Divine Hiddenness

[Brian37]

That sounds like you're implying that God isn't omniscient and therefore needs to conduct studies to make sure he/she/its/their research is valid.

Hmm it implies that information interferes with people's choices.

If I had said that spoiling a movie for someone affects whether they'll go watch it, would you have concluded that God is a film director instead?

"Interferes with peoples choices"?

Really? Tell me what choice Polly Klass or Adam Wash had when monsters kidnapped raped and butchered them? Are you arguing God had no power at all to prevent that, keep that in mind knowing most theists describe their deity as "all powerful".

So the "choices" of the monsters who murdered those kids was more important than the welfare of the kid to this alleged God?

I've also never understood when theists claim when a loved one dies, for whatever reason, natural, accident, crime or war, why the theists cries. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand, why mourning happens without the superstitious explanations. But if one's logic is that your dead loved one is in a better pace, then why are you crying? If my family member or friend won the lottery, why would I bitch?

"God" can only be described as the supernatural script writer. And while this alleged being can as claimed, adjust his script on a whim, it still remains that if we go by the omni claims, nothing we do as humans can ultimately change anything. If one insists on defending "omni" then ultimately humans can only be relegated to the status of lab rat, toys, poker chips. 

The world's worst dictators can also display seeming compassion, but that "compassion" is always dependent on blind loyalty. Hitler and Stalin and Po Pot and Castro all rewarded loyalists. And the omni God concept is no different. God is an authoritarian, and he will treat you well as long as you don't step out of line or question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hmm it implies that information interferes with people's choices.

If I had said that spoiling a movie for someone affects whether they'll go watch it, would you have concluded that God is a film director instead?

"Interferes with peoples choices"?

Really? Tell me what choice Polly Klass or Adam Wash had when monsters kidnapped raped and butchered them? Are you arguing God had no power at all to prevent that, keep that in mind knowing most theists describe their deity as "all powerful".

So the "choices" of the monsters who murdered those kids was more important than the welfare of the kid to this alleged God?

I've also never understood when theists claim when a loved one dies, for whatever reason, natural, accident, crime or war, why the theists cries. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand, why mourning happens without the superstitious explanations. But if one's logic is that your dead loved one is in a better pace, then why are you crying? If my family member or friend won the lottery, why would I bitch?

"God" can only be described as the supernatural script writer. And while this alleged being can as claimed, adjust his script on a whim, it still remains that if we go by the omni claims, nothing we do as humans can ultimately change anything. If one insists on defending "omni" then ultimately humans can only be relegated to the status of lab rat, toys, poker chips. 

The world's worst dictators can also display seeming compassion, but that "compassion" is always dependent on blind loyalty. Hitler and Stalin and Po Pot and Castro all rewarded loyalists. And the omni God concept is no different. God is an authoritarian, and he will treat you well as long as you don't step out of line or question.

It’s not a case of whether God has the power to prevent horrible acts, it’s whether he desires to do so. The problem of evil isn’t really an argument against the existence of God, it’s an argument against Divine Providence.

And for the teenth time, it’s Pol Pot.

Boru

[Silver]

I have no desire to help people either. I guess that makes me a god.

[Brian37]

"Interferes with peoples choices"?

Really? Tell me what choice Polly Klass or Adam Wash had when monsters kidnapped raped and butchered them? Are you arguing God had no power at all to prevent that, keep that in mind knowing most theists describe their deity as "all powerful".

So the "choices" of the monsters who murdered those kids was more important than the welfare of the kid to this alleged God?

I've also never understood when theists claim when a loved one dies, for whatever reason, natural, accident, crime or war, why the theists cries. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand, why mourning happens without the superstitious explanations. But if one's logic is that your dead loved one is in a better pace, then why are you crying? If my family member or friend won the lottery, why would I bitch?

"God" can only be described as the supernatural script writer. And while this alleged being can as claimed, adjust his script on a whim, it still remains that if we go by the omni claims, nothing we do as humans can ultimately change anything. If one insists on defending "omni" then ultimately humans can only be relegated to the status of lab rat, toys, poker chips. 

The world's worst dictators can also display seeming compassion, but that "compassion" is always dependent on blind loyalty. Hitler and Stalin and Po Pot and Castro all rewarded loyalists. And the omni God concept is no different. God is an authoritarian, and he will treat you well as long as you don't step out of line or question.

It’s not a case of whether God has the power to prevent horrible acts, it’s whether he desires to do so. The problem of evil isn’t really an argument against the existence of God, it’s an argument against Divine Providence.

And for the teenth time, it’s Pol Pot.

Boru

Their es a grate pointe, thunk you.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It’s not a case of whether God has the power to prevent horrible acts, it’s whether he desires to do so. The problem of evil isn’t really an argument against the existence of God, it’s an argument against Divine Providence.

And for the teenth time, it’s Pol Pot.

Boru

Their es a grate pointe, thunk you.

I’m not criticizing your spelling.

Boru

[Silver]

There goes your dream of publishing editor right out the window.

[Brian37]

Their es a grate pointe, thunk you.

I’m not criticizing your spelling.

Boru

Thun whyeee would u ploint out that I mussed an " ell" in "Pol Pot"? 

Why does it bother you that other people are imperfect?

[Brian37]

There goes your dream of publishing editor right out the window.

What do you mean I won't be a publishing mo gale like William Randolph Hearst? What do you mean I won't have a granddaughter who will link up with the Siamese Meow Mix Litterbox Clumperation Organization?

[Nay_Sayer]

My counter-argument would be the Stanford prison experiment;

Zimbardo's primary reason for conducting the experiment was to focus on the power of roles, rules, symbols, group identity and situational validation of behavior that generally would repulse ordinary individuals. "I had been conducting research for some years on deindividuation, vandalism, and dehumanization that illustrated the ease with which ordinary people could be led to engage in anti-social acts by putting them in situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as enemies or objects," Zimbardo told the Toronto symposium in the summer of 1996

The idea of which was loosely used for the 2010 movie The Experiment.


The basics of it apply though to my analogy; Eventually, the participants get out of control and nearly kill each other (Sound familiar?). Divine hiddenness falls apart because they can't possibly know what their deity wants now. Only what it may have wanted according to others saying so. They simultaneously want others to accept a being and don't expect any feedback but also here is a list of rules and regulations that they left for you.


Thank quob Pastafarianism doesn't have to deal with this.
RAmen

[arewethereyet]

I keep reading this thread title as "Divine Hideousness".