(July 16, 2013 at 3:18 pm)Godschild Wrote: Why don't you do as I did and find out who is correct, read it. Then you're no different than any other nonbeliever, you'll accept anything that supports your hate for Christianity, it doesn't matter to you where the truth is. When young earth Creationist don't agree with your science you insist they read about it and don't say you don't many web sites have been referred to for us to read.

Because, as I have said before, I don't believe there to be a right or wrong answer here. Unlike natural processes - where the right answer corresponds to what actually happens, even if the evidence seemingly indicates otherwise - there is no "correct" answer in religion. Everyone who reads it seems to come up with different and contradictory interpretation with all of them citing scriptural justification for their position. The truth here is irrelevant because there doesn't seem to be a "true" interpretation. Rather, all sorts of interpretations are equally true.

And by the way, god's omnibenevolence would actually detract from my hate for Christianity - not support. I'd definitely prefer a religion with a benevolent god than a vengeful one. Thus, you are the one giving me justification for my hate and my qualified acceptance indicates that I still care about the truth.

(July 16, 2013 at 4:00 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Lol, claiming that only an omnipotent and omniscient being can create a universe? There is no way to establish how much "power" is needed to do something absurd like creating a universe.

Also, why would a task ONLY be possible for an omnipotent being, rather than just a very powerful being? You're reaching past your ability to explain when you shout out idiotic claims like that.

You left out omnipresent, God has more than enough power to create a universe, he created heaven and made hell.

(July 16, 2013 at 10:33 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(July 16, 2013 at 3:18 pm)Godschild Wrote:

---

Why don't you do as I did and find out who is correct, read it. Then you're no different than any other nonbeliever, you'll accept anything that supports your hate for Christianity, it doesn't matter to you where the truth is. When young earth Creationist don't agree with your science you insist they read about it and don't say you don't many web sites have been referred to for us to read.

---

And by the way, god's omnibenevolence would actually detract from my hate for Christianity - not support. I'd definitely prefer a religion with a benevolent god than a vengeful one. Thus, you are the one giving me justification for my hate and my qualified acceptance indicates that I still care about the truth.

No, you used omnibenevolence to try and undermine Christianity, you are now trying to have your cake and eat it too by saying omnibenvolence would detract from your hate. I have given you nothing to justify your hate for Christianity, you came about that long before we started this conversation.
I see by the bold above you and I agree that God is not omnibenevolent, in your own words you are saying God can not be both vengeful and omnibenevolent at the same time and God in His word (Bible) says He is a vengeful God. Glad we finally got this straightened out.

(July 17, 2013 at 3:29 am)Godschild Wrote: No, you used omnibenevolence to try and undermine Christianity, you are now trying to have your cake and eat it too by saying omnibenvolence would detract from your hate. I have given you nothing to justify your hate for Christianity, you came about that long before we started this conversation.
I see by the bold above you and I agree that God is not omnibenevolent, in your own words you are saying God can not be both vengeful and omnibenevolent at the same time and God in His word (Bible) says He is a vengeful God. Glad we finally got this straightened out.

Try and keep up with the discussion. Here's a small review of the debate so far, since you don't seem to remember it.

MFM formulated an argument detailing the logical inconsistencies entailing the attributes of Christian god.

Your counter was to point out that one of the attributes do not apply, since Christian god is not considered omnibenevolent.

I addressed MFM's argument by saying that he didn't need to formulate such a complicated argument when it could've been done just as easily otherwise.

I addressed your argument by saying that the attributes of Christian god would be what Christians say they are and when asked for proof that Christians consider omnibenevolence to be an attribute, you were given that.

Since then, you've been dancing around the main issue with trivialities like asking for more detailed proof or questioning my motives. Well, here's everything laid out in the open.

I'm not particularly interested in undermining Christianity, since I don't consider it to be mined in the first place. But if I see ridiculous arguments being made, I step in to have some fun.

MFM did use omnibenevolence to undermine the Christian god and since Christians do consider their god omnibenevolent, the argument is sound. However, and as I said before, that attribute isn't necessary for the undermining. Even if you do convince all the Christians to stop considering your god as omnibenevolent, we would simply reformulate the argument and show that your god is illogical in another way. Saying that we need omnibenevolence as an attribute to undermine Christianity is ridiculous. But since we have it, why not use it?

As for my hatred of Christianity - I don't think Christianity would be something I swallow whether you consider your god omnibenevolent or not. But, atleast the Christian dogma that considers him omnibenevolent is slightly more palatable than the one that portrays him as vengeful. What you are giving me here is justification for hating Christianity more than I already do.

By the way, the part that you bolded, the one that states "I'd definitely prefer a religion with a benevolent god than a vengeful one" - says nothing about whether I consider Christian god to be vengeful or not. So we don't agree that your god - and by that, I mean the fictional being you think actually exists - is not omnibenevolent. In fact, my actual own words are that your god is a self-contradictory, illogical being and that is why I consider him to be omnibenevolent and vengeful at the same time.

(July 16, 2013 at 7:35 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(July 16, 2013 at 7:33 am)Chas Wrote: - or none at all.

Haha!

Oops!

So you have precisely no input on the subject. Thanks for popping in!

Just because you do not understand the importance of the lack of evidence for any gods does not make that 'no contribution'.

No gods, no revelation. Arguing about whether revelation is imperfect is like arguing about the colors of unicorns.

The importance of evidence that is logically impossible... nah you're ok I have no interest in searching for that with you.

Your disinterest is noted.

Again.

(July 17, 2013 at 12:39 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: The importance of evidence that is logically impossible... nah you're ok I have no interest in searching for that with you.

Yeah, because believing in something for which there is no evidence is ALWAYS justified...

OK, for arguments sake, lets say that evidence for the existence of 'God' is logically impossible to obtain. What should my justification to believe a god that does not leave evidence exists? What should I go by?

How do I tell the difference between an existent god for which evidence is impossible to obtain, and a nonexistent god?

Doesn't believing in something for which you admit evidence is logically impossible to obtain open you up to believing in anything which it also claimed that evidence is logically impossible to obtain?

You're jumping the gun a little Simon. Objective evidence is impossible, subjective evidence is not. If you research metaphysics you may see that this is fundamental.

Unlike most other faiths Christianity is based upon logic and reasoning. You have evidence in the form of biblical text.

(July 17, 2013 at 3:18 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're jumping the gun a little Simon. Objective evidence is impossible, subjective evidence is not. If you research metaphysics you may see that this is fundamental.

Subjective evidence as in, "I had a personal experience with God"?

If so, that is the most unreliable type of evidence.

Not to mention that people that believe in different gods than you, claim to have subjective evidence for their gods.

Quote:Unlike most other faiths Christianity is based upon logic and reasoning. You have evidence in the form of biblical text.

If by logic and reasoning you mean the philosophical arguments for the existence of god (Kalam, ontological, teleological, etc), I'm not impressed, they are all fallacious.

The Bible isn't evidence. The Bible is the claim.

No the bible is evidence. The claims are meaningless without faith. Foolish and folly.

You are required to consider the evidence honestly. Acting upon that information is you embracing the assumption of God.

Like I said, God can't be provable. Of course the proofs fail.