God's too great to communicate clearly with humans

[Draconis]

Yet he is not so great that he cannot deal with the problem of evil vs free will.

Yes, stamp feet, if you really want, and claim "He can't because it's impossible".

 

[Rhea]

But I'll play along and make another go at a wording of the same question that's been proposed to you all along and that you have not yet answered.

Is there anyone on this planet who does not have a clear and accurate view of the existence and nature of your deity God?
Yes.

Your strikeouts are charming, but they highlight your assumption that there has been some proof at some point that there is a god, and that moreover there is only one, and that it was not fabricated by you. None of that has supporting evidence yet. But it is telling that you know this is a problem and you don't want to admit it and hence try to horn into the answer these assumptions as if they are supported by claiming the correct label is "God" as if there is even any one definition for one!

Once again, show me one other person who defines a god exactly as you do and it'll make sense to remove the qualifier that we are talking about YOUR god and not someone else's.

Until then, it will amuse the readers to notice how vociferously you complained at the beginning of the thread that other people were talking about some other god, wrongly, and that the discussion should be about your god instead. LOL, people notice stuff like that.

And if so, why is your deity God unable to communicate its existence and nature clearly to anyone/everyone at all times?
Numerous reasons which depend on individual development, and current focus.

No, see, here's the thing about your reply. My children, and every single human I have had the power to meet, all know that I exist. Most have a fair idea of what my personality was at the time they met me.

Why is this easier for me than for your god?

Not only that, they can look at my direct writings or recording to learn more. Why can't you're god handle this? Didn't your god used to be able to part seas and burn bushes, visit plagues on command, turn people to salt and flood vast tracts of land while providing explicit building instructions for a zoo boat? and other fairly unambiguous stuff?

What prevents your deity God, i.e. what barriers stop your deity God, what communications obstacles is it unable to overcome, in presenting its existence and nature to all of humanity?
God isn't unable to overcome the obstacles. Like I said, people need to learn some basic stuff, and then a more encompassing worldview can be created within them.

So is this the old, "my god cannot be any more powerful than the people who worship it" argument?
Like how the gods never seem to have anything to say that conflicts with the desires of the person saying it?

That is a massive handicap.

Until the person wants to believe it, the god can't do a single solitary thing to help them believe it?

Do you see the humor in this?

What's it's<sic> problem in this?
Truthfully, some people have a bit of a bug up their ass. Some douchebags hate various things in life because they are douchebags.

You sound so angry at me for not being able to muster up a belief that a thing which makes zero sense to me nevertheless exists in a way that makes zero sense. Why are you swearing and calling people mean things? (oh, and to ease your mind, the apostrophe was a typo, I do know the syntax. There are just zillions of extra apostrophes floating around here in tea party land, sometimes my keyboard gets contaminated.)

Someone hates or disbelieves in God because of cancer or starving children, yet would rather spend their time drinking beer than learning a cure for cancer or working with others to feed the children.

No, I don't disbelieve in your god because I think he's mean, nor disbelieve in my friend's Indian gods because I think they're callous, I disbelieve in all of those gods because none of them make a lick of sense. The stories all contradict themselves and include weird silly plot lines. And I just can't see why you think it's coherent at all.

You either want God to take care of all the problems, or you're willing to help.

No. Neither.
Option #3 - I don't believe there is a god. Your, his, theirs, anybody's
The thing makes absolutely zero sense AT ALL and one cannot just decide to have a belief in the nonsensical.
It doesn't compute. It makes no sense, I cannot "help" Santa Claus or the Tooth fairy be believable because believing they are real makes no sense.

If you want God to take care of everything, it's going to take a long fucking time. If you help, good for everyone.

I would not expect a god to take care of anything. What makes you think that's a thing that I expect from god(dess)(es)?
The only expectation I have of deities is that if they are real they will not be playing a game of hide and seek with false clues and convoluted misunderstood messages.

Or actually, more accurately, if the god cares whether we care it exists and/or cares about the content of the message we receive, they will not be playing a game of hide and seek with false clues and convoluted misunderstood messages, instead they will use their powers to solve their own problem, namely; their concern about whether we believe in them and understand their message.

If there's a god, and it's a mean god, it can still make itself and it's meanness unambiguously clear and be a deity.

But a deity that can't even talk as clearly as a four year-old makes no freakin' sense at all. And I can't believe people are willing to decide such a being is a deity. I mean, if it can't even communicate as well as a four year old, what does it even do, right? What does that deity of yours even do?

It turns out, I have no problem believing in a deity which neither cares about nor interacts with humans. That would make sense and I could understand it, but, since it doesn't care, there would not be a point in doing anything about that belief.

 

[Kharakov]

What is omnipresent and interacts with everything? Do you always pay attention to it, or even notice its existence? Did you ever think that just maybe it can maybe act asymmetrically?

 

[bilby]

What is omnipresent and interacts with everything?

Gravity, electro-magnetism, and the two nuclear forces.

Do you always pay attention to it, or even notice its existence?

Of course not. But I do sometimes, at least for the first two. The other two have little impact at the scales I usually am aware of.

Did you ever think that just maybe it can maybe act asymmetrically?

No. The way in which these four forces behave is very well understood. Adding 'woo' to them would be a pointless and retrograde step.

 

[Rhea]

What is omnipresent and interacts with everything?

A variety of forces depending on how you want to define interact and everything.
This has nothing to do with deities, though, and definitely nothing to do with deities who care whether we care about them.

You call energy a deity. Would you be so kind aas to define "deity" for the group, please? Because you are using it in a way that is not clear whether you are claiming,
"Energy, which I call god"
or
"God, which I call energy"

both of which, of course, are different from pretty much any other human's definition of deity (hence "your deity").

1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler

And while you're at it, can you please define what your deity says about whether it cares whether we acknowledge or worship or follow it and how you came to know this? Because you are dancing around in circles like a fly flinging itself around in a light fixture and I can't even tell what you actually believe, so it's difficult to have a conversation with someone who flings out a question and then bounces away from the answer to ask a new question which contradicts the last one.

So instead of this silly cat and mouse game, could you please do the kind favor of explaining

• the nature of your god,
• what it does and
• what it wants and
• how you know any of this

Do you always pay attention to it, or even notice its existence?

I always pay attention to gravity. It punishes me instantly when I try to defy its very clear and unambiguous rules. But since the rules are pretty easy to understand and follow, I manage to stay away from its wrath.

I don't pay much attention to magnetism, it doesn't seem to care much what I do.

Did you ever think that just maybe it can maybe act asymmetrically?

Nope. It never does and I have no reason to think it might. And definitely no reason to think it cares about what I think about that or will punish me for not expecting it to act asymmetrically.

Some people believe in a goddess who is all matter, some limit it to earth matter. Those people believe the earth has a heart and soul and purpose; although most of them don't feel she punishes, only suffers.

I know you don't believe in their goddess, just as you don't believe in the god of the people in the OP; you have your own god. But so far you have been very shy about describing it.

 

[Rhea]

Just a recap of the fact that you have argued again and again that we are mis-representing your god, and others have asked you again and again to clear up the misunderstanding by describing it so we can talk about it. Here you are on page 7, still having said ZERO substantial things describing your god. You even go so far as to edit quotes to claim this is a universal god, not "your god" and thereby claim it is the only god, just everyone is describing it wrong (except you, who have apparently used special superpower "critical thinking" to discern something that 7 billion other people are not smart enough to detect)


But to recap so that you can see how silly your undescribed position is:

"What religion are you" #38 asked #43 dodged.
Asked again what is the nature of the god you are defending in #47; in #48 you say what your god is not (omnipotent), but fail to say what it is.
Still on page 1, in #50 I say,

So go ahead and describe the thing that you insist is real and exists but have not described but expect us to divine by critical thinking. G'head, put on your critical thinking cap and describe your deity.

This is getting stupid with you quipping back over and over again that it's not _your_ god but never offering what your god is for the discussion. Getting really stupid.

But you know it's also typical of all the other theists who do not display critical thought. Whenever one examines the things they describe and shows those things to be ridiculous, the theists retreat to no longer describing anything and claiming this leaves them in the right.

All we know about your deity right now is that it is
NOT omnipotent
NOT able to communicate its ideas
NOT able to make itself visible as a deity


What on earth is your actual point again?
What is your god's point?

 

[laughing dog]

If there's a god, and it's a mean god, it can still make itself and it's meanness unambiguously clear and be a deity.

That's true, but it may be the case it is more fun and meaner to be obtuse.

 

[Rhea]

If there's a god, and it's a mean god, it can still make itself and it's meanness unambiguously clear and be a deity.

That's true, but it may be the case it is more fun and meaner to be obtuse.

That is an excellent point. Bringing the question, does the fact that no god clearly and unambiguously reveals itself or its word thereby prove that all gods are malicious and enjoy the suffering of others?

 

[laughing dog]

That's true, but it may be the case it is more fun and meaner to be obtuse.

That is an excellent point. Bringing the question, does the fact that no god clearly and unambiguously reveals itself or its word thereby prove that all gods are malicious and enjoy the suffering of others?

No. Maybe the vagueness in communication is an entrance exam for the afterlife or rewards in the current life. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch in a world of scarcity.

 

[Kharakov]

Gravity, electro-magnetism, and the two nuclear forces.

Spacetime.

 

[Kharakov]

both of which, of course, are different from pretty much any other human's definition of deity (hence "your deity").

My description of someone does not make them "my" someone. An individual is their own being. Things others say about them which have more or less truth do not add to or detract from the existence of a being.

• the nature of your god
• what it does and
• what it wants and
• how you know any of this

• complex. You might as well ask me what is my nature, to which the answer is also complex.
• lots of stuff. The answer happens to be the same for me. In other words, I can't define what I do as anything less general than what I do. The answer to the question "what do I do?" is "everything I do".
• I know what I want, not what God wants, I assume nothing <--that's a joke. God wants nerds.
• Observing, calculating, analyzing, guessing, hypothesizing, testing...

I always pay attention to gravity.

No you don't.

I know you don't believe in their goddess,

No you don't.

just as you don't believe in the god of the people in the OP;

No you don't.

you have your own god.

No I don't. I have a unique perspective of God. God is not required to act the same with every single being, or raise every single being in the same exact way, of reveal everything about God to every being. So... as that is the case...

But so far you have been very shy about describing it.

Honeycomb.

 

[Kharakov]

Just a recap of the fact that you have argued again and again that we are mis-representing your god,

I never said that.

You even go so far as to edit quotes to claim this is a universal god, not "your god" and thereby claim it is the only god, just everyone is describing it wrong

I never said everyone is describing God wrong. You definitely describe God and what I say incorrectly.

"What religion are you" #38

None.

Asked again what is the nature of God the god you are defending in #47; in #48 you say what your God is not (omnipotent), but fail to say what it is.

Atheos didn't ask me the "nature of God" in post 47.
Post 48 carries the implication that God is not omnipotent. I did not say God is not omnipotent in post 48, although maybe that's what what I said means in crazy ass misinterpretation land or wherever it is that you're coming up with your interpretations of what I say. You'll have to let me know.

NOT omnipotent

Yup. Omnipotence is impossible.

NOT able to communicate its ideas

Nope. God is able to communicate God's ideas. Some ideas require a foundation of other knowledge to be communicated.

NOT able to make itself visible as a deity

Nope. Able to be present without interfering with relationships between other beings is not the same as not being able to make one's self visible. Although God is not visible- what God does is.

What on earth is your actual point again?

I'm pointy. God can communicate. You need to learn some stuff to understand certain concepts.

What is your god's God's point?

God's pointy too.

 

[Rhea]

I never said that.

You even go so far as to edit quotes to claim this is a universal god, not "your god" and thereby claim it is the only god, just everyone is describing it wrong

I never said everyone is describing God wrong. You definitely describe God and what I say incorrectly.

Please name one person here besides your self who is describing your god correctly. Just one will do.
Then name pone other person anywhere who is describing your god correctly according to you. Just one other person will do.


Also - from you earlier:

<snip>
The problem that you keep avoiding addressing is that "god" is represented as being omnipotent.

By theists who don't engage in critical thinking, and by atheists who don't engage in critical thinking. Keep in mind these are the atheists who decide God doesn't exist because theists who haven't engaged in critical thinking have said things about God which are not precisely true.

As far as I can tell, others have brought omnipotence to the table, I did not.

These people are not describing your god correctly, not the correct way that you can. because...

 

[Kharakov]

Please name one person here besides your self who is describing your god God correctly.

Plenty have said things along the lines of if God exists God isn't tri omni. They might not get most of it right, but they get part.

Then name one other person anywhere who is describing your god God correctly

Many people say true and false things about God. In fact, true and false things have been written about God. I've said true and false things about God.

These people are not describing your god correctly, not the correct way that you can. because...

Some of the claims they make are not logically possible. Some of the claims they make don't fit in with my experiences.

 

[Rhea]

These people are not describing your god correctly, not the correct way that you can. because...

Some of the claims they make are not logically possible. Some of the claims they make don't fit in with my experiences.

 

[Kharakov]

Some of the claims they make are not logically possible. Some of the claims they make don't fit in with my experiences.

K. Bored. Attack something said earlier please.

 

[Juma]

K. Bored. Attack something said earlier please.

K is just trolling.

 

[Rhea]

K. Bored. Attack something said earlier please.

K is just trolling.

I'm beginning to think so. Because he just affirmed the OP, so I'm letting him end his contributions there.
Other still interested in the apparent contradictions of a great being who can't communicate better than an infant may want to enjoy continued discussion.

 

[Keith&Co.]

K. Bored. Attack something said earlier please.

K is just trolling.

Yeah, i used to think thatwas a side effect of his style. Then i realized it's his goal, which explains his style.