(September 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 3:53 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If it can't be evaluated, why make the claim?

God's free to make proclamations if he wants.

Quote:What the bible says is up for interpretation.

Sure - but to interpret, you have to start with what it actually says.

---

(September 19, 2013 at 3:36 pm)Zone Wrote: Which god?

Whiskey tango foxtrot...another one? We're on the Christianity board, moron. Unless specified otherwise, a reference to god on the Christian board would be to the Christian god.

You are the moron, we know which board we are on.

He is saying "get in line, claims are like assholes, everyone has one" that is what he means by "which one".

You stupidly want us to give your Christian god special treatment, we don't.

Your pet god is the Christian god. Big whoopty shit. Muslims claim Allah, and Hindu's have all sorts of god/s. SO?

You "I believe in the Christian god".

DUH, no shit, so you say.

But you have absolutely the same amount of evidence for your pet god as any other claimed in the past or even now, which is absolutely ZIP, ZERO, ZILTCH!

(September 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm)John V Wrote: God's free to make proclamations if he wants.

Sure, but wat's the point? If god sends a message, he would surely want to demonstrate its veracity. Muddying that message with claims that cannot be evalutated is counterproductive.

The point is that we should believe in Yahweh because he says we should. Simple but nonsensical, of course.

(September 19, 2013 at 4:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Sure, but wat's the point? If god sends a message, he would surely want to demonstrate its veracity.

Why is that sure? This is another example of arguing from a generality because you don't know the specifics. Sometimes god explains himself, but sometimes he says straight out he's not going to, and that as the created beings we have no right to demand further explanation. See Romans 9 or the last few chapters of Job.

(September 18, 2013 at 3:19 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 18, 2013 at 3:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: So, as an omnipotent programmer who determines the outcome of anything I am unable to cause something to feel pain without giving it free will first?

You're unable to give anything autonomous existence. "I think, therefore I am." Except in this case, I don't think, and neither do you. Therefore we are not.

So, in addtion to God not being able to make us suffer without giving us free will, he is also unable to give us consciousness without giving us free will?

I'll go along with that for the sake of argument. So we clearly have free will since we are conscious and can suffer, and therefore if there is a God, it can't be omniscient, in particular, it can't know what we're going to think in advance of us knowing it.

Quote: This is another example of arguing from a generality because you don't know the specifics.

I don't have to read every page of Harry Potter to know it is fiction.

"God" as a claim, before you get to one word of that comic book, is a naked assertion to start off with, so anything used to prop a naked assertion up with is going to be a house of cards with no credibility no matter how pretty the detail of the cards may be.

You are the one arguing from a generality and simply and stupidly try to prop up that generality with a comic book.

You have put the cart before the horse not realizing their isn't an invisible horse in the first place.

(September 18, 2013 at 4:43 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 18, 2013 at 4:11 pm)max-greece Wrote: Perhaps it might be easier then to see if we can find agreement on things that indicate imperfection.

Would you agree with me that vengeful, proud, wrathful, vain, impulsive and malicious are characteristics that would qualify as imperfections and therefore could not belong to a perfect being, by definition?

Malicious is the only one I would agree with, and even then we'd need to agree on its definition.

It does seem to follow that a non-omniscient God could be surprised by the behavior of humans (and maybe other things) and have an emotional reaction to our deeds. That resolves the problem of why the God of the OT seems so surprised at us so many times. I alway thought it was odd that he would get angry over us doing something he knew we were going to do a trilion times infiinity squared years ago.

(September 19, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: So, in addtion to God not being able to make us suffer without giving us free will, he is also unable to give us consciousness without giving us free will?

I'll go along with that for the sake of argument. So we clearly have free will since we are conscious and can suffer, and therefore if there is a God, it can't be omniscient, in particular, it can't know what we're going to think in advance of us knowing it.

Depends on how you define free will. An approach based on outcomes seems to preclude omniscience. I've discussed it using formal logic and it's never held up, which is why I say "seems to." Even if it holds up, though, a definition based on processes isn't problematic for omniscience.

(September 19, 2013 at 3:59 pm)John V Wrote: Whiskey tango foxtrot...another one? We're on the Christianity board, moron. Unless specified otherwise, a reference to god on the Christian board would be to the Christian god.

I was making a point moron. Bang your head hard enough and some sense may be knocked into you.

The God of the bible is a drama queen, and should only blame himself for the drama he allowed to happen.