatural because of our point of reference. To an observer outside of space and time it would not be supernatural. It would be quite natural for that point of reference.

Personally I think anyone who dismisses the universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence never considering the source or purpose of the material world is out of touch.

Good luck to you too.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
11,146
Reaction score
671
Points
85
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.
.
I could add to that the notion of recurrence or what is presented in some Eastern Philosophy as a cyclical serpent.
.
considering the eastern philosophies tend to fail to reach an objective would be correct for their ineptitude. same as the desert religions.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
85,933
Reaction score
9,309
Points
2,070
Location
Houston

"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.
Why are you bringing in beliefs of other posters and responding to me as if I made that statement?

You are correct. Atheists do not have beliefs. They have arguments against others having beliefs.
 

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

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.
Yes, I have only been exposed to what you have written in this conversation. You have been consistent in trying to get me to believe as you do. What I have written has been clear and concise and conveyed exactly what I intended to convey. Your accusing me of having hurt feelings is you projecting because I won't agree with you.

I am not attacking the messenger. You stated that you do not accept suffering and the death of babies. Noble words for sure but without actions it's just lip service. I hope you are doing things that make a difference. That would just prove my point that good comes from bad.
No, that is not what I said. You are misrepresenting me. Kindly paste my full statement or stand accountable for your dishonesty.
 

itfitzme

VIP Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2012
Messages
5,020
Reaction score
325
Points
83
Location
United States

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

There you go, grouping everyone not like you into one category.

Ingroup-outgroup thinking.
 

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.
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.
Yes, I have only been exposed to what you have written in this conversation. You have been consistent in trying to get me to believe as you do. What I have written has been clear and concise and conveyed exactly what I intended to convey. Your accusing me of having hurt feelings is you projecting because I won't agree with you.

I am not attacking the messenger. You stated that you do not accept suffering and the death of babies. Noble words for sure but without actions it's just lip service. I hope you are doing things that make a difference. That would just prove my point that good comes from bad.
No, that is not what I said. You are misrepresenting me. Kindly paste my full statement or stand accountable for your dishonesty.
My bad. Tolerate. Same difference. Same point. It was an honest mistake. You do tolerate it. Think of it as YOUR paradox. Unless you spend every waking moment and every resource to prevent it, you tolerate it.
 

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.
.
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.
Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. All existence is good.
So evil isn't always there because it depends on the absence of good. But wait, all existence is good. Wouldn't that mean there is no such thing as evil?
 

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.
.
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.
Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good. All existence is good.
So evil isn't always there because it depends on the absence of good. But wait, all existence is good. Wouldn't that mean there is no such thing as evil?
Correct. That's what evil is not extant means. Evil is the absence of good as cold is the absence of heat or darkness is the absence of light. There aren't two things. There is only one thing.

I only use the word evil as a literary convenience.
 
OP
D

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
901
Points
173
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:clap: 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:clap: 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.

.
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.
Name something that you know of, that did not come from somewhere else. If you are dumb enough you will believe that there is an answer. And you are pretty dumb.
 
OP
D

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
901
Points
173

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

There you go, grouping everyone not like you into one category.

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

Sorry kid the above groups no one.

Do you still wear a mask driving alone in your Yugo
 

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.
Yes, I have only been exposed to what you have written in this conversation. You have been consistent in trying to get me to believe as you do. What I have written has been clear and concise and conveyed exactly what I intended to convey. Your accusing me of having hurt feelings is you projecting because I won't agree with you.

I am not attacking the messenger. You stated that you do not accept suffering and the death of babies. Noble words for sure but without actions it's just lip service. I hope you are doing things that make a difference. That would just prove my point that good comes from bad.
No, that is not what I said. You are misrepresenting me. Kindly paste my full statement or stand accountable for your dishonesty.
My bad. Tolerate. Same difference. Same point. It was an honest mistake. You do tolerate it. Think of it as YOUR paradox. Unless you spend every waking moment and every resource to prevent it, you tolerate it.
I appreciate your admission, but object to the continued hoax that it is the same.

I expressed disbelief of a compassionate omnipotent who tolerates the suffering and death of babies. I am not omnipotent and tolerate many things that I cannot change. You wish to deflect from these realities with a game that takes score of my virtues and failures.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
40,920
Reaction score
5,651
Points
1,830

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

There you go, grouping everyone not like you into one category.

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

Sorry kid the above groups no one.

Do you still wear a mask driving alone in your Yugo
You inadvertently managed to get one statement right. "Nothing decided to write genetic code''.

"Genetic code'' is a slogan you seem to have cribbed from a creationer website. Protein sequences are not written code. Protein sequences and written code are spelled differently to help you understand that they convey different.... you know....stuff.
 
OP
D

Dusty

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
2,359
Reaction score
901
Points
173
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.
Yes, I have only been exposed to what you have written in this conversation. You have been consistent in trying to get me to believe as you do. What I have written has been clear and concise and conveyed exactly what I intended to convey. Your accusing me of having hurt feelings is you projecting because I won't agree with you.

I am not attacking the messenger. You stated that you do not accept suffering and the death of babies. Noble words for sure but without actions it's just lip service. I hope you are doing things that make a difference. That would just prove my point that good comes from bad.
No, that is not what I said. You are misrepresenting me. Kindly paste my full statement or stand accountable for your dishonesty.
My bad. Tolerate. Same difference. Same point. It was an honest mistake. You do tolerate it. Think of it as YOUR paradox. Unless you spend every waking moment and every resource to prevent it, you tolerate it.
I appreciate your admission, but object to the continued hoax that it is the same.

I expressed disbelief of a compassionate omnipotent who tolerates the suffering and death of babies. I am not omnipotent and tolerate many things that I cannot change. You wish to deflect from these realities with a game that takes score of my virtues and failures.
God created us in his image with all of his ability, he then left as the universe is large. However he is here even though he is there because we are him and are on our way off the Earth to look for him now.

Not that your little mind can comprehend anything other than nothing created everything as you believe
 

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.
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.
Yes, I have only been exposed to what you have written in this conversation. You have been consistent in trying to get me to believe as you do. What I have written has been clear and concise and conveyed exactly what I intended to convey. Your accusing me of having hurt feelings is you projecting because I won't agree with you.

I am not attacking the messenger. You stated that you do not accept suffering and the death of babies. Noble words for sure but without actions it's just lip service. I hope you are doing things that make a difference. That would just prove my point that good comes from bad.
No, that is not what I said. You are misrepresenting me. Kindly paste my full statement or stand accountable for your dishonesty.
My bad. Tolerate. Same difference. Same point. It was an honest mistake. You do tolerate it. Think of it as YOUR paradox. Unless you spend every waking moment and every resource to prevent it, you tolerate it.
I appreciate your admission, but object to the continued hoax that it is the same.

I expressed disbelief of a compassionate omnipotent who tolerates the suffering and death of babies. I am not omnipotent and tolerate many things that I cannot change. You wish to deflect from these realities with a game that takes score of my virtues and failures.
No hoax. It illustrates the meaning of tolerance. In the context of this discussion tolerance means to accept or endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.

God tolerates with forbearance just as you do.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,846
Reaction score
1,645
Points
140
Why are you bringing in beliefs of other posters and responding to me as if I made that statement?
Because, as quoted, you're no better than the OP:
You criticize what you don't believe and understand to arrive at what you do believe without ever having to examine what you believe.
There you presume to speak for BLUE COLLAR, an atheist, alleging shit about his beliefs. He has none related, by definition. You're just being a dickish, straw man attack troll as usual. As he suggests, own your pure reliance upon faith. Be consistent and speak for yourself or just fuck off.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,846
Reaction score
1,645
Points
140
I expressed disbelief of a compassionate omnipotent who tolerates the suffering and death of babies. I am not omnipotent and tolerate many things that I cannot change. You wish to deflect from these realities with a game that takes score of my virtues and failures.
Yes, ding's apparent response to the paradox,

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?"

is now claiming to see no evil, hear no evil, .. Hey, yeah, it's all good, man, pass that joint back over here, will ya, kumbaya! kumbaya!.. Dead babies? What dead babies? Whence comes dead babies!?
.
.
.
No dead babies under here.. haha!..
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List