(September 19, 2013 at 4:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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.

That presumes that god experiences time the same way we do. There are also arguments re: omniscience/free will based on god experiencing time differently than we do. I go with the non-existence argument lately because I'm tired of this one.

(September 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm)John V Wrote: 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.

It's not arguing from a generality. It is arguing from reasonable expectations. The bible is a claim, and I have to weigh that claim against my current understanding and knowledge.

Are now saying that your god did not intend the message to be clear and conform to the facts?

(September 19, 2013 at 4:19 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: The point is that we should believe in Yahweh because an ancient book says we should. Simple but nonsensical, of course.

Fixed that for you.

That book is no where near good enough.

(September 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Faith No More Wrote: It's not arguing from a generality.

Actually you're right. It's an argument from your personal incredulity.

Quote:It is arguing from reasonable expectations. The bible is a claim, and I have to weigh that claim against my current understanding and knowledge.

- The Bible is a collection of books of various types and includes many claims. In other areas you accept overall claims without having weighed all the minutiae involved.

- Be honest. If the Bible said "Here are the attributes of a perfect god" and listed attributes of god found elsewhere in the Bible, you would still reject it.

- An omniscient creator is in a better position than you to determine what expectations are reasonable.

Quote:Are now saying that your god did not intend the message to be clear and conform to the facts?

That you can create a straw man from the message doesn't imply that the message isn't clear.

Quote:That you can create a straw man from the message doesn't imply that the message isn't clear.

No but there is the fact that there womething like 40,000 denomination of christianity, each with a different interpretation. Of god that is good basically because he says he's good

(September 20, 2013 at 8:16 am)John V Wrote:

(September 19, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Faith No More Wrote: It's not arguing from a generality.

Actually you're right. It's an argument from your personal incredulity.

Quote:It is arguing from reasonable expectations. The bible is a claim, and I have to weigh that claim against my current understanding and knowledge.

- The Bible is a collection of books of various types and includes many claims. In other areas you accept overall claims without having weighed all the minutiae involved.

- Be honest. If the Bible said "Here are the attributes of a perfect god" and listed attributes of god found elsewhere in the Bible, you would still reject it.

- An omniscient creator is in a better position than you to determine what expectations are reasonable.

Quote:Are now saying that your god did not intend the message to be clear and conform to the facts?

That you can create a straw man from the message doesn't imply that the message isn't clear.

You assume a lot about someone you don't know, and your resorting to personal attacks is telling. But I forgive you, as Christianity doesn't exactly breed open-mindedness.

And I'm not creating a straw man. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying and the implications that follow.

You say an omniscient creator is in a better position than I to determine what is reasonable. True, but if the creator does not tailor the message to what I see as reasonable, how then am I to determine that the message truly comes from where it is purported? In other words, if I cannot ascertain the message is reasonable, I have no way to determine that it came from an omniscient deity, and it can be dismissed just as easily as all of the other faulty claims about deities and their messages. Trying to obfuscate that point by saying "God gets to decide what is reasonable" doesn't get us any closer to determining the source.

(September 20, 2013 at 10:25 am)Faith No More Wrote: You assume a lot about someone you don't know,

Are my assumptions incorrect?

Quote:and your resorting to personal attacks is telling.

I don't see personal attacks, but if I made some - what do they say? Consider that atheists make many, many more personal attacks against me than I do against them when you answer.

Quote:You say an omniscient creator is in a better position than I to determine what is reasonable. True, but if the creator does not tailor the message to what I see as reasonable, how then am I to determine that the message truly comes from where it is purported?

You're saying that the creator should tailor messages to the unreasonable expectations of the creation. I disagree.

---

(September 20, 2013 at 9:29 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: No but there is the fact that there womething like 40,000 denomination of christianity, each with a different interpretation. Of god that is good basically because he says he's good

I'm confused - are you saying that all 40,000 agree that god is good basically because he says he's good?

(September 19, 2013 at 4:35 pm)John V Wrote: That presumes that god experiences time the same way we do. There are also arguments re: omniscience/free will based on god experiencing time differently than we do. I go with the non-existence argument lately because I'm tired of this one.

I would think that a God who knows everything would not be capable of surprise, as he has always been and has always known everything at all times. At any point in time, God must have known precisely how everything, ever, would play out. So, God's subjective experience of time's flow can't possibly make a difference, and the question remains valid: how can an all-knowing God experience surprise?

There has to be a compromise to make it logical, so do we admit that God is not all-knowing and is capable of being taken by surprise, or do we admit that God's atrocities, rather than knee-jerk reactions to surprise, are acts of carnage and terror he planned long before his victims existed?

(September 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm)John V Wrote: Are my assumptions incorrect?

They're not even worthy of an answer.

(September 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm)John V Wrote: I don't see personal attacks, but if I made some - what do they say? Consider that atheists make many, many more personal attacks against me than I do against them when you answer.

I didn't mean personal attacks as in you are insulting me. I meant you were using personal attacks in place of an argument(ad hominem). Rather than try to answer my questions, you simply accused me of being unwilling to accept any answers that would come from the bible, regardless.

Besides, I find being told what I will and will not accept a hundred times more insulting than being called an "asshole."

(September 20, 2013 at 1:04 pm)John V Wrote: You're saying that the creator should tailor messages to the unreasonable expectations of the creation. I disagree.

Not should. Would. Communication is a two-way street, which I think is an outrageously simple concept for an omniscient deity to understand.