Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(14-11-2013 04:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And you are required, by the state of the world we do find ourselves in, if you want to be taken seriously then you must posit a god concept that doesn't fly in the face of all perceptible reality. This world is simply at a cross purpose with planned benevolence in so far as we can explore our reality, and positing a magical realm that we can only explore after we're dead and is entirely unverifiable does not fix that. If heaven is better than this reality, then that means this one could be better. Positing it isn't because of heaven means fuck all in the face of no evidence for existence of heaven.

That's like telling a homeless person to be happy and things are going to be better, because if they ask you nicely you'll give them an imaginary check for a million dollars...

I don't require that a god make the world to my specification. I do require that when you make a claim for the existence of your creator god, that it's specifications match our reality. We can't verify your god, but we can verify our reality. What we see is a reality filled with untold needless suffering, and no purpose or justification for it outside of blind natural processes and competition. In light of this reality, positing an omnibenevolent god with nothing else to support it other than our current reality is simply groundless and laughable in the extreme.

Its not the concept of God that is the problem. Its the concept of omnibenevolence. Its so subjective its meaningless. Suppose EK was a god and prevented all rapes and such but allowed hangnails. Adenonsis, or someone else, would still be there claiming about how much a tragedy hangnails are and that EK is a bad god for letting them exist. Then there are people like me who don't have a probem with suffering in the world. You can't say the Christain God does not exist because the christains give their God a label you would not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 12:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-11-2013 04:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And you are required, by the state of the world we do find ourselves in, if you want to be taken seriously then you must posit a god concept that doesn't fly in the face of all perceptible reality. This world is simply at a cross purpose with planned benevolence in so far as we can explore our reality, and positing a magical realm that we can only explore after we're dead and is entirely unverifiable does not fix that. If heaven is better than this reality, then that means this one could be better. Positing it isn't because of heaven means fuck all in the face of no evidence for existence of heaven.

That's like telling a homeless person to be happy and things are going to be better, because if they ask you nicely you'll give them an imaginary check for a million dollars...

I don't require that a god make the world to my specification. I do require that when you make a claim for the existence of your creator god, that it's specifications match our reality. We can't verify your god, but we can verify our reality. What we see is a reality filled with untold needless suffering, and no purpose or justification for it outside of blind natural processes and competition. In light of this reality, positing an omnibenevolent god with nothing else to support it other than our current reality is simply groundless and laughable in the extreme.

Its not the concept of God that is the problem. Its the concept of omnibenevolence. Its so subjective its meaningless. Suppose EK was a god and prevented all rapes and such but allowed hangnails. Adenonsis, or someone else, would still be there claiming about how much a tragedy hangnails are and that EK is a bad god for letting them exist. Then there are people like me who don't have a probem with suffering in the world. You can't say the Christain God does not exist because the christains give their God a label you would not.
Let me try that same illogic and see if it works. You see, in my mind, without omnibenevolence, there is no being worth worshiping. But you apparently disagree while still believing omnibenevolence is meaningless and therefore can't really exist. So then who is that should be worshiped? Maybe a being one step down (whatever that is) from omnibenevolence is worthy enough to you. But, without perfect omnibenevolence, where do you draw the line? Two steps down probably isn't much different from one step. Or how about three steps. Pretty soon, after enough steps, we would be suggesting that an ant (your hangnail equivalent) is worthy of worshiping as a god. So I propose that, without omnibenevolence, there is no good determinant of what being deserves god-worship. And, since you don't believe omnibenevolence exists, just who is it you're worshiping?

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 11:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  An atheist who hears the good news of the love of Christ and His atoning death and says, "F God and F Jesus and God doesn't F-ing exist receives" the benevolence of God on what basis?

Pfft. Only going to Scotsman this time, PJ? No Godwinning?

Must be losing your touch.

Drinking Beverage

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:35 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 12:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(14-11-2013 04:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And you are required, by the state of the world we do find ourselves in, if you want to be taken seriously then you must posit a god concept that doesn't fly in the face of all perceptible reality. This world is simply at a cross purpose with planned benevolence in so far as we can explore our reality, and positing a magical realm that we can only explore after we're dead and is entirely unverifiable does not fix that. If heaven is better than this reality, then that means this one could be better. Positing it isn't because of heaven means fuck all in the face of no evidence for existence of heaven.

That's like telling a homeless person to be happy and things are going to be better, because if they ask you nicely you'll give them an imaginary check for a million dollars...

I don't require that a god make the world to my specification. I do require that when you make a claim for the existence of your creator god, that it's specifications match our reality. We can't verify your god, but we can verify our reality. What we see is a reality filled with untold needless suffering, and no purpose or justification for it outside of blind natural processes and competition. In light of this reality, positing an omnibenevolent god with nothing else to support it other than our current reality is simply groundless and laughable in the extreme.

Its not the concept of God that is the problem. Its the concept of omnibenevolence. Its so subjective its meaningless. Suppose EK was a god and prevented all rapes and such but allowed hangnails. Adenonsis, or someone else, would still be there claiming about how much a tragedy hangnails are and that EK is a bad god for letting them exist. Then there are people like me who don't have a probem with suffering in the world. You can't say the Christain God does not exist because the christains give their God a label you would not.

Heywood,

At this point I'm pretty sure you are by now a born again Christian. Welcome aboard!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 01:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 12:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its not the concept of God that is the problem. Its the concept of omnibenevolence. Its so subjective its meaningless. Suppose EK was a god and prevented all rapes and such but allowed hangnails. Adenonsis, or someone else, would still be there claiming about how much a tragedy hangnails are and that EK is a bad god for letting them exist. Then there are people like me who don't have a probem with suffering in the world. You can't say the Christain God does not exist because the christains give their God a label you would not.
Let me try that same illogic and see if it works. You see, in my mind, without omnibenevolence, there is no being worth worshiping. But you apparently disagree while still believing omnibenevolence is meaningless and therefore can't really exist. So then who is that should be worshiped? Maybe a being one step down (whatever that is) from omnibenevolence is worthy enough to you. But, without perfect omnibenevolence, where do you draw the line? Two steps down probably isn't much different from one step. Or how about three steps. Pretty soon, after enough steps, we would be suggesting that an ant (your hangnail equivalent) is worthy of worshiping as a god. So I propose that, without omnibenevolence, there is no good determinant of what being deserves god-worship. And, since you don't believe omnibenevolence exists, just who is it you're worshiping?

I think I follow your logic here. It sounds like you're saying that since God might see fit to punish rather than pardon you for your sin, forget the whole thing, despite the fact that this same paradigmatic view (Christianity) offers omni-forgiveness if not omni-benevolence.

At least, that's my takeaway since you complain about a lack of benevolence offered to a world filled with thieves and muggers, rapists and slavers, liars and bad leaders.

Isn't it a double standard for the atheist to protest a lack of justice in the world--and then respond harshly when justice is demonstrated from Heaven?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 03:39 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 02:07 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 11:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  An atheist who hears the good news of the love of Christ and His atoning death and says, "F God and F Jesus and God doesn't F-ing exist receives" the benevolence of God on what basis?

Pfft. Only going to Scotsman this time, PJ? No Godwinning?

Must be losing your touch.

Drinking Beverage

Just for you--by calling me a Scot and classifying, therefore, the wonderful Scottish people as somehow demeaned, you've made a slur on an entire race and culture, which is quite Nazi-like of you.

Fixed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 01:36 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 12:59 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its not the concept of God that is the problem. Its the concept of omnibenevolence. Its so subjective its meaningless. Suppose EK was a god and prevented all rapes and such but allowed hangnails. Adenonsis, or someone else, would still be there claiming about how much a tragedy hangnails are and that EK is a bad god for letting them exist. Then there are people like me who don't have a probem with suffering in the world. You can't say the Christain God does not exist because the christains give their God a label you would not.
Let me try that same illogic and see if it works. You see, in my mind, without omnibenevolence, there is no being worth worshiping. But you apparently disagree while still believing omnibenevolence is meaningless and therefore can't really exist. So then who is that should be worshiped? Maybe a being one step down (whatever that is) from omnibenevolence is worthy enough to you. But, without perfect omnibenevolence, where do you draw the line? Two steps down probably isn't much different from one step. Or how about three steps. Pretty soon, after enough steps, we would be suggesting that an ant (your hangnail equivalent) is worthy of worshiping as a god. So I propose that, without omnibenevolence, there is no good determinant of what being deserves god-worship. And, since you don't believe omnibenevolence exists, just who is it you're worshiping?

Well impulse if you feel that way then I suggest you just not worship God. However, keep in mind that your decision is based on some value judgment and not a rational, convincing argument.

Some typhoon killed a lot of people is not a rational argument against the existence of an omnibenevolent God when Omni-benevolence can mean anything you want it to mean. If God thinks He is omnibenevolent does that mean that He is? If you think God isn't omnibenevolent does that mean He isn't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 01:19 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 10:05 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Well impulse if you feel that way then I suggest you just not worship God. However, keep in mind that your decision is based on some value judgment and not a rational, convincing argument.

Oh my, how ironic.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
16-11-2013, 01:40 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 03:39 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Just for you--by calling me a Scot and classifying, therefore, the wonderful Scottish people as somehow demeaned, you've made a slur on an entire race and culture, which is quite Nazi-like of you.

Fixed.

Oh, praise be. I was worried about you!

I haven't looked in a while; is there a cure for Nazi Tourette's yet?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
16-11-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Couldn't he have just, you know, stopped the hurricane?
(15-11-2013 11:27 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible teaches that in a world where all trust the Savior, there are no typhoons and etc. Become the solution.

If YHWH wanted me to take him seriously, he would have made himself non-falsifiable. Pray to him that he makes himself part of the solution.

Seriously. How do you actually believe that if the entire world's population were suddenly credulous that severe weather would no longer be a thing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: