God Is A Psychopath

[Keith&Co.]

and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Seems gawd isn't terribly good at doing what he says, given that a lot of fish and amphibians would have been just fine with all that water....plus bacteria and amoebae. And if gawd destroyed every living substance, what did they eat after the flood?

But you're thinking with a modern definition of life.
In the bible, life does not begin until the first breath. That is literally when the spirit enters the body and it comes alive.
Thus, Noah only had to save the animals with nostrils.
Fish, frogs, and ferns are no more alive than flint, water, fire, or clouds.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Test? Better than the test-not-required ...there IS NO test (argument) here (for any failure) in this regard. i.e. God being the "ultimate" very top (No one above to answer to) .., bilblically saying as accordance to the scripture (and consistency).

Wasn't this a Self-Mutation argument? Thst gid is triomni, but omni- was relative, not an absolute.
Omnibenevolent did not mean absolute love, just that god had the most love of any living being. There was still room for him to hate some, as long as he loved more than you. All the you. Plural.
And he knew everyone, because omniscient only keans he knows more than anyone, so there is still room tonot know some things, as long as no one knows any one thing god does not know....

 

[DBT]

Who says that being Omniscience and Omnipotent doesn't require "first" an experience in the first place ..who knows ?

Why would it? Omniscience, by definition, is a state of all knowing. Everything that can be known, is known. Being known, what need is there for experimentation and learning?

Learning what?

If, by definition, everything that is knowable is known, there is nothing to learn, no surprises and no need for trial and error.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Omniscience means knowing the future. No test required. Don't be an arse. These are words you can look up. Perhaps look them up before opening your mouth?

Perhaps I wasn't clear as you seem to be doing the very "opening your mouth " thing but I'll take it as my fault.

Sure we know what it reads ... but.... for example :How is it explained by looking it up , that an Omniscience can (or can not) be attained?

Test? Better than the test-not-required ...there IS NO test (argument) here (for any failure) in this regard. i.e. God being the "ultimate" very top (No one above to answer to) .., bilblically saying as accordance to the scripture (and consistency).

The concepts of omniscience and omnipotence are hypothetical concepts Aristotle invented for the sake of philosophic arguments. I don't think thought he would inadvertently create two world religions who embraced this in their faith. Aristotle explained, when he introduced the idea, why it makes no sense to suppose it in any being. They're self refuting. As you've demonstrated.

Religions don't have to make sense because they're not supposed to be literally true. Religions are mysterious and that's what we like about them. How about embracing the mystery instead? God can be meaningful to you even if it he doesn't really exist

 

[Learner]

Why would it? Omniscience, by definition, is a state of all knowing. Everything that can be known, is known. Being known, what need is there for experimentation and learning?

By definition ok ...but is your statement actually true? what I mean is: it's one thing to make the definition (notion, hypothesis,imaginative idea,) without an existing real example of omniscience ... let alone know how it would exist from an initial origin or .... are you saying omniscience would just be there (without foresight or any indication of things to know)?

Learning what?

If, by definition, everything that is knowable is known, there is nothing to learn, no surprises and no need for trial and error.

Besides people deciding what to accept for the definition ... is your quoted definition true of omniscience?

 

[Learner]

Religions don't have to make sense because they're not supposed to be literally true. Religions are mysterious and that's what we like about them. How about embracing the mystery instead? God can be meaningful to you even if it he doesn't really exist

Fair point of view. There are all sorts of believers , and I shouldn't be that much different to you from other believers.

 

[abaddon]

Why would it? Omniscience, by definition, is a state of all knowing. Everything that can be known, is known. Being known, what need is there for experimentation and learning?

By definition ok ...but is your statement actually true? what I mean is: it's one thing to make the definition (notion, hypothesis,imaginative idea,) without an existing real example of omniscience ... let alone know how it would exist from an initial origin or .... are you saying omniscience would just be there (without foresight or any indication of things to know)?

Learning what?

If, by definition, everything that is knowable is known, there is nothing to learn, no surprises and no need for trial and error.

Besides people deciding what to accept for the definition ... is your quoted definition true of omniscience?

Keep obfuscating until God disappears.

The problem with casting doubt on atheist's doubt of God by doubting what words mean, is "God" goes right in there with the most doubt-worthy of words.

"Learner" doesn't describe you, "SmokeScreen" would be a better fit.

 

[Learner]

Keep obfuscating until God disappears.

The problem with casting doubt on atheist's doubt of God by doubting what words mean, is "God" goes right in there with the most doubt-worthy of words.

"Learner" doesn't describe you, "SmokeScreen" would be a better fit.

Do you know enough of omniscience in any "reality" besides the mental-prodding definition for the God-can't-do-this ?

 

[abaddon]

Keep obfuscating until God disappears.

The problem with casting doubt on atheist's doubt of God by doubting what words mean, is "God" goes right in there with the most doubt-worthy of words.

"Learner" doesn't describe you, "SmokeScreen" would be a better fit.

Do you know enough of omniscience in any "reality" besides the mental-prodding definition for the God-can't-do-this ?

I guess you want a well-tested example of omniscience to test if people know what "omniscience" really is, aside from the definition? That's not necessary because the "notion" is enough. God (when talked about as a notion, as he must be since theists won't show him) is a notion that must fit other notions or there's nothing much you can say about God. One of those other notions that God is associated with is omniscience (knowledge of absolutely everything). God fits with how God's defined, or else he's something else than the Christian notion of him.

A God that regrets anything isn't all-knowing, or he would never have made a mistake to feel regret about. That's not a "mental-prodding definition", it's logic.

Thinking requires we test notions against one another for consistency. If notions fail then the tests for God fail, as you apparently would like them to. But God disappears into that obscurity also, not just our "tests" for him. You must apply logic to God yourself or you have no argument for God.

 

[Lion IRC]

You issued and reissued the challenge. Now have the courage to actually defend what you said....

OK
Let me defend the 'horror' of one example you raised.
David and Goliath.
Goliath is a monster of a man. Gigantic. He's heavily armed. Shield, sword, helmet, breast plate...
David is a shepherd. He has a few rocks and a sling and he's had a lot of target practice. Oh yeah, and God is on his side.

They fight. Mortal combat. David wins.
Now, here comes the disgusting unbearable horror for squeamish atheists.

Show

David mutilates the corpse. Chopping of the head of Goliath. Proof that Goliath is dead in case anyone doubted

This shock and awe hastens the surrender of the Philistines. They've lost their giant hero.

So it's exactly an example of what I stated - God helping hasten the end of a war started by humans. Nothing psychopathic about that.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm confused by phands.
In some threads he maintains that debating the details of scripture is pointless because
...GOD ISNT REAL, THERES NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD, HUMANS INVENTED GOD. Blah blah blah

And here we have phands demanding to have exactly that type of details in defence of the bible and God.

 

[bilby]

You issued and reissued the challenge. Now have the courage to actually defend what you said....

OK
Let me defend the 'horror' of one example you raised.
David and Goliath.
Goliath is a monster of a man. Gigantic. He's heavily armed. Shield, sword, helmet, breast plate...
David is a shepherd. He has a few rocks and a sling and he's had a lot of target practice. Oh yeah, and God is on his side.

They fight. Mortal combat. David wins.
Now, here comes the disgusting unbearable horror for squeamish atheists.

Show

David mutilates the corpse. Chopping of the head of Goliath. Proof that Goliath is dead in case anyone doubted

This shock and awe hastens the surrender of the Philistines. They've lost their giant hero.

So it's exactly an example of what I stated - God helping hasten the end of a war started by humans. Nothing psychopathic about that.

Clearly you haven't seen a skilled person using a sling. It can throw a two pound flint five hundred yards, and is an extremely deadly weapon. You don't need divine assistance to kill someone with one.

On the other hand, if you are challenging a person to single combat, the use of projectile weapons is typically against the rules, and certainly unsportsmanlike.

The David and Goliath competition was as one sided and as divinely inspired as the scene where Indiana Jones shoots the swordsman dead.

David cheated. No gods were needed.

It's irrelevant how strong, tough or well trained a swordsman might be, if he is facing a weapon that can kill him long before he gets within reach of his opponent.

I love the David and Goliath story; It's a perfect example of how religions totally dupe their followers into believing abject nonsense about easily tested facts.

You could learn to kill a heavily armoured strongman with a sling. But you believe the people who have lied to you all your life about which side of the fight started with a massive advantage. David could only lose if he panicked and totally forgot how to use the weapon he had wielded since childhood.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Who thinks atheist give a fuck about mutilating a corpse?

Medicine might have advanced quite a bit earlier if authorities with a superstitious anticipation of Judgment Day resurrection hadn't forbidden dissections of cadavers.

Atheists wouldn't think the dead guy needed it anymore...

Odd commentary from Lion. But then, Lion DOES put a lot of credance in dubious ideas and made-up-shit....

 

[phands]

You issued and reissued the challenge. Now have the courage to actually defend what you said....

OK
Let me defend the 'horror' of one example you raised.
David and Goliath.
Goliath is a monster of a man. Gigantic. He's heavily armed. Shield, sword, helmet, breast plate...
David is a shepherd. He has a few rocks and a sling and he's had a lot of target practice. Oh yeah, and God is on his side.

They fight. Mortal combat. David wins.
Now, here comes the disgusting unbearable horror for squeamish atheists.

Show

David mutilates the corpse. Chopping of the head of Goliath. Proof that Goliath is dead in case anyone doubted

This shock and awe hastens the surrender of the Philistines. They've lost their giant hero.

So it's exactly an example of what I stated - God helping hasten the end of a war started by humans. Nothing psychopathic about that.

If you think that was defense, you failed completely. For a start, D & G didn't happen. And anyway, how could D have lost with gawd on his side?

Seems that most beheadings in the world today are done by religious people - in this case muslims. And those actually happened, unlike anything in the babble.

And what about the dozens of other examples I gave?

 

[Lion IRC]

Genesis 6-9

y
4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

...

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

What a surprise, a Christian fundamentalist who's too lazy to study his own sacred book, yet is very opinionated. So common it's a stereotype

And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens.

No fish mentioned there.
No fish taken onto the Ark. (no need - fish don't drown in water)

What were you saying about *cough* study?

 

[Lion IRC]

…what about the dozens of other examples I gave?

Pick one.
Pick the one you think is the hardest to defend. David and Goliath was the easiest.

 

[DBT]

Why would it? Omniscience, by definition, is a state of all knowing. Everything that can be known, is known. Being known, what need is there for experimentation and learning?

By definition ok ...but is your statement actually true?

If that is the definition of Omniscience, it has the be true.

If someone or something is Omniscient they are All Knowing because that is what the word literally means.

what I mean is: it's one thing to make the definition (notion, hypothesis,imaginative idea,) without an existing real example of omniscience ... let alone know how it would exist from an initial origin or .... are you saying omniscience would just be there (without foresight or any indication of things to know)?

It doesn't matter if there are no examples of Omniscience, the word means what it means regardless of being something real or something hypothetical.

If the claim is that God is Omniscient, the definition applies.

So what does the bible say about the God of the bible? Is this version of God Omniscient or not? If not, does this God have to learn through trial and error?

 

[steve_bank]

Does it state explicitly god is omniscient, all knowing, and all powerful or is that Christian hyperbole?

God apparently has emotions attributed to he, she, or it. Anger, love, violence. An obsessive craving for adoration and attention from beings he, she, or it created.

Sounds like something Trump would do.

 

[DBT]

Does it state explicitly god is omniscient, all knowing, and all powerful or is that Christian hyperbole?

There are several verses to that effect;


''Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.'' Psalm 147:5

 

[Lion IRC]

Omniscient doesn't mean "compelled" to know everything.
It means able to know.
Omniscience is a subset of omnipotence - the ability to do whatever you WANT