(January 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm)John V Wrote: Many atheists charge that God hypothetically should have done those things, so they apparently believe a god hypothetically could have done those things.

Hypothetically, just a question...what happens to animals after death in your biblical view?

(January 16, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: Hypothetically, just a question...what happens to animals after death in your biblical view?

First, what does this have to do with the topics at hand?

Second, I don't know, as the Bible doesn't say much on it to my knowledge. Romans 8 speaks of the "creation itself" being liberated from bondage to decay in the end. Because of this I lean toward animals from this era being there, but it's not much to go on.

(January 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm)John V Wrote: Can be, yes, but are not necessarily faults. Judges are judgmental, and jealousy can be merited.

Perhaps your version of the almighty ought to be as forgiving of the faults you/he perceives in us as you are of the faults we perceive in him eh? You know, relationships, reciprocity, that sort of thing.

Quote:Many atheists charge that God hypothetically should have done those things, so they apparently believe a god hypothetically could have done those things.

I think you might have misunderstood those charges more than a little bit. In any case, it hardly matters - I'd ask them the same question. Perhaps I should have been more blunt. What reason do we have for assuming any particular ability or set of abilities? What reason do we have for assuming any particular limit to an ability or to them all as a set? Why would I consider your imaginings on the subject (or any else's) authoritative or even informative?

Quote:Love, kindness, etc.

It's very easy to take offense to the first John, especially so if it is unrequited. So easy, in fact, that there is an entire spectrum of criminal law that deals with this. Kindness, meh, I'd find it difficult to take offense, though I'm sure at a point (and again probably to do with a lack of desire for the same) it can become offensive.

Here we are again though, with me asking the same question as above. What reason do we have to assume that a god either loves us, or feels/acts kindly toward us?

Quote:Actually it came from pondering this passage:
Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

The pondering (and who was doing it) clearly being the operative here. I couldn't actually say that the first part of that verse strikes me as speaking to any deep relationship whatsoever. Sounds more like someone laying in wait, planning their revenge. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that it's the second part that caught you? What riches, what glory? In what way would "making known his riches" imply a deep relationship in the first pklace? Everything in the narrative seems so decidedly single-minded. It seems that in this relationship one end (the human end - that's you) is more like an expensive purse or a pair of sunglasses -made to show off the value and worth and power of the other end (the godly end - not you). You and I might just have a different idea of a what a deep relationship entails. I'm still not sure how any of this applies in any case, as we -are- still talking about relationships with fairies and such........

(January 12, 2013 at 3:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Only all of that is wrong: an omnipotent god is capable of envisioning a method by which he can intervene in the world to stop suffering without interfering with free will, and has the power to employ such a strategy. An omnipotent god can envision ways to do absolutely anything regardless of whatever justification for inaction anyone can come up with, by definition.

I find your alternative here less satisfying than the weakest Christian apologetics. Ergo, if you can't postulate anything more viable than this reality, then your objection fails.

(January 16, 2013 at 1:53 pm)John V Wrote: I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. That was a hypothetical.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You were arguing about how it was an eternal first date and suddenly that argument ceases to exist.

Quote:I find your alternative here less satisfying than the weakest Christian apologetics. Ergo, if you can't postulate anything more viable than this reality, then your objection fails.

Until you explain why, your objection fails.

Quote:Ergo, if you can't postulate anything more viable than this reality, then your objection fails.

Who sets the standard for viability?

An omnipotent god could make any reality viable.

(January 16, 2013 at 9:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I find your alternative here less satisfying than the weakest Christian apologetics. Ergo, if you can't postulate anything more viable than this reality, then your objection fails.

Ah, you've made the key mistake many theists do, of assuming their opinion about something is more important than the facts about it.

Honestly though, I tried unpacking what you were trying to say here, unsuccessfully. Why am I supposed to care if you find my argument unsatisfying? I notice that you say nothing about why this is so, nor do you propose any form of counter-argument or alternative; why is it left to me to postulate anything, when you won't even provide your objections?

And as Ryantology says, what's your standard for viability? What makes my idea less than viable? How about you work on your own thoughts, before you start baselessly trashing someone else's, hmm? Might make this whole discourse thing go a lot smoother.

I thought my position was quite concise. Let me try to rephrase... Anyone can make up rubbish: an unworkable hypothesis. But until you can come up with a workable model, you can't claim to have bettered anything. So I can't see what there is to defend here.

Your aeroplanes suck because my aeroplane doesn't crash. < problem with this hypothesis: non substantiated claim.

(January 17, 2013 at 3:09 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I thought my position was quite concise. Let me try to rephrase... Anyone can make up rubbish: an unworkable hypothesis. But until you can come up with a workable model, you can't claim to have bettered anything. So I can't see what there is to defend here.

Your aeroplanes suck because my aeroplane doesn't crash. < problem with this hypothesis: non substantiated claim.

Oh, I'm sorry, was my alternate hypothesis not clear by the fact that my religious leanings are 'atheist' and that that is displayed right under my username? Well, I'll state it here: my alternate hypothesis is a universe without a god in it.

Besides, I don't need to have an alternative solution to a problem I can see in someone else's theory for the problem to become valid or real. Taking your aeroplane example, I don't need to know anything about aviation to know that a plane with a wing broken off won't fly. Sure, providing an alternative is good and all, but when my entire position is simply that god is an imaginary frippery people add onto a very real world... what alternative could I provide that wasn't implicit in my argument? I'm saying your add-on makes no sense, and that no add-on is necessary. Yes, anyone can make up rubbish: why does my pointing out your made up rubbish require me to commit to the same level of dishonesty?

You don't have to buy what I'm selling, because I'm not selling anything at all. I'm just pointing out that what the church is selling kind of stinks.

Quote:Besides, I don't need to have an alternative solution to a problem I can see in someone else's theory for the problem to become valid or real.

I agree with you. However, I've seen many atheists argue the opposite in context of evolution.