How far reaching are God's powers?

[MilesAbbott81]

Perhaps I'm not cursed and your failures aren't a gods fault, you just didn't understand the terms?

Not interested in answering any of your other comments. No need to kick dead horses. However I don't see how your definition isn't in line with my own, though it is perhaps a tad more specific I don't see that it changes anything.

---

If free will is an illusion, no one can really choose anything.

True! And that's why salvation is never deserved, but a gift.

Although, I'm not sure I would word it that way, even though you're technically correct. God eventually gives us the ability to choose good, but there is a process that must take place in order for that to happen and it is still 100% grace, not earned.

[Mister Agenda]

Of course nothing could exist. What a ridiculous thing to say. It wouldn't have that name, and would have no one to quantify it, and you're right, therefore it wouldn't actually exist, but from our perspective it could exist, because it would be the opposite, or absence, of our existence.

All you've done is vomited out something you think is clever when it's actually incredibly stupid. I am very clearly saying that nothing can't create anything, that the universe did not suddenly emerge from nowhere. Since there is no plausible natural or scientific explanation as to how the universe came about, the only explanation that makes any sense is a supernatural one.

You can start spewing your God particle theories and whatnot, but I have no interest in arguing things that are self-evident, and will merely tell you, on God's authority, that you are wrong to accredit anyone but Him with the creation of the universe. If you can't believe that, not my problem.

More unsupported assertions....

And rude, too.

"...Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be so. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Where envying and strife are, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated". James 3: 10-17.

[HappySkeptic]

If free will is an illusion, no one can really choose anything.

I believe that we make absolutely make choices.  I don't believe they are free.  That's a discussion for another thread.

[MilesAbbott81]

I read a few paragraphs, over the course of which I saw not a single valid criticism. I would be happy to point out all of the obviously ignorant statements in it, but the list would take far too long. I suggest you find some better material; I'm sure there's some out there.

From the guy who accused someone of being irrational for not reading their whole rant about them wanting to be a dictator?

There is a huge difference in reading a small post of mine and a virtual encyclopedia of obviously erroneous information written by an ignoramus. I read it for a few minutes, which is much more than it deserved.

---

More unsupported assertions....

And rude, too.

"...Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be so. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Where envying and strife are, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated". James 3: 10-17.

Unsupported assertions according to your...unsupported assertion?

Rude?

Excuse me, but your first post in response to me was a literal mockery, which you followed up with accusing me of dehumanizing people. I'll not be subjected to your moral double standard, thanks.

---

If free will is an illusion, no one can really choose anything.

I believe that we make absolutely make choices.  I don't believe they are free.  That's a discussion for another thread.

We do make choices, however they're within the confines of what God allows. We cannot exercise our free will at all, because we can't bend the world to our will as God can bend it to His.

You can decide to be a moral, upright citizen, but that doesn't mean you have the will to accomplish it. You will inevitably fail.

[Mister Agenda]

People don't criticize God as though they're doing a film review. People criticize God because they disagree with Him, and they disagree with Him because they believe they should have dominion over what they themselves can or cannot do. That's just how our natures work.

To have dominion over God is to tyrannize Him, to force Him to put up with sin. This He will not do.

I would avoid making assertions about what other people do in a way that only requires one exception to prove you wrong.

The main thing wrong with the concept of God, completely aside from how some of his followers portray him, is that he's indistinguishable from other fictional characters that some people believe are real, but actually are probably not, in my estimation, the only estimation I can have. I don't think Vishnu is real, and it's certainly not because I want dominion over him or want his throne, it's just that the evidence for him being real is unconvincing to me; even though hundreds of thousands of people find him completely plausible. And the idea that not believing in Vishnu gives me some sort of dominion over him doesn't seem to follow at all. If Vishnu is real, my believing or not believing in him should not affect him in the slightest.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that's wonderful Miles - I don't believe that a productive discussion can be had without some point of initial agreement and acknowledgement. Since we use the same definitions, you should be able to explain to me how moral incompetents can be morally responsible.

[MilesAbbott81]

And this is why you fail to be rational.  Every claim about God should be divided into two categories -- testable and non-testable. 

The non-testable ones are matters of pure belief, faith or theology.  They can have no affect on the real world, because anything non-random that affects the world can be tested.

The testable ones are really important to test.  Claims that God heals, or punishes, or does things for believers are absolutely testable.  No, the God itself isn't testable, but the claim that "if I pray for healing, it will happen more often than if I don't pray" is a testable claim.  The claim that God in any way actively makes changes to the world that disobey laws, can be tested statistically.

Now, if you are saying that God designed the laws of the universe to play out to punish people for moral failing, then I would still say this is testable.  Yes, stupidity has its own punishment, but moral failing is often rewarded by the laws of the universe unless people intervene.  Morals are not given by a god, they are part of being societal creatures.  They change according to society.  Where they have continuity, it is because of our common humanity, not because of gods.

Who says God must react on demand or obey some test that couldn't possibly be performed? How are you supposed to, for instance, measure the sincerity of someone's heart? That would be necessary to test any prayer.

The Scriptures say that our hearts are desperately wicked and unknowable, so you can't even test your own heart, much less someone else's.

[Mister Agenda]

From the guy who accused someone of being irrational for not reading their whole rant about them wanting to be a dictator?

There is a huge difference in reading a small post of mine and a virtual encyclopedia of obviously erroneous information written by an ignoramus. I read it for a few minutes, which is much more than it deserved.

---

More unsupported assertions....

And rude, too.

"...Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be so. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Where envying and strife are, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated". James 3: 10-17.

Unsupported assertions according to your...unsupported assertion?

Rude?

Excuse me, but your first post in response to me was a literal mockery, which you followed up with accusing me of dehumanizing people. I'll not be subjected to your moral double standard, thanks.

You realize the point of my arguing by assertion was to illustrate the valuelessness of that form of discourse, right? If you grasped that you might have felt educated instead of mocked. Although now that I think on it, it may sounded insulting because your original phrasing was presented in such an insulting and denigrating fashion.

And it's not my standard, it's the Bible's.

[MilesAbbott81]

I would avoid making assertions about what other people do in a way that only requires one exception to prove you wrong.

The main thing wrong with the concept of God, completely aside from how some of his followers portray him, is that he's indistinguishable from other fictional characters that some people believe are real, but actually are probably not, in my estimation, the only estimation I can have. I don't think Vishnu is real, and it's certainly not because I want dominion over him or want his throne, it's just that the evidence for him being real is unconvincing to me; even though hundreds of thousands of people find him completely plausible. And the idea that not believing in Vishnu gives me some sort of dominion over him doesn't seem to follow at all. If Vishnu is real, my believing or not believing in him should not affect him in the slightest.

Well, provide an example, then.

I am not talking about Vishnu; that's another argument entirely. We're talking about the Christian God, Jesus Christ. Tell me what it is about Him that you don't find convincing or acceptable, and I'm not talking about historical facts. Those are basically inconsequential. I'm talking about His character and His Law. What is so wrong about Him, according to you?

[The Grand Nudger]

Who says God must react on demand or obey some test that couldn't possibly be performed? How are you supposed to, for instance, measure the sincerity of someone's heart? That would be necessary to test any prayer.

The Scriptures say that our hearts are desperately wicked and unknowable, so you can't even test your own heart, much less someone else's.

You mean that we might not be able to have complete confidence in the things tat we feel?  

If I can't know my heart, how can I know that my feelings of guilt even exist, or that they aren't disguised compulsions to wickedness?

I don't need a god to test this, there are people.