This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

What I don't get about Judeo-Christian belief is why God turned up but then left

#41ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 12:41:31 PM
kozlo100 posted...
I think what Suibom is saying, and I agree, is that if you're accepting the premise that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it necessarily follows that it is not possible to do a better job of accomplishing his goals than he did.


Which makes perfect sense, but I don't think it's even possible to accept that premise. There is no way of knowing whether god is omniscient and omnipotent. The only way people say they know that is through his word; but he could be lying for any number of reasons, or even just honestly mistaken and there is no way to know either way. My point at bringing up the extinctions etc., is that he appears to be doing a horrible job and I can think of solutions that don't require mass extinctions, natural disasters etc etc., if I had the power to manipulate them.
#42OrangeWizardPosted 12/7/2012 12:42:54 PM
From: UnfairRepresent | #022
I've listened to every word in the topic.


"Hearing" and "Listening" are two different things.

In literal terms, It would be "Reading" and "Understanding".

So you can continue to plug your ears and go "LALALALALALALAL" when the answer is right in front of you, if you'd like. Your loss.
---
Hi, I'm Larry the shivering chipmunk
Brr, I'm cold, I need a sweater.
#43OrangeWizardPosted 12/7/2012 12:45:59 PM
From: JonWood007 | #026
Actually, this is based on what I learned in research methods classes about how we can know things. And how we should have rigorous standards to accept things as true because without them, a lot of BS will infiltrate your worldview.


Sure it is.

From: kozlo100 | #027
That's going beyond the scope of the question


Which is par for the course with giving an analogy an atheist on this board.
---
Hi, I'm Larry the shivering chipmunk
Brr, I'm cold, I need a sweater.
#44SuibomPosted 12/7/2012 12:49:12 PM
Sorry Thugg, I guess I should have addressed that to ham. Didn't figure anyone would post between his and mine.

But to address your extinction events points...

http://youtu.be/CWILhrSzw5o


Man, I miss that guy...
---
"Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body." Hebrews 13:3 ESV
#45kozlo100Posted 12/7/2012 12:54:31 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
Which makes perfect sense, but I don't think it's even possible to accept that premise.


Sure, in most cases I'd even go one better and make a case for the opposite premise. That isn't what folks are doing when they go down the 'I could do it better than God' route, or at least aren't always making it clear that's what they're doing.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#46ThuggernautzPosted 12/7/2012 12:54:59 PM
Suibom posted...
Sorry Thugg, I guess I should have addressed that to ham. Didn't figure anyone would post between his and mine.

But to address your extinction events points...

http://youtu.be/CWILhrSzw5o


Man, I miss that guy...


No problemo. And also, I can't be mad about anyone posting Ledger's Joker. All I can say is, this plan appears to have gone pear shaped on multiple occasions. I guess only time will tell, but we'll be long dead so it really doesn't matter.
#47UnfairRepresent(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2012 5:06:36 PM
Suibom posted...
JonWood007 posted...


Whether or not this is true, we don't know. I just find it silly to throw around what ifs though without knowing the alternative. The whole "well God could do better than you" thing is not a valid argument. It's a statement meant to tell atheists to shut up in place of a valid argument.

How could we know if God could do a better job?

Well, one way is to see how God reacted in the situation at hand, and then how a person reacted. Then measure the results. You know, like an experiment.

But until we do that, and we can demonstrate God did a better job, this argument has no real value.



And I find it silly to think that a person with finite knowledge and finite power thinks they could do a better job at anything than someone all knowing and all powerful. There are so many variables to consider in the vastness of space and time that even one small variation could wipe us out.

"Oh, let's put a planet here!" Okay, but if we do, it'll cause a comet to crash into earth and kill everyone. But hey, alternatives...

"Ooooh! And a star here!" Comet.

"And a...." Comet.

"Fine. Can we put a comet here?!" Ooooh, that's nice. Very pretty. Gold star for you Jon. Except, COMET!

Your rebuttal is what's not a valid argument. You couldn't create a universe and timeline. Ever. Let alone a better one. And yet you puff yourself up as a judge of One who did.

You remind me of some homeowners I get, who having no knowledge or training in landscape, try to tell me how to do it.

It is a valid argument. Nobody is telling you to shut up. I'm just saying, if we do things your way, with your finite knowledge and power, your yard (and by extension, all matter, energy and time throughout all the universe) is going to look like garbage and we'd all be dead.

Because.... comet.


That entire post is just an elaborate set up to age old "Rock so heavy he can't lift it,"

You're saying things suck because God could not do a better job. AKA God is not Omnipotent or omniscient,.

If I was God and I created the Universe, I wouldn't design it so a world like Earth with thinking, feeling beings could be wiped out by a comet. That alone shows he's incompetence and poor design if he exists.

Well either that or his total disregard to living beings. Which is more likely but it's Deism.
---
^ Hey now that's completely unfair!
http://i.imgur.com/6kfGg.jpg
#48JonWood007Posted 12/7/2012 5:09:35 PM

Oh here we go again...

So you want to argue about how God created things, and how you think you could do a better job.

But then we look at the 2 omni's that God possesses, that you don't, and suddenly, you don't want to debate God's ability, but His existence.

I see. I see...

You could have just ran in here and posted "I don't believe in your God, so NYAH!!" and blew a raspberry in my general direction.

In fact, please do next time. The next time we are discussing something about the God as described in the Bible, say said line, blow said raspberry, and then mosey on into a topic where you can actually add something to the discussion.


What I'm saying is before you can claim omnipotence and a greater understanding of knowledge than humans beings, then your argument is invalid. In order to use the argument from authority, you need to demonstrate WHY God is a valid authority. Merely stating he's omnipotent and I should therefore shut up doesn't prove a darn thing. This kind of precludes demonstrating that he did actually make the universe and it was not some sort of cosmic accident or something. In order to do this, you need to demonstrate that he actually exists. And from there, it precludes demonstrating that this universe is the best of all possible universes. I mean, someone could have designed the universe, but he could've been a crappy designer.

You, on the other hand, just hand wave my criticisms of God's design by claiming omnipotence and omniscience. PROVE IT. Put up or shut up.

What I'm saying is if God is omnipotent, couldn't he had made a universe free of crappy things? I mean, heaven is supposed to be without crappy things, so why not earth? Why do we have appendixes, aka, bags that randomly explode and kill us? Why does AIDS exist?

The only way an omnipotent God could've created such things is if he is a deistic God, not one who focuses on our existence, but made this massive sandbox for whatever reason. A human centric God, like the God of the Bible, I doubt would make the universe like he did. In a sense, I'm throwing argument from design back in your face arguing faulty design. And the only answer you have to these complaints is I'm not qualified to discuss such things. Sorry buddy, that's not how debates work.

Sure it is.


Social scientists work with a 95% confidence interval. This means, on average, for every 20 facts tested that passes their rigorousness, 1 is wrong. Some scientists, like in the natural sciences, have much higher confidence intervals, like 99% or 99.999%. Even if something passes their rigorous experimental designs and statistical analysis, there is still a small chance of being wrong, and sometimes scientists are wrong.

Religion doesn't even meet a preponderance of the evidence IMO (50%). Scientists can still be wrong WITH their rigorousness, but you can't even be as confident as they.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#49SuibomPosted 12/7/2012 5:51:09 PM
Which do you guys want to debate?

You're talking two separate things within Christian theology:
- God's Creation
- The Curse of the Fall

"Why are there crappy things like AIDS?" falls under the Curse.

"The sky is falling!" falls under Creation.

Pick one and stick to it, or this is going to be one very confusing lesson for you both.

As for hand waving, Jon, I freely admit to it. When you, the creation, full of impotence and ignorance presume to pass along judgments of the Creator, full of omnipotence and omniscience, yeah, I'm going to hand wave your arguments, if they, at their core, are "Psh... I coulda done it better!"
---
"Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body." Hebrews 13:3 ESV
#50hunter_gohanPosted 12/7/2012 6:07:10 PM
What JonWood007 said. Very nicely put btw

OrangeWizard posted...
You were taught wrong. Look it up in an easily-accessible online dictionary.

Faith is belief without PROOF

Proof =/= evidence.


Fatih

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Proof:
1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity
5 : evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof?show=0&t=1354926433

So faith is belief without sufficient evidence to compel acceptance by the mind of truth.
Faith is belief without the process of establishing the validity of a statement.
Faith is belief without something that establishes validity.
Faith is belief without evidence.

Take your pick, none of them are flattering.

kozlo100 posted...
Later on, once the company is up and running smoothly. I don't need to be on the production floor all the time. I'll probably be staying in my office, supervising. If you work in the factory, you're probably never going to see me, or hear from me directly.


And yet, if they need to, they can easily set up an appointment with your secretary for a meeting. They can see your car show up and leave everyday; hell they might have kids in the same school or something.

JonWood007 posted...
I never claim to know everything, but I will say, of what I do know, Christianity is awfully lacking, and it's tiresome to see people defending it on the grounds that God is better and therefore automatically wins. If God's ways are better than my ways, God, or you, since I can't exactly talk to God, should be able to explain why you can't put a comet there, for example. Instead I get "well you're just a silly human being and God can't be questioned."


And people wonder why I compare the Christian god to tyrannical dictators. This is exactly what Stalin would do along with a nice trip to Siberia of course.

kozlo100 posted...
I think what Suibom is saying, and I agree, is that if you're accepting the premise that God is omniscient and omnipotent, then it necessarily follows that it is not possible to do a better job of accomplishing his goals than he did.


But what are his goals? Being omniscient and omnipotent doesn't preclude a being from being evil, saying his goals are good without explaining them just "trust me", and then committing genocide. Or of course, completely indifferent is Deistic and Christianity has the same origin as every other religion, people's minds. Frankly, YHWH seems like a less funny version of Q then any benevolent loving deity to me.

So you have to go much further than that. You basically have to accept the premise that the bible is right about everything to come to the conclusion that the bible is right about everything.
---
Fundamentalism in a nut shell: Raphael: It's God's will. Castiel: How can you say that?! Raphael: Because it's what I want!