- Oct 25, 2016
- Reaction score
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.As to what I bolded of yours: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.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.No offense but you became arrogant the moment you continued to persist in trying to "persuade" me to believe as you do.At the risk of being arrogant, you are wrong on all counts.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.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.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.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.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."If someone (possibly you) said this of me, that someone is a liar, likely out of need to misrepresent me.Hardly. I was just glad to hear to you unconditionally state that there can be no God unless there is no suffering at all.I don't have an expectation of what is illogical, your God. Hence, your charge of illogical falls on its face.So your expectation for God to exist is zero suffering.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.
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?
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.
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?
What I challenge is your contradictory definition of your God.
Perhaps you should fall back on faith and leave it at that. I'd respect that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.