Theists: what does your god want for you?

[jstrodel]

Why is the only other explanation an experiment? Put that in formal logic. You don't have any argument. How do you know there is no other explanation. What if suffering was useful to God or permitted people to have free will? What if God made people intentionally frail so they would not challenge God's power in some other way?

Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

[Whateverist]

Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

No can do. You can't require anything of that which most likely does not even exist. God does not because He cannot give us a pain free existence because, being only a rumor, he is unable to give us anything. Nor do we clamor for it.

The point was that you cannot reasonably use 'fine tuning' as the basis for your claim that god(s) exist if in fact most of the universe is inhospitable to our existence and obviously not designed with our needs in mind at all.

[Ryantology]

Why is the only other explanation an experiment? Put that in formal logic.

1. God knows everything and can do anything and is in total control of the entire universe and everything in it.
2. Everything God does, he does with complete understanding of the consequences.
3. Everything which happens is a result of God's desires and efforts.
4. Every consequence, of everything (e.g. suffering, pain, rape, torture), is specifically what God expressly desires to happen.

Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering.

Omnipotence does not require God to give people a world without pain or suffering. It just means that he's omnipotent and malicious.

Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

Spoken like a true psychopath.

[Tonus]

What is wrong with God allowing suffering in the world?

Errr... everything, pretty much.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

...
Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

Show me where you have admitted your god created pain and suffering. Everything I have read from you seems to say a flying snake created pain and suffering or was at least the cause of it.

[archangle]

Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

No can do. You can't require anything of that which most likely does not even exist. God does not because He cannot give us a pain free existence because, being only a rumor, he is unable to give us anything. Nor do we clamor for it.

The point was that you cannot reasonably use 'fine tuning' as the basis for your claim that god(s) exist if in fact most of the universe is inhospitable to our existence and obviously not designed with our needs in mind at all.

This implies that the "body" is you. The universe didn't form with our needs in mind? really? You will have to talking to show how this is not true, considering we are here. Your stance against his god doesn't seemed to based on much else then being pissed off you didn't get what you want.

[A_Nony_Mouse]

Why is the only other explanation an experiment? Put that in formal logic. You don't have any argument. How do you know there is no other explanation. What if suffering was useful to God or permitted people to have free will? What if God made people intentionally frail so they would not challenge God's power in some other way?

Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

If I read your posts correctly you are saying disease is punishment for life style choices. Now you are defending something else. Which is it going to be?

[Neo-Scholastic]

1. God knows everything and can do anything and is in total control of the entire universe and everything in it.
2. Everything God does, he does with complete understanding of the consequences.
3. Everything which happens is a result of God's desires and efforts.
4. Every consequence, of everything (e.g. suffering, pain, rape, torture), is specifically what God expressly desires to happen.

From the perspective of process theology, none of your premises are valid.

Premise 1) God is not in total control of everything. God gives sentient beings have freewill, which by definition excludes the God's influence.

Premise 2) The future does not yet exist. You cannot have full knoweledge about something that does not exist if that change of state includes indeterminate freewill choices.

Premise 3) Everything that happens is the combined effort of God's choices and all those made by sentient beings.

Therefore, Conclusion 4 is predicated on no true statements.

To be fair, your argument successfully refutes both Calvinism and Universalism.

[Gabriel Syme]

Do you have any idea what your god wants for you?

Yes absolutely. We know this through a variety of means.

From revelations, we know that God mainly wants us to love and to be loved, and that above all God desires we join him in heaven (which just means "with God") to enjoy happiness for all eternity.

Or if revelations are not your thing, then it is easy to determine purpose from earthly things too:

For example, I am a man. My body produces sperm which is to fertilise womans eggs. Rationally then, God desires me to be a father and to experience the love, happiness, reponsiiblity and contentment which that brings.

You could say I dont need to be a father, and your right I dont, but God desires that I be, or at least try to be. God doesnt include spurious features in his creations, and more than a car maker include spurious features in theirs.

And given the best place for kids is to be raised by their biological mum and dad, then logically God desires that I should also be a husband (for the same reasons - love, happiness etc).

Does He wish you to do the good you perceive and to grow in your capacity to perceive what is important and what is best? Or does He wish for you to follow His rules?

These are not mutually exclusive - in fact, they are the same thing.

Rather than "rules", you should see Christian values as "ideals".

Think of it like going to university. At university, the lecturers want you to follow the rules they teach you (rules about physics, maths, french, whatever).

They dont want you to sit and waste everybodys time by making up your own rules - after all, for a rule to be of any use, we must have the same rule in common.

I cannot and never could imagine a God who wants only sycophantic rule followers. Of what possible value would that be to such a one?

Your question here is absurd.

Imagine applying it to the secular law of the land.

We dont call law abiding citizens "sycophantic rule followers" - rather, we respect them, admire them and see them as pillars of society.

We dont query what is the point of abiding by the law, we instinctively know it is the right thing to do.

It is (should be) no different with Gods moral laws, which only reflect reality, at the end of the day.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Why is the only other explanation an experiment? Put that in formal logic. You don't have any argument. How do you know there is no other explanation. What if suffering was useful to God or permitted people to have free will? What if God made people intentionally frail so they would not challenge God's power in some other way?

Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?

I would be willing to entertain this. But, first, I think you'll need to outline God's limits once again. Does God Himself have free-will? That is, does God have the ability to act an a manner contrary to his nature? Please defend one position clearly and concisely.

---

1. God knows everything and can do anything and is in total control of the entire universe and everything in it.
2. Everything God does, he does with complete understanding of the consequences.
3. Everything which happens is a result of God's desires and efforts.
4. Every consequence, of everything (e.g. suffering, pain, rape, torture), is specifically what God expressly desires to happen.

From the perspective of process theology, none of your premises are valid.

Premise 1) God is not in total control of everything. God gives sentient beings have freewill, which by definition excludes the God's influence.

Premise 2) The future does not yet exist. You cannot have full knoweledge about something that does not exist if that change of state includes indeterminate freewill choices.

Premise 3) Everything that happens is the combined effort of God's choices and all those made by sentient beings.

Therefore, Conclusion 4 is predicated on no true statements.

To be fair, your argument successfully refutes both Calvinism and Universalism.

So then God's abilities are inherently limited? God cannot act in a manner contrary to his nature? Correct?