exceptionally unsettling fundy experience

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales.

But the Narrative of the Fall indicates than Man and Woman were equal with God on knowledge. They had to only eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to then become like they were. God's words, not mine. So if we already have all knowledge, where is this unfathomable thing coming from?

There are limitations to a human's capability - the contextual concept most obvious: humans don't create universes!

Stop ignoring the Bible. The Bible is clear, knowledge, living forever... that is to be a god. Says so in the narrative of the Fall... the whole reason why Man and Woman are booted from the Garden in the first place! To prevent that.

Yes, god has a plan. We can't understand it... maybe because it sucks. Not even God suggests its a good plan... that's you saying that. Maybe we are just stuck with this crap plan of God's, much like the Hebrews who were "enslaved in Egypt" for HUNDREDS of years after getting the ball rolling with the Patriarchs. Three generations and he was already bored. What a dick!

The plan is for humankind to be part of Gods perfect world, that's what Christians (and non-believers) generally understand it reads.

Like Adam and Eve, the Hebrews ignored God and thought they could control their lives happily without God's guidance. The lives they willingly chose to live... has lead them to the Egyptians enslaving them, being that this was in a 'God free' jurisdiction, so to speak. It was Humans who enslaved humans, and certainly not God!

That'd be Xian fan-fic as that is not mentioned anywhere in Exodus. In Exodus, it says the Hebrews went down to Egypt because the promised land sucked... but they got too numerous, so the Pharaoh (name withheld due to licensing restrictions) made with enslavement and started murdering baby boys. Seriously, do you even know the first two books of the Tanakh?

With our current standard of morals, declared by men, to be better than the biblical God - stepping back and taking a glance of our human-governing history. How have we been doing so far 'independently' without the biblical God? I guess "it must be good for every individual", all over our paradise earth.

The best part of being lectured by a Christian about following the RULE OF LAW of their God, is how they actually threw out a bunch of rules that God put forth in the "old" part of their holy scriptures. And then they argue the morale high ground, when their more recent holy scriptures like barely speaks on morality at all!

 

[Wiploc]

Another common response to the Problem of Suffering.

"If people didn't suffer, then they would suffer for the lack of suffering. God doesn't want people to suffer, so he lets us suffer."

That's #1 (or number 2): God is too weak (or stupid) to prevent some suffering without causing other suffering.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Genesis 50 states that God lets bad stuff happen so that he can make good come from it. Joseph's brothers totally screwed him over, but god then made people find favor in Joseph. And that worked in his people's favor like a decade or two.

 

[Wiploc]

Genesis 50 states that God lets bad stuff happen so that he can make good come from it. Joseph's brothers totally screwed him over, but god then made people find favor in Joseph. And that worked in his people's favor like a decade or two.

That's #1 (or number 2): God is too weak (or stupid) to cause good without also causing suffering.

 

[lostone]

When I encounter fundies, I stay as far away from them as possible. I remember when we went to Mexico's Copper Canyon on a group tour once and we all sat together and this sub-group would pray before every meal. Of course, I made no objection, because we wanted to have an enjoyable, amiable tour, but It felt creepy, like we had been coerced into honoring their mythology.

 

[Rhea]

When I encounter fundies, I stay as far away from them as possible. I remember when we went to Mexico's Copper Canyon on a group tour once and we all sat together and this sub-group would pray before every meal. Of course, I made no objection, because we wanted to have an enjoyable, amiable tour, but It felt creepy, like we had been coerced into honoring their mythology.

This is an interesting point - because they do that, don’t they.

I’ve started a thread in Secular Lifestyles about this issue. I posted it there because I am interested in what atheists think are ways to deal with this, but I am uninterested in having religionists preach about how they think atheists should behave. (Religionists are welcome to go there and read, but they are not welcome to argue a religious viewpoint in that forum). So if the question of how to deal with the social expectations of religionists interests you, go to “Does Being Polite Require Showing Deference”

 

[Learner]

Christians don't (usually) say they just made this stuff up. They say they base these claims on logic.
They say we should believe these claims because they are logical.

But when we point out errors in their logic, they say that god is beyond our logic.
They say logic doesn't work on god. They say that we don't get to reason about gods.

That is how opposing views usually plays out ... pointing out errors in the logic of their opponents.

You can reason all you want about gods, it is a good thing, Christians would welcome that challenge, because it would help Christians to study and learn the bible more.

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god existed, there would be no evil...

I have always wondered about this PoE musing "argument", and the set-rules of logic, one defines. Indeed its "not unfathomable" to you (plural) here, you seem to know - I could easily add to the end of your statement: "The problem of Evil points out..[....], there would be no more evil, when Jesus returns", or something similar.

Imho, perhaps the PoE is not as so-complex as one might think... thinking from a simpler angle, being ground level fathomable, rather than the usual, philosophical-intellectual-sophisticating-overthink, and making up questions in that vein.

How about a simple scenario for example, where God instead numbed the sensations of our nerves, or completely remove them from the entire physical body. That would be the solution to your "ideal" creation, one 'without' physical nerve endings. You may not feel the luxury of physical sensations, which would have alternatively, been a gift from God, to feel the wind in your hair, the sun rays on your face, to smell the scent of natures blossoms, feel the coolness of water flowing down a gentle streams etc.. Simplified: No nerves & emotions, therefore no temptations and no evil.

Your response was to claim that (in my words, not yours) your gods are as far above my understanding as I am above an ant's understanding.
Your point -- if I understand you -- is that my argument (the PoE) is of no significance because I'm trying to reason about gods.

Again, I do not say your arguments are insignificant.

But, if we should dismiss my conclusion because it is based on reasoning about gods, then we should do the same with your conclusions.

As my daddy, a Christian, would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Come on Wiploc, what are you're saying? Are you saying "everyone one must agree with ALL the different conclusions there are, even when the conclusions are in opposition?

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

Then why do you invoke your ant/human/god analogy to dismiss my conclusion but not yours?

My analogy was merely highlighting the comparably large differences between two different entities.

So long as Christians two-step back and forth between two incompatible positions (logic works on gods but it doesn't work on gods) then they are guilty of special pleading.

Arguments based on special pleading are worthless; they weigh nothing in the scales of persuasion.

Yes well as I mention in the above, this isn't the case here.

If it is not the case, then I wholly misunderstand the point of your ant/human/god analogy, and I would like clarification.

See previous above.

 

[Learner]

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws.

Is that really what sin means? How do you know? god's ways are unfathomable and beyond understanding. So you cannot make any inferences from anything you've read or believe you can even understand it. You are just an ant.

How do I Know God's 'ways', or was it the 'mind' of God?

Nobody knows. You're just an ant. I mean, you can't even conclude that he is unknowable and beyond understanding because that is trying to understand him. On the other hand, you wrote that "sin means going ... against Gods ways and Laws." Presumably, you would proclaim to know his ways and laws from reading the bible.

Yeah I mean in context...nobody knows everything about God. As you can read what several posts try to suggest, making the analogous comparison that God is as weak as humans, being that this is the view, humans comprehend of themselves, therefore they/you apply the same human limitations to God.

Stating the obvious: This does not mean we don't know what the commandments mean, what Jesus teaches and so on. I understand this would be fathomable to the average man.

But that means there's a book that we can obtain facts and from which we make inferences about those facts....which is what you've done. And that's the same thing that everybody else does around here and from that we see contradictions, both fact problems and moral contradictions. If you throw your hands up in the air and say "well, you can't use logic about god," then nothing is trustworthy about the bible at all...which we already knew anyway.

And so what again about inferences? Who's against inferences?

You and another poster just repeating the above, won't make your assertions, materialise as truth unfortunately - I'm not against using your logic about God or gods, this is false.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sin means going against God, against Jesus, against Gods ways and Laws.

Is that really what sin means? How do you know? god's ways are unfathomable and beyond understanding. So you cannot make any inferences from anything you've read or believe you can even understand it. You are just an ant.

How do I Know God's 'ways', or was it the 'mind' of God?

Nobody knows. You're just an ant. I mean, you can't even conclude that he is unknowable and beyond understanding because that is trying to understand him. On the other hand, you wrote that "sin means going ... against Gods ways and Laws." Presumably, you would proclaim to know his ways and laws from reading the bible.

Yeah I mean in context...nobody knows everything about God. As you can read what several posts try to suggest, making the analogous comparison that God is as weak as humans, being that this is the view, humans comprehend of themselves, therefore they/you apply the same human limitations to God.

Stating the obvious: This does not mean we don't know what the commandments mean, what Jesus teaches and so on. I understand this would be fathomable to the average man.

You know what else is fathomable to the average man?

Not. Commiting. Genocides. And. Holocausts.

But that means there's a book that we can obtain facts and from which we make inferences about those facts....which is what you've done. And that's the same thing that everybody else does around here and from that we see contradictions, both fact problems and moral contradictions. If you throw your hands up in the air and say "well, you can't use logic about god," then nothing is trustworthy about the bible at all...which we already knew anyway.

And so what again about inferences? Who's against inferences?

You and another poster just repeating the above, won't make your assertions, materialise as truth unfortunately - I'm not against using your logic about God or gods, this is false.

Okay. How can your god be both angry and jealous as well as pure love?

How can your god both be pure love which never fails and always protects and perseveres and commit terrible holocausts?

How can your god one moment tell people to stone other people for trivial dumb offenses and a thousand years later say, "hey I was just kidding. that's wrong now."

 

[James Brown]

If God has a Grand Master Plan to rid the world of evil (such as, "When Jesus returns") then what the hell is he waiting for?

Christians tell me that there will be no sin or suffering when we all get to Heaven. If that's the case, then why didn't God just create us in Heaven to begin with? Why do we trust the architect of this world--with all its necessary pain and suffering--to build another world in which pain and suffering aren't necessary?

 

[masterpeastheater]

People are born with these "batshit" conditions. That's called natural selection. You also don't know what's going on behind those eyeballs. Could be the guy is an even bigger perv who is disgusted with himself, doing a lot of projecting and barely able to maintain acceptable behavior. That would be my guess only because we've seen so much of it with these preachy "high moral" types.

Also don't overlook the fact that it's financially rewarding for him. People actually give him money to be that way.

The funny thing is I don't think there's that much financial reward. King Jimmy Only Baptists don't rake in the kind of dough the megachurch types do. In fact this guy considers the money makin megachurch types to be too worldly and probably unsaved.

 

[Wiploc]

Christians don't (usually) say they just made this stuff up. They say they base these claims on logic.
They say we should believe these claims because they are logical.

But when we point out errors in their logic, they say that god is beyond our logic.
They say logic doesn't work on god. They say that we don't get to reason about gods.

That is how opposing views usually plays out ... pointing out errors in the logic of their opponents.

You can reason all you want about gods, it is a good thing, Christians would welcome that challenge, because it would help Christians to study and learn the bible more.

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god existed, there would be no evil...

I have always wondered about this PoE musing "argument", and the set-rules of logic, one defines. Indeed its "not unfathomable" to you (plural) here, you seem to know - I could easily add to the end of your statement: "The problem of Evil points out..[....], there would be no more evil, when Jesus returns", or something similar.

That would work for a god who will oppose evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who always opposes evil.

That would work for a god who will be strong enough to prevent evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who is always strong enough to prevent evil.

That would work for a god who will be smart enough to prevent evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who is always smart enough to prevent evil.

Imho, perhaps the PoE is not as so-complex as one might think... thinking from a simpler angle, being ground level fathomable, rather than the usual, philosophical-intellectual-sophisticating-overthink, and making up questions in that vein.

How about a simple scenario for example, where God instead numbed the sensations of our nerves, or completely remove them from the entire physical body. That would be the solution to your "ideal" creation, one 'without' physical nerve endings. You may not feel the luxury of physical sensations, which would have alternatively, been a gift from God, to feel the wind in your hair, the sun rays on your face, to smell the scent of natures blossoms, feel the coolness of water flowing down a gentle streams etc.. Simplified: No nerves & emotions, therefore no temptations and no evil.

Your response was to claim that (in my words, not yours) your gods are as far above my understanding as I am above an ant's understanding.
Your point -- if I understand you -- is that my argument (the PoE) is of no significance because I'm trying to reason about gods.

Again, I do not say your arguments are insignificant.

You blew off my argument on the grounds that my reasoning about a god was like an ant's reasoning about a human.
I don't know whether you're backpedaling now, or complaining that I didn't phrase something just right.

But, if we should dismiss my conclusion because it is based on reasoning about gods, then we should do the same with your conclusions.

As my daddy, a Christian, would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Come on Wiploc, what are you're saying?

The problem of evil is bulletproof. There is no possible rebuttal.

Instead of even trying to refute it, you dismissed it as reasoning about gods. Reasoning about gods isn't to be entertained when we do it, but it's fine when you do it.

That's special pleading, a logical fallacy.

Are you saying "everyone one must agree with ALL the different conclusions there are, even when the conclusions are in opposition?

I'm saying you should pick a position and stick with it. If you get to reason about gods, so do I. If I don't get to reason about gods, then neither do you.

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

Then why do you invoke your ant/human/god analogy to dismiss my conclusion but not yours?

My analogy was merely highlighting the comparably large differences between two different entities.

You don't know that there is a large difference between us and gods. Maybe gods are as ants to us.

Or, if gods are unknowable to us, you should quit pretending to know about them.

 

[Rhea]

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god existed, there would be no evil...

How about a simple scenario for example, where God instead numbed the sensations of our nerves, or completely remove them from the entire physical body. That would be the solution to your "ideal" creation, one 'without' physical nerve endings. You may not feel the luxury of physical sensations, which would have alternatively, been a gift from God, to feel the wind in your hair, the sun rays on your face, to smell the scent of natures blossoms, feel the coolness of water flowing down a gentle streams etc.. Simplified: No nerves & emotions, therefore no temptations and no evil.

It sounds like you are proclaiming that Heaven is a place with no feelings, no “gifts from god”, no wind in your hair, no coolness of water. You imply, No Joy!

Please explain how your solution to the problem of evil reconciles with your description of heaven.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

Then why do you invoke your ant/human/god analogy to dismiss my conclusion but not yours?

My analogy was merely highlighting the comparably large differences between two different entities.

But you use it to assert that YOU understand your god’s nature but WE don’t.
We are reading the same text.
You have absolutely no information other than that text, same as us. A text written by humans.
But you claim to know things about your god, and you claim that we don’t know things.

You make a comparison about the large differences between *US* and your god, while claiming that the difference for you is less large. Without any supporting evidence. Did a god give you some tablets that we don’t know about?

The goose and ganddr argument is to address your claim that we can’t fathom your god but you can. That we can’t claim he’s evil/incompetent, but you can claim he’s benevolent/powerful. “He’s probably doing it for some great and loving reason!” But you have absolutely no evidence of that. You have no evidence that the logical inconsistency can be solved by *explanation A*. We understand that you need that explanation in order to stay in love wiith your god. But from what we can see the only way you support explanation A is by conveying that you really need it to be true in order to stay in love. “He’s only hitting me because I deserve it, and he’s letting bad things happen to me because he loves me.”

Yeah I mean in context...nobody knows everything about God. As you can read what several posts try to suggest, making the analogous comparison that God is as weak as humans, being that this is the view, humans comprehend of themselves, therefore they/you apply the same human limitations to God.

Stating the obvious: This does not mean we don't know what the commandments mean, what Jesus teaches and so on. I understand this would be fathomable to the average man.

Nobody knows anything about god(dess)(es).

You read a book written by humans and think you know a god.
You, and we, see a world around us, and you think you know the personality of an entity that you claim made it and thinks about you, personally.

You read this book, whose author(s) you can’t even verify, and you think you know not only what they meant, but that they talked to a god when they wrote it.

But that means there's a book that we can obtain facts and from which we make inferences about those facts....which is what you've done. And that's the same thing that everybody else does around here and from that we see contradictions, both fact problems and moral contradictions. If you throw your hands up in the air and say "well, you can't use logic about god," then nothing is trustworthy about the bible at all...which we already knew anyway.

And so what again about inferences? Who's against inferences?

You and another poster just repeating the above, won't make your assertions, materialise as truth unfortunately - I'm not against using your logic about God or gods, this is false.

You’re dancing. You use one logic to make your claims, and you use a different logic (which contradicts the first) to refute ours.

It’s clear as day.

You say you know god can’t be evil based on your feelings.
Then you say we are unable to know anything about God(dess)(es) Because they are so far beyond us.

You say you can make inferences based on your human book.
You say we are not able to make inferences based on your human book.

 

[Learner]

Sadly, children unfortunately have died at home, despite them having loving parents.

This has never happened unless the parents were lacking in omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence.

If your gods lack in one of these qualities (the gods are too stupid to put the tree outside the garden, too weak to be able to put the tree outside the garden, or are not that interested in the kids' safety) then your analogy holds up. Otherwise, not.

(responding in no particular order)

Sure, I DO see where you're all coming from.

Basically, on the perspective scale of human comprehension. You (plural) think can devise analogies, which you think "can" somehow, "illustrate" God of the bible, whilst 'overlooking' what's written: The unfathomable, on the greatest and grandest of comprehension scales.

But the Narrative of the Fall indicates than Man and Woman were equal with God on knowledge. They had to only eat of the fruit of the Tree of Life to then become like they were. God's words, not mine. So if we already have all knowledge, where is this unfathomable thing coming from?

There are limitations to a human's capability - the contextual concept most obvious: humans don't create universes!

Stop ignoring the Bible. The Bible is clear, knowledge, living forever... that is to be a god. Says so in the narrative of the Fall... the whole reason why Man and Woman are booted from the Garden in the first place! To prevent that.

That's more like the 'gnostic narrative' than the (conventional) Christian narrative - knowledge, living forever, and being gods.

The only prevention intended,, as I would see it... is to prevent being exposed 'prematurely' to knowledge etc., without guidance while learning and discovering gradually in stages.

Yes, god has a plan. We can't understand it... maybe because it sucks. Not even God suggests its a good plan... that's you saying that. Maybe we are just stuck with this crap plan of God's, much like the Hebrews who were "enslaved in Egypt" for HUNDREDS of years after getting the ball rolling with the Patriarchs. Three generations and he was already bored. What a dick!

The plan is for humankind to be part of Gods perfect world, that's what Christians (and non-believers) generally understand it reads.

Like Adam and Eve, the Hebrews ignored God and thought they could control their lives happily without God's guidance. The lives they willingly chose to live... has lead them to the Egyptians enslaving them, being that this was in a 'God free' jurisdiction, so to speak. It was Humans who enslaved humans, and certainly not God!

That'd be Xian fan-fic as that is not mentioned anywhere in Exodus. In Exodus, it says the Hebrews went down to Egypt because the promised land sucked... but they got too numerous, so the Pharaoh (name withheld due to licensing restrictions) made with enslavement and started murdering baby boys. Seriously, do you even know the first two books of the Tanakh?

I wasn't talking of the the Hebrews in Exodus, who were prevented form leaving Egypt. I was referring to the time when Israelites became slaves, in context, that the reason for this was when Gods people turned away from Him.

2 Chr. 12:2-4:

In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt—Libyans, Sukkiim, and Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem.

With our current standard of morals, declared by men, to be better than the biblical God - stepping back and taking a glance of our human-governing history. How have we been doing so far 'independently' without the biblical God? I guess "it must be good for every individual", all over our paradise earth.

The best part of being lectured by a Christian about following the RULE OF LAW of their God, is how they actually threw out a bunch of rules that God put forth in the "old" part of their holy scriptures. And then they argue the morale high ground, when their more recent holy scriptures like barely speaks on morality at all!

Jesus to Christians IS the centrepiece for morality, being the more recent Holy scriptures.

 

[Learner]

Christians don't (usually) say they just made this stuff up. They say they base these claims on logic.
They say we should believe these claims because they are logical.

But when we point out errors in their logic, they say that god is beyond our logic.
They say logic doesn't work on god. They say that we don't get to reason about gods.

That is how opposing views usually plays out ... pointing out errors in the logic of their opponents.

You can reason all you want about gods, it is a good thing, Christians would welcome that challenge, because it would help Christians to study and learn the bible more.

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god existed, there would be no evil...

I have always wondered about this PoE musing "argument", and the set-rules of logic, one defines. Indeed its "not unfathomable" to you (plural) here, you seem to know - I could easily add to the end of your statement: "The problem of Evil points out..[....], there would be no more evil, when Jesus returns", or something similar.

That would work for a god who will oppose evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who always opposes evil.

Evil is not an entity, nor a dark cloud or force by itself! Jesus who returns, opposes people who chose NOT to refrain from doing evil. This works for God who always opposes people who do NOT refrain from doing evil

That would work for a god who will be strong enough to prevent evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who is always strong enough to prevent evil.

That would work for a god who will be smart enough to prevent evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who is always smart enough to prevent evil.

To be preventing evil completely, at this moment, should mean according to the logic, no more existence for you or me - we, the free willed, emotional human with a system of senses, whereby data (if you will) is fed through the nerves, being a function mechanism to exist in environments on a physical plane.

Imho, perhaps the PoE is not as so-complex as one might think... thinking from a simpler angle, being ground level fathomable, rather than the usual, philosophical-intellectual-sophisticating-overthink, and making up questions in that vein. [....].

Your response was to claim that (in my words, not yours) your gods are as far above my understanding as I am above an ant's understanding.
Your point -- if I understand you -- is that my argument (the PoE) is of no significance because I'm trying to reason about gods.

Again, I do not say your arguments are insignificant.

You blew off my argument on the grounds that my reasoning about a god was like an ant's reasoning about a human.
I don't know whether you're backpedaling now, or complaining that I didn't phrase something just right.

But, but... I'm also including myself as being the ant too!

But, if we should dismiss my conclusion because it is based on reasoning about gods, then we should do the same with your conclusions.

As my daddy, a Christian, would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Come on Wiploc, what are you're saying?

The problem of evil is bulletproof. There is no possible rebuttal.

Evil exists, and evil could be a problem... that's bullet proof!

Instead of even trying to refute it, you dismissed it as reasoning about gods. Reasoning about gods isn't to be entertained when we do it, but it's fine when you do it.

That's special pleading, a logical fallacy.

Instead of trying to refute it?

I AM! By refuting this PoE concept which imaginatively suggests there to be: "no free-will, no independent thinking, no emotions or feelings to act on the senses reacting to the surrounding physical environment, to which according to the PoE... would be the characteristics of a "perfect god". Evil is just one of the synonymous (side) effects, in a physical touch sensitive universe of emotional intelligent physical beings.

Are you saying "everyone one must agree with ALL the different conclusions there are, even when the conclusions are in opposition?

I'm saying you should pick a position and stick with it. If you get to reason about gods, so do I. If I don't get to reason about gods, then neither do you.

I'm saying we can use our reason about gods or God. I'm not dismissive of this.

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

Then why do you invoke your ant/human/god analogy to dismiss my conclusion but not yours?

My analogy was merely highlighting the comparably large differences between two different entities.

You don't know that there is a large difference between us and gods. Maybe gods are as ants to us.

Or, if gods are unknowable to us, you should quit pretending to know about them.

Not sure what you're getting at here. To clarify the context you're debating here? IF gods are unknowable, does the contrary mean to you, that I should know absolutely everything about God?


I'd say there's enough material to reasonably know God is the creator, simply because it says so, when we read the texts - which funny enough, is a commonly known Christian prerogative, to keep studying, and reading, getting to know God, within reasonable capacitance - 'which is not to mean'... you should know absolutely everything God is, or everything God knows.

 

[Rhea]

To be preventing evil completely, at this moment, should mean no more existence for you or me - we the free willed, emotional human with a system of senses, whereby data (if you will) is fed through the nerves, being a function mechanism to exist in environments on a physical plane.

Aaah, so you claim again that Heaven is full of robots who have no feelings and no independent will. I find it so weird when Christians claim that and then assert they want to go there.

I AM! By refuting this PoE concept which imaginatively suggests there to be: "no free-will, no independent thinking, no emotions or feelings to act on the senses reacting to the surrounding physical environment, to which according to the PoE... would be the characteristics of a "perfect god". Evil is just one of the synonymous (side) effects, in a physical touch sensitive universe of emotional intelligent physical beings.

The bold is your fabrication.

These are the people who seem to say, “you can’t love chocolate ice cream unless you hate strawberry! There must be evil in order for there to be good!” And I squint and tilt my head and say, “er, no; I can like chocolate more than strawberry, while still liking strawberry, and also without ever needing earwax-flavor to exist..”


There does NOT “have to be” no free will in order for there to be no suffering. You can have the “free will” to want to be a rapist, you can even try to rape, and then the god could freeze your muscles and turn you blue. You had the free will to want it, and there were consequences, and also now people know And can shun you.

He can give abusers free will to be abusers, while making their sperm immotile So they won’t ever have an opportunity to beat children. God certainly has no problem taking away the “free will” of some people to be fertile, why not make it the abusers?

JUST LIKE the way god gave you free will to jump off a cliff, but no free pass to survive it.

 

[steve_bank]

The old question to Christians is if god created the Earth and created us then did he create or allow evil?

If god is all powerful and he, she, or it created everything then surely evil exists because god lets it exist.

The nattayve I am familiar with is god created us wit the ability to choose evil or god. Evil tehn has a purpose.

 

[Wiploc]

The Problem of Evil (PoE) points out that if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god existed, there would be no evil...

I have always wondered about this PoE musing "argument", and the set-rules of logic, one defines. Indeed its "not unfathomable" to you (plural) here, you seem to know - I could easily add to the end of your statement: "The problem of Evil points out..[....], there would be no more evil, when Jesus returns", or something similar.

That would work for a god who will oppose evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who always opposes evil.

Evil is not an entity, nor a dark cloud or force by itself!

Evil is anything--like Hellfire, for instance--that makes people unhappy.

Jesus who returns, opposes people who chose NOT to refrain from doing evil. This works for God who always opposes people who do NOT refrain from doing evil

I pointed out that a god who is smart enough and strong enough to prevent evil, and who totally wanted to prevent evil, would prevent all evil. If such a god existed, there would be no evil.

You reasoned about gods and concluded that if a god was smart enough and strong enough to prevent evil, and if he totally wanted to prevent evil, then he might prevent evil just sometimes, like on Wednesdays, or after Jesus returns.

So I pointed out that that doesn't work for gods who totally want to prevent evil, but only for gods who want to prevent evil sometimes.

So you proposed a god who doesn't want to prevent evil itself, but only wants to prevent people from refraining to do evil.

First, that's not the Christian god. That god wouldn't care about earthquakes, diseases, and other natural evils.

Second, it doesn't help you with your problem. If people people do evil until Jesus returns, that means that--assuming your gods exist--they aren't always strong enough and smart enough to keep people from doing evil, or they don't always want people to refrain from doing evil.

Such a god wouldn't be omnibenevolent. It would be somewhat benevolent.

The problem of evil doesn't purport to disprove gods who are only somewhat benevolent, somewhat strong, or somewhat smart.

That would work for a god who will be strong enough to prevent evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who is always strong enough to prevent evil.

That would work for a god who will be smart enough to prevent evil once Jesus returns.
It doesn't work for a god who is always smart enough to prevent evil.

To be preventing evil completely, at this moment, should mean according to the logic, no more existence for you or me - we, the free willed, emotional human with a system of senses, whereby data (if you will) is fed through the nerves, being a function mechanism to exist in environments on a physical plane.

You cannot support that arbitrary claim.

And even if you could support it -- which you can't -- you don't actually believe in a Heaven without existence, free will, emotions, and senses. Do you?

Imho, perhaps the PoE is not as so-complex as one might think... thinking from a simpler angle, being ground level fathomable, rather than the usual, philosophical-intellectual-sophisticating-overthink, and making up questions in that vein. [....].

Your response was to claim that (in my words, not yours) your gods are as far above my understanding as I am above an ant's understanding.
Your point -- if I understand you -- is that my argument (the PoE) is of no significance because I'm trying to reason about gods.

Again, I do not say your arguments are insignificant.

You blew off my argument on the grounds that my reasoning about a god was like an ant's reasoning about a human.
I don't know whether you're backpedaling now, or complaining that I didn't phrase something just right.

But, but... I'm also including myself as being the ant too!

You go back and forth. Sometimes you make arbitrary claims about gods, as if you were a sentient reasoning being (however arbitrary). Other times, when you don't like where logic takes us, you reject logic as not applying to gods, or as not really within human capability when we're discussing gods, or something like that.

You go back and forth on whether you're an ant, as you find it convenient.

But, if we should dismiss my conclusion because it is based on reasoning about gods, then we should do the same with your conclusions.

As my daddy, a Christian, would say, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Come on Wiploc, what are you're saying?

The problem of evil is bulletproof. There is no possible rebuttal.

Evil exists, and evil could be a problem... that's bullet proof!

Stipulation: Evil exists.

Conclusion: Therefore, we know that tri-omni gods (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent) do not exist.

Such gods cannot logically coexist with evil. Therefore, since evil exists tri-omni gods do not exist.

Instead of even trying to refute it, you dismissed it as reasoning about gods. Reasoning about gods isn't to be entertained when we do it, but it's fine when you do it.

That's special pleading, a logical fallacy.

Instead of trying to refute it?

I AM! By refuting this PoE concept which imaginatively suggests there to be: "no free-will, no independent thinking, no emotions or feelings to act on the senses reacting to the surrounding physical environment, to which according to the PoE... would be the characteristics of a "perfect god". Evil is just one of the synonymous (side) effects, in a physical touch sensitive universe of emotional intelligent physical beings.

You're just making that up. You don't really believe Heaven is like that.

Why is it that when I talk about preventing evil, you say that would make us mindless robots, but when you talk about preventing evil, that's been gods' plan all along?

That's special pleading, a faulty form of reasoning.

As we have pointed out to you more than once, special pleading is cheating. It is flawed. It is bad.

You wouldn't like it if we did it, so you shouldn't do it yourself.

Are you saying "everyone one must agree with ALL the different conclusions there are, even when the conclusions are in opposition?

I'm saying you should pick a position and stick with it. If you get to reason about gods, so do I. If I don't get to reason about gods, then neither do you.

I'm saying we can use our reason about gods or God. I'm not dismissive of this.

You take that position intermittently, when you find it convenient.
You two-step back and forth between two incompatible positions.
You should pick one position and stick with it.

The claim that gods are beyond our logic is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.
The claim that gods are as far above us as we are above ants is itself a claim purportedly based on logic.

If you believed your own claim that our logic doesn't work on gods, you wouldn't make such claims.

If you want to be consistent, if you want to be logical, then you'll pick a position and stick with it:
Either we do get to reason about gods, in which case you don't get to dismiss my arguments as reasoning about gods,
or we don't get to reason about gods, in which case neither of us should be making any claims on the subject.

I believe I AM sticking to a position. I think you're seeing it wrong. You CAN reason about gods by logic; we don't pronounce or state this to be forbidden. I don't have to agree with your conclusion from what you read in the biblical text.

Then why do you invoke your ant/human/god analogy to dismiss my conclusion but not yours?

My analogy was merely highlighting the comparably large differences between two different entities.

You don't know that there is a large difference between us and gods. Maybe gods are as ants to us.

Or, if gods are unknowable to us, you should quit pretending to know about them.

Not sure what you're getting at here. To clarify the context you're debating here? IF gods are unknowable, does the contrary mean to you, that I should know absolutely everything about God?

If you get to make logic-based claims about gods, then so do I.
If I don't get to make such claims, then neither do you.
Pick a position and stick with it.

I'd say there's enough material to reasonably know God is the creator, simply because it says so, when we read the texts - which funny enough, is a commonly known Christian prerogative, to keep studying, and reading, getting to know God, within reasonable capacitance - 'which is not to mean'... you should know absolutely everything God is, or everything God knows.

You know that a tri-omni god exists because you read it in a book?
I know that no tri-omni gods exist because I read that in another book.
"Simply because it says so."

If that's your whole argument, and that argument produces contradictory claims (gods both do and don't exist), then the argument is worth nothing. It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.

Got anything stronger?

 

[Learner]

To be preventing evil completely, at this moment, should mean no more existence for you or me - we the free willed, emotional human with a system of senses, whereby data (if you will) is fed through the nerves, being a function mechanism to exist in environments on a physical plane.

Aaah, so you claim again that Heaven is full of robots who have no feelings and no independent will. I find it so weird when Christians claim that and then assert they want to go there.

If you read what it says, the idea is: Those who want to be in the afterlife, (strong emphasis on the word want) requires refraining from doing evil, repenting from former sins, being kind, accepting Christ etc., you pass through i.e., you don't become robots.

I AM! By refuting this PoE concept which imaginatively suggests there to be: "no free-will, no independent thinking, no emotions or feelings to act on the senses reacting to the surrounding physical environment, to which according to the PoE... would be the characteristics of a "perfect god". Evil is just one of the synonymous (side) effects, in a physical touch sensitive universe of emotional intelligent physical beings.

The bold is your fabrication.

These are the people who seem to say, “you can’t love chocolate ice cream unless you hate strawberry! There must be evil in order for there to be good!” And I squint and tilt my head and say, “er, no; I can like chocolate more than strawberry, while still liking strawberry, and also without ever needing earwax-flavor to exist..”

The PoE is a fabrication then. I made my opinion verses the opinions of PoE advocates. .

There does NOT “have to be” no free will in order for there to be no suffering. You can have the “free will” to want to be a rapist, you can even try to rape, and then the god could freeze your muscles and turn you blue. You had the free will to want it, and there were consequences, and also now people know And can shun you.

He can give abusers free will to be abusers, while making their sperm immotile So they won’t ever have an opportunity to beat children. God certainly has no problem taking away the “free will” of some people to be fertile, why not make it the abusers?

JUST LIKE the way god gave you free will to jump off a cliff, but no free pass to survive it.

What's stopping you going out robbing old age pensioners? How are you refraining from doing this act? Are you an example showing humans are capable?

People catagorised as evil are declaring where they stand, when they do not want to control themselves, (or live in Gods perfect world),so to speak. It's now necessary, which unfortunately, stemmed from way back, where people and nations didn't want God, hence (remembering to realise , from a theistic point of view) we have been running the world by ourselves for thousands of years. I suppose the irony here is that atheists are right, there is no God Almighty in this world, (there's another).

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

2 Cor 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

 

[bilby]

This works for God who always opposes people who do NOT refrain from doing evil

So that explains why nobody's ever succeeded in raping anyone.