"God cannot create a square circle"

[Tom Sawyer]

And why ...didn't God have someone stop by my house and get me a beer instead of forcing me to get up off the couch and grab one myself like some kind of chump?

....

Why? Who are you that God should consider you?

I'm Tom Fucking Sawyer, bitch.

If a God doesn't already know that, then he's not so much omniscient as he is dense moron.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You need the exercise? (for Tom Sawyer)

I don't think that most physical trainers would agree with your god that getting up the couch to grab another beer qualifies as "exercise". There's no benefit to me in doing it myself, so why the fuck doesn't thus lazy-assed deity get up off jus ass and do it for me?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

ROMANS 11 God hardens hearts of Jews to not believe in Jesus. Why?! Why not make all believe? I pose this to you and you refuse to answer in a straight forward way, as if you could on the issues. You play stupid and try to disrail the discussion into irrelevancies.

I don't see the issue here. When God created the universe, He knew all that was to happen from the first day until the last day. He had decreed every second of every person's life and in creating the world, He set all that He had decreed in motion - we are now living out that which God has decreed.

Following Paul, “'Shall what is formed say to God who formed him, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory..."

Why doesn't God make all believe? Why do you care since you are convinced that there is no God? Your objection seems to be that God is not what you want Him to be but is what He wants to be. God made vessels for common purposes so all are not saved and were never intended to be saved.

So God decreed who would do moral evil and who would not. Then you agree with me, God and only God creates all the moral evil in the Universe. So then, God is morally evil. But is declared to be good, perfectly good, a God from who all good in the Universe is done. Contradiction. There is then, no God.

You are telling us God creates all evil. That this person is elect, that one reprobate and damned by the whim of God.

But the Bible (and the Quran) tells us God IS merciful, God IS compassionate, God IS fair and God IS just. But by your own admission, God is none of these things. And if God lack a single one of theses sub-goodnesses, God is not Good, which revealed books all declare God to be, good.

Thus, your God is explicitly said to be good but is in no way good. And is the invention of fools and morally decadent monsters.

Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

No need to go on, I have won this debate. The problem is now to get you to recognize that and intellectually admit it which of course, your kind never do.

 

[rhutchin]

So God decreed who would do moral evil and who would not. Then you agree with me, God and only God creates all the moral evil in the Universe. So then, God is morally evil. But is declared to be good, perfectly good, a God from who all good in the Universe is done. Contradiction. There is then, no God.

Not really. God decreed that people be free to choose to do moral evil if that was their desire. God did not decree that they must do evil, only that He would not intervene to stop them if they chose to do moral evil. At the same time, God did know that all would do moral evil and He decreed to allow this. God did not have to create moral evil or compel any person to do moral evil. People conceive of moral evil and then do it; people are the creative energy behind moral evil.

You are telling us God creates all evil. That this person is elect, that one reprobate and damned by the whim of God.

No, God does not create evil directly. However, as God is in complete control of every situation, no one does evil except by decree of God. Thereby, people are God's agents to do evil so God can be said to create evil - doing so through secondary sources rather than directly.

That one is elect and one reprobate is according to the will of God - each is used by God for His purposes.

But the Bible (and the Quran) tells us God IS merciful, God IS compassionate, God IS fair and God IS just. But by your own admission, God is none of these things. And if God lack a single one of theses sub-goodnesses, God is not Good, which revealed books all declare God to be, good.

I am not aware that the Bible says that God is, or must be, fair in His treatment of people. God can, and does, favor one person and not another. As God determines what is good, He declares His actions good.

Thus, your God is explicitly said to be good but is in no way good. And is the invention of fools and morally decadent monsters.

Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

How is it that you determined that God is not good. For you to judge, God, you must be God and not He.

No need to go on, I have won this debate. The problem is now to get you to recognize that and intellectually admit it which of course, your kind never do.

You have not debated. You merely make yourself God and judge God not to be what you think He should be. If you are to debate, then you must accept God as He is and show that He is not God.

 

[rhutchin]

Something can't be described as falsifiable if you're not in a condition to observe the evidence that falsifies it. You have your faith, and I have facts.

You have no facts concerning those events that will occur after you die except that provided by Christ which you reject. Thus, you will not personally gain the facts you need until you die. Until you actually die, even you have faith in that which you believe will occur at that time.

But doesn't it strike you as just a little bit too convenient for your religion that the only time you get to see proof of God is when you're no longer in a position to pass it on to anyone else?

It does make your choices in this life more interesting.

 

[rhutchin]

He's a human being. You know, one of those things that God's supposed to love and care for?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to him allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You need the exercise? (for Tom Sawyer)

I don't think that most physical trainers would agree with your god that getting up the couch to grab another beer qualifies as "exercise". There's no benefit to me in doing it myself, so why the fuck doesn't thus lazy-assed deity get up off jus ass and do it for me?

Hey, it's an apology, not an explanation.
Like a sound bite, or a movie trailer, a Romney speech or a sermon. Not an analysis.

It's supposed to get your attention, not satisfy your aching need for answers.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Not really. God decreed that people be free to choose to do moral evil if that was their desire. God did not decree that they must do evil, only that He would not intervene to stop them if they chose to do moral evil. At the same time, God did know that all would do moral evil and He decreed to allow this. God did not have to create moral evil or compel any person to do moral evil. People conceive of moral evil and then do it; people are the creative energy behind moral evil.

You are telling us God creates all evil. That this person is elect, that one reprobate and damned by the whim of God.

No, God does not create evil directly. However, as God is in complete control of every situation, no one does evil except by decree of God. Thereby, people are God's agents to do evil so God can be said to create evil - doing so through secondary sources rather than directly.

That one is elect and one reprobate is according to the will of God - each is used by God for His purposes.

But the Bible (and the Quran) tells us God IS merciful, God IS compassionate, God IS fair and God IS just. But by your own admission, God is none of these things. And if God lack a single one of theses sub-goodnesses, God is not Good, which revealed books all declare God to be, good.

I am not aware that the Bible says that God is, or must be, fair in His treatment of people. God can, and does, favor one person and not another. As God determines what is good, He declares His actions good.

Thus, your God is explicitly said to be good but is in no way good. And is the invention of fools and morally decadent monsters.

Psalm 34:8
O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

How is it that you determined that God is not good. For you to judge, God, you must be God and not He.

No need to go on, I have won this debate. The problem is now to get you to recognize that and intellectually admit it which of course, your kind never do.

You have not debated. You merely make yourself God and judge God not to be what you think He should be. If you are to debate, then you must accept God as He is and show that He is not God.

You post that God has predestined all since the beginning, which means no free will. Romans 8 - 9, God decides who will be elect and who will be reprobate. You cannot even remember what you posted an hour ago, or see your own total contradictions. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther admit that reading the Bible we see free will is impossible. Read Luther's Bondage of the Will where he walks us through the Bible verse by verse here. Repeatedly, Luther admits free will is impossible.

I have debated, you simply contradict yourself, and refuse to reason.

Romans 11, God hardens hearts of the Jews to not believe. God does not value free will. You refused to admit here God does not care about free will. Why not then make all men believers and saved, rather than decreeing all our acts from the beginning and making some elect and others not? I get no rational debate from you at all. Just shifting nonsense and self contradictions out of you. Thus, you have lost and serve only as another apologist, theist bad example. The Bible is both self contradictory and thus false, but is also morally monstrous and insane. God as a concept here is impossibly self contradictory.

That is all. You cannot dig your way out of your own morass.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He's a human being. You know, one of those things that God's supposed to love and care for?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to him allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

Well, if his level of omnipotence is anything like his level of omniscience is seeming to be, he'd be smart to keep me the fuck away from him for as long as possible. All it would have cost him is one lousy beer and he wouldn't have needed to worry about losing his universe by being on the receiving end if an ass-kicking.

- - - Updated - - -

He's a human being. You know, one of those things that God's supposed to love and care for?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to him allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

Well, if his level of omnipotence is anything like his level of omniscience is seeming to be, he'd be smart to keep me the fuck away from him for as long as possible. All it would have cost him is one lousy beer and he wouldn't have needed to worry about losing his universe by being on the receiving end if an ass-kicking.

- - - Updated - - -

Because apparently, I needed to say that twice.

 

[jonJ]

He's a human being. You know, one of those things that God's supposed to love and care for?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to him allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

This is your God, remember? The one who tells us to turn the other cheek, and repay insults with kindness? The one who advertises his love and benevolence for every member of the human race? And yet not only can't he be arsed to get a thirsty man a beer, you consider it 'gracious' of him not to snuff out his life. When did normal civilised behaviour become 'gracious'?

Your God really is a dick, isn't he? He can hardly wait to stuff us on the Eternal Griddle, and only your pretence of being able to conduct a rational argument keeps you from letting us know that.

 

[rhutchin]

He's a human being. You know, one of those things that God's supposed to love and care for?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to him allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

This is your God, remember? The one who tells us to turn the other cheek, and repay insults with kindness? The one who advertises his love and benevolence for every member of the human race? And yet not only can't he be arsed to get a thirsty man a beer, you consider it 'gracious' of him not to snuff out his life. When did normal civilized behavior become 'gracious'?

Your God...can hardly wait to stuff us on the Eternal Griddle, and only your pretense of being able to conduct a rational argument keeps you from letting us know that.

Actually, God is very patient with the unbeliever and does not snuff out his life; usually the unbeliever lives a long, prosperous life - certainly in the US - or snuffs out his own life, or any prosperity, through his sinful behavior - for example, the Muslims around then world who serve a god who cannot help them.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh, you've definitely convinced me god exists now.

 

[rhutchin]

You post that God has predestined all since the beginning,...

No, God has ordained all since the beginning. God has predestined certain outcomes relative to His elect but generally leaves the reprobate alone.

...which means no free will.

Free will is alive and well. God may know the future but He does not coerce that future - people freely react to circumstances and choose consistent with their desires.

Romans 8 - 9, God decides who will be elect and who will be reprobate. You cannot even remember what you posted an hour ago, or see your own total contradictions. Both John Calvin and Martin Luther admit that reading the Bible we see free will is impossible. Read Luther's Bondage of the Will where he walks us through the Bible verse by verse here. Repeatedly, Luther admits free will is impossible.

What Calvin and Luther maintain is that the will is tied to the person and to the extent that the person is enslaved to the world, the freedom to choose is limited. They say that the unbeliever is not free to choose salvation because he has no desire for salvation. Use yourself as an example. You have no desire for salvation; do you see that limiting the things you want to do or that you have no freedom to choose what you will do?

I have debated, you simply contradict yourself, and refuse to reason.

No contradiction on my part. You do seem to have an active imagination inventing things to believe in place of argument.

Romans 11, God hardens hearts of the Jews to not believe.

It says, "God has given Israel the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear." God has given them their desires. What is wrong with that? Are you complaining about the way God has treated you by allowing you to be similarly hardened? Seems to me that is exactly what you want judging from your comments. What is your complaint here??

God does not value free will. You refused to admit here God does not care about free will.

Does not care! Don't you have all the free will you want? Again, what is your complaint?

Why not then make all men believers and saved, rather than decreeing all our acts from the beginning and making some elect and others not?

Why should God have to do that? God wants to save some, so He saves some. Aren't you content that God has left you alone to pursue whatever your heart desires? If you had a problem, wouldn't you make an appeal to God about His treatment of you? I think you are more fluff than serious about this.

I get no rational debate from you at all. Just shifting nonsense and self contradictions out of you. Thus, you have lost and serve only as another apologist, theist bad example. The Bible is both self contradictory and thus false, but is also morally monstrous and insane. God as a concept here is impossibly self contradictory.

That is all. You cannot dig your way out of your own morass.

From the man who invents things to complain about that which he doesn't really care about.

 

[rhutchin]

Oh, you've definitely convinced me god exists now.

I think you already knew that god exists. Your issue seems to be the true identity of God. Having created your own god to serve, you somehow feel threatened by the Biblical god.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I think you already knew that god exists.

Now you're claiming to know my thoughts, and I have no reason to discuss anything with you.

 

[Rhea]

Not really. God decreed that people be free to choose to do moral evil if that was their desire. God did not decree that they must do evil, only that He would not intervene to stop them if they chose to do moral evil. At the same time, God did know that all would do moral evil and He decreed to allow this. God did not have to create moral evil or compel any person to do moral evil. People conceive of moral evil and then do it; people are the creative energy behind moral evil.

So we've got this god you propose. And he has two creations.

In one, we call it earth, he creates evil and allows it to play out without interference and names this "free will" and calls it "good".

Though he drowns everyone, babies, animals, fetuses and all at one point for exercising their free will (what happens to them at that point, all those irredeemable souls?). He murders them by drowning. Not instant and painless annihilation, but the suffering of drowning. Even little toddlers whose mothers try to lift them above the waves for a time to save their little lives, but little crying terrified toddlers who eventually drown with their mothers and brothers and sisters and the unborn fetuses their mothers still carry.

And then this god lets 8 "perfect" humans live to replicate more people who then go on to create the inquisition, the KKK, the christian-led holocaust, the christian-sparked Ireland Troubles, the church pedophile protection program, the hoarding of wealth by christians while others starve. He lets his humans, including the christian ones, cause suffering.

And you claim he can't do anything to stop this suffering because that would be horrible and evil to get in the way of the "free will" which results in suffering.

You say you believe that this god you describe "hardens the hearts" of some people to prevent them from believing and getting the reward of heaven.

Moreover, your tribe claims this god will _END_ this creation at some finite point in the infinite forever (making the existence of this earthly creation a mere blip of nothing in the grand infinte stretch of time) and carry on with the second creation.​

In the other creation, you call it heaven, you say this god has created a place with no suffering, no want, no hunger no pain. No one does anything evil, it happens not there.

Some believers say fetuses who are miscarried go here. Some say young children who die come here. Some say those who have never heard about god from humans (because your god needs humans to get any word out?) go here.

Some people say that fetuses, children and the ignorant do not go here, they go to burn in a lake of fire for not being "saved". Not sure which one of these you have faith in.

In this place there is no evil, there is no suffering. You say a god provides a new body with no pains or limitations and a new mind that does no evil.


And this creation will become the only creation after a very short and finite existence of the evil-and-good containing creation.

Moreover, this second creation includes a jail zone, a permanent punishment place of parallel eternal suffering for those whose hearts the god hardened to make sure they couldn't get into the good place.
​

So - now you have to ask yourself, _IF_ you claim your god in capable of making the second creation (heaven) then what in the name of reason would cause s/he/it to make the first?


And what is the point of the "hell" zone? Perhaps this is because your god is incapable of deleting and removing any of the bad things s/he/it made and instead has to make it suffer and wail for etern.... wait, WHY? WHY does it not just delete them? I don't understand the "good" of this. Is it because the heaven people aren't actually inherently good and need to walk past the hell exhibit frequently to be reminded of the whipping that awaits them if they step out of line?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to [Tom Sawyer] allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

What's "allowing life" and why is that gracious? Haven't we seen above that if Tom's mother had aborted him he'd already be in painless, hungerless, totally happy heaven already? And why would we not just celebrate to the rooftops every time a fetus gets the "Go to Heaven, go directly to heaven, do not endure suffering, do not go on any picnics" card?


In summary, _IF_ heaven exists, why does earth make ANY SENSE AT ALL except to let god do evil?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

You seem to be confusing empirical evidence for faith.

He's a human being. You know, one of those things that God's supposed to love and care for?

From what I can see, God has been gracious to him allowing him life instead of humiliating him by calling him before Him for judgment.

How would it be humiliation? There is no empirical evidence. Are stories written nearly 2000 years ago supposed to be as convincing today, especially as we know how so much of what was supernatural is now explainable natural phenomena? To have "faith" with such little backing seems more like desperate hope than actual faith.

Satan is God's agent to accomplish God's purposes. We read, "Satan has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,..." Satan has a purpose, much like a bottle of whiskey, to prepare unbelievers for judgment.

Blinded? Blinded from what? The alleged crucifixion was nearly 2000 years ago. There are no miracles. There is no evidence to support supernatural. If being empirical means be blind, then what good is sight when you ignore what you can actual observe?

 

[rhutchin]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

You seem to be confusing empirical evidence for faith.

Given that there is no empirical evidence for non-life to beget life, and there is no empirical evidence for universal common descent, might we not wonder why so many people believe in evolution beyond speciation. The only empirical evidence biology produces substantiates speciation which basically tells us how the few animals getting off Noah's ark expanded into the great number we observe today. Thus, the Biblical account of the flood forward is well grounded in biology.

Given the lack of empirical evidence for a mechanism to account for the appearance of the universe or life, belief in a god who would have to create the universe and life for either to exist is as reasonable as anything else out there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no faith in nature. Nature will not intervene if we pray. We can't speak of the will of nature. Or condemn certain acts (other than perpetual motion) because nature forbids it. Nature just is. There is no faith about it.

Sure there is. People have faith that nature (natural laws) can lead to the creation of life that evolution can then manipulate. People have faith that evolution - mutation, natural selection, etc. - could actually take some simple form of life and create, over time, the variety of life we observe today. People who adhere to evolutionary processes as the force behind all life have a belief system based on nothing but faith.

You seem to be confusing empirical evidence for faith.

Given that there is no empirical evidence for non-life to beget life, and there is no empirical evidence for universal common descent, might we not wonder why so many people believe in evolution beyond speciation.

There is plenty of evidence for common descent. In fact, we are learning these days, the mutations that led to the divergence of specifies.

The only empirical evidence biology produces substantiates speciation which basically tells us how the few animals getting off Noah's ark expanded into the great number we observe today. Thus, the Biblical account of the flood forward is well grounded in biology.

Okay, you are just trolling now, right? Evolution is a lie, but animals can diverge in record time thanks to mutations.

Given the lack of empirical evidence for a mechanism to account for the appearance of the universe or life, belief in a god who would have to create the universe and life for either to exist is as reasonable as anything else out there.

Not really, as god only begs the question one step further back. Everything must have a cause, except for my extraordinary exception to that rule!

 

[rhutchin]

..he creates evil and allows it to play out without interference and names this "free will" and calls it "good".

"Evil" is not a thing that is created. "Evil" is an adjective that describes certain actions. Without God, there is no true "evil" as evil is used to describe those things prohibited by God. Thus, when God says, "You shall not murder," we can then describe "murder" as something that is evil.

So, God creates Adam and Eve and they have children. God instructs them not to engage in certain activities but then allows them to freely choose whether they will obey Him and abide by His restrictions. Apparently, God considered it "good" to give people the freedom to decide for themselves whether they would serve Him.

Though he drowns everyone, babies, animals, fetuses and all at one point for exercising their free will (what happens to them at that point, all those irredeemable souls?). He murders them by drowning. Not instant and painless annihilation, but the suffering of drowning. Even little toddlers whose mothers try to lift them above the waves for a time to save their little lives, but little crying terrified toddlers who eventually drown with their mothers and brothers and sisters and the unborn fetuses their mothers still carry.

And then this god lets 8 "perfect" humans live to replicate more people who then go on to create the inquisition, the KKK, the christian-led holocaust, the christian-sparked Ireland Troubles, the church pedophile protection program, the hoarding of wealth by christians while others starve. He lets his humans, including the christian ones, cause suffering.

That's pretty much what God has allowed. But is anyone really complaining about it - certainly not you.

And you claim he can't do anything to stop this suffering because that would be horrible and evil to get in the way of the "free will" which results in suffering.

No. God could easily prevent all suffering. However, He has chosen to allow people to decide for themselves the type of world they want. People for the most part have chosen to live in a world that has suffering.