Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tackattack]

---

The only thing that's changed about my concept of God since my second baptism is a blossoming of the flower. My understanding has grown, which is change. However down to it's roots it's the same concept of God any Christian I've spoken with agrees with. I'm not changing the rules to suit the discussion nor has my definitions changed, even over the course of me being here.

You are moving the goal posts during the game. Isn't that a convenient sentence in there: "any Christian I've spoken with" (underling by me). The underlined part makes it unverifiable for others.

Fact is that many christian believers take literal parts of the bible that you don't when it suits you. You are redefining god under our very eyes here. There is no definition given in advance we can evaulate it against.

I've never said God is unevidenced in every aspect. God reveals himself, and I've seen the subjective evidence of personal experience.

Redefining terms here. Subjective evidence is no evidence since it cannot be shared. So moving a goal post there.

Simply because you don't have any reason to believe and can't accept or understand the ideas and concepts put before you doesn't mean I'm playing any games, changing any definitions or not sincere in my belief.

I am not stating that my non-belief implies that you are playing games, that's just ridiculous.
I don't doubt your sincerity of belief, but belief requires an unevidenced disposition that pollutes the mind.

Try addressing the points next time or at least staying on topic, I know you can. We've had decent conversations before.

Don't try that one on me again. The point I've made is so on subject because we need a stable definition up front of "God" and "superior being" to be able to address and evaluate it.

Don't shy away now, I leave open the possibility that you might one day be able to consistent and coherent formulation of these concepts even if you haven't done so before.

---

1- All I have to go off of is what I've observed for myself. I think I defined God here fairly specifically. Do I think every Chrsitian will agree to at a minimum the cited? No, but I think it'd be a percentile in the nineties. I only assume that because no one's done the study and from my observations I've yet to meet any Christian in the disagreeing percentile. This definition hasn't changed since I've been a Christian and it is verifiable, go ask someone claiming to be a Christian. I'm not redefining, playing with words or moving any goal posts.

2-Regardless of how you feel about it, subjective evidence is evidence by it's very definition. My evidence may not be usefull to your truth, but truth is subjective for us I think. That doesn't mean you couldn't find similar evidence of your own; then, what seems like confirmation bias from your current perspective would be corroboration of subjective truth leading to a universal truth concept.

3- I have done so before and will continue to do it as long as I have the energy. I've also listed why I believe in God and my subjective evidence for him multiple times. It either kills the thread, gets into a semantics battle or gets derailed. So when asked and I have the energy I'm always happy to answer ny question.

---

1-I define time as webster does "the point or period when something occur".

So this earlier claim that "God's love will last so long as time exists" was just you being poetic? >.> Not trying to insinuate that was your argument but if you actually were figuratively-speaking and the statement was merely symbolic, you could have saved us a lot of time by clarifying that at the beginning.

2- I would say when God ineracts with this universe, he is subject to the laws he reated in this universe. The miraculous may occur because of a lack of our understanding of the nature of this universe. I would say in the instant of his interaction he uses the established laws/axioms to instruct, guide and interact with us. For instance, when his actions interfered with this universe it would be marked at a certain time in a certain way, and thus for that instant would he be both in his nature and measurable within the confines of the universe. Just because you have power or control over a concept such as time, doesn't mean you can't use that concept.

If he is subject to the laws of physics, thermodynamics, and so on, how can he possibly be their originator or first-cause? This isn't the same concept of the Christian God you were arguing for earlier on. Your religion does not assert God as some finite anthropomorphic entity who stumbled upon the universe and manipulated it until it resembled the current one we inhabit - it's quite specific on God as Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the infinite immeasurable moves-in-mysterious-ways creator. Even I know of that concept, I just don't think its remotely real or has any foundation in reality.

3-Why does everyone assert that I haven't read the Bible? I'm aware of revelations take on hell, which isn't supported by the other books, but we'll say I completely agree wih it 100%.
a)It says the second death is absolute oblivion though destruction in a lake of eternal fire. The torment is not eternal, the fire is. At loosest it's a metaphor for God's hatred of sin. The rest of the Bible's book that speak of the second death aren't focused on the lake, and are much more explicative as to even say oblivion. That's non-existence, not a forever amount of torture.

Not trying to be rude, but that's because you were demonstrating your inaccurate understanding of the holy text and scriptures.

And looking at the points made I'm disappointed you back-peddled to beliefs within Annihilationism, refuted by Biblical text, in a desperate bid to defend your God-concept's overbearing monstrosity.

Sin isn't a thing, it's a label used for immoral acts that go against God's will, as if he's 'moral', or fall short of his "perfection", hardly worth burning someone forever over, the tormentor being an evil ego-manic not withstanding. And you think he doesn't torment us for eternity, but destroys us instead for eternity. How delightful. Referring to the fire tetrahedron, there is no fire without fuel, without combustible material (sinners). If we, the object of God's temper-tantrum, are supposedly destroyed rather than tormented forever then how can God still be wrathful? What is the object of his wrath Tack?

b) Again the point I'm making is in the immediate aftermath of death the Bible is ambiguous as to when and where you go, just that eventually a judgement day will come where you are either in the book or not and could be made to die a second time.

No sir, it is anything but vague on what happens to the unrepentant.

Answer the question: Do you think I've done anything that deserves me being forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent eternal second death in the Lake of Fire? Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just?

---

1- No it wasn't being poetic. Our perception of God's Love willl last as long as we can perceive time, simple as that. I wouldn't know how to wrap my head around how to percieve something like eing love without the ability to perceive.

2-I hate reusing old analogies but, can't the creator of the cuckoo clock claim creation over his work? When he has to reach inside and fix a gear is he not then confined to the constraints inside the clock when working on it? When he's done fixing it is he confined by the clock at all? It is the same concept I've been talking about all along. God is omnipotent in relation to the confines of our universe, only in that he wouldn't willfully destroy wholly what he's created not that he is lacking in power.

3- I didn't know I was back peddaling to Annihilationism, I thought I as talking aboutit the whole time. I don't feel Annihilationism is refuted by any scripture and I would say I'm a subscriber to that philosophy. Ultimately the wages of sin is death. Be it quick, painful, once or twice, oblivion I feel is an appropriate punishment. I don't see why if you expect nothing from death as an atheist and end up nothing there's such a big deal which was my overal point. I didn't say you were fuel for God's wrath as you have it. Firstly, I don't believe in eternal torment, but I do believe in hell as a place separate from God and built for the fallen. Secondly I think wrathfullnes isn't a trait I see in God so I don't attribute it as any more than man's personifications. Lastly, To answer your question, if God were wrathful the object of his wrath would be the sin, not his creation.

4-I'm not saying what happens on the day of judgment isn't clear on what happens to the unrepennant. It is clear on that. I don't assume that once we die it's immediately to the judgement. Judgement day, as you reference, is a set time in the future when Jesus comes to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I'm speaking about personally and in the now, the Bible is unclear, as to the specifics of exactly happens. If I'm wrong please site your references.

Answer to: Do you think I've done anything that deserves me being forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent eternal second death in the Lake of Fire?
Assuming you've :
a) lived a decent life, harmed few, kept a moral compass not depraved
b) refuse to acknowledge Jesus as your savior, despite being given the message
c) your second death wasn't eternal
Then biblically you've probably done enough for that.

ANswer to: Do you think that infinite punishment for finite crime is just? No, but the fire of hell consumes to oblivion, therefore not eternal. While the fire may be eternal the torment isn't, I don't think I've gotten that across to you clearly yet.