Evidence for God being "a superior being" ?

[tavarish]

So sorry if my opinions offend you tav..... so I am to stop voicing my opinions because they offend you??

It's not an opinion when you're shoving beliefs down his throat or when you're saying "What the fuck are you teaching your kids?"

That's none of your damn business, just like it would be none of his business if he asked you that. It's the same type of crap you abhor in theists, and you somehow have the audacity to still call the kettle black under the guise of personal opinion.

[Purple Rabbit]

It's not an opinion when you're shoving beliefs down his throat or when you're saying "What the fuck are you teaching your kids?"

That's none of your damn business, just like it would be none of his business if he asked you that. It's the same type of crap you abhor in theists, and you somehow have the audacity to still call the kettle black under the guise of personal opinion.

Sorry to disagree but there is no limitless natural right to own and shape the minds of children just because of blood lines or parenthood. IMO Kids are not the physical property of parents, meaning that there is a limit to what we can allow parents to do to their kids. This includes the things which with we fiill the heads of kids. Kids as "adults under construction" should have the right to get an education that fully prepares 'm for adult responsibilities in society and that enables them as much as possible for independent critical examination of adult questions and notions. Parents can and must be complaisant on those issues.

So, though I think you're right in saying that critique must not lead to undiluded preaching, I also think that education is an issue that isn't free from outside scrutiny.

[Welsh cake]

Ok the scipture doesn't say UNconditional. I'll stop calling it that if it sounds better to atheists. God's love is only conditional on it's acceptance. It also doesn't end upon refusal, it's as everlasting and patient as God is.

Thank you for being honest with me here; now that we've addressed that issue at least we can make some progress.

And if God's love doesn't end upon refusal then you need to look up Universalism because that's what you're currently advocating.

human love is mercurial because human emotion is erratic and that is life on Earth. But if God's nature is loveeeee, if he's an absolute why would we expect it to be mercurial? IMO it isn't.

Are you implying God's character is immutable? This argument is unattainable though, because the scriptures preach God has a thought-process which in the Bible is evidently capable of change, like making decisions and plans for example, or getting angry, forgiving and so on. Human emotions in reality have the potential to be erratic and unpredictable, of course, but I fear you're generalising a bit by summarizing up people's devotion as "mercurial" every time. This unwittingly puts you in an awkward position in any case because then your love as a theist to your God-concept is nothing but mercurial also. What about all those couples you read up in news tabloids who've only been married together for the majority of their entire lives? That display of dedication is nothing to sneeze at. Surely then you'd accept there are indeed notable exceptions in life and human love isn't all that fickle?

Love always perseveres.. that's scriptural. I'll rphrase so as not to use absolutist language. As long as time exists God's love will persevere.

Beg pardon? We were talking about eternity as a concept and God now exists within time? I thought you interpreted him as 'eternal' therefore not subject to the laws of physics. Time isn't even an event or entity as such. Are you speaking about the quantitative measuring system in the metaphorical sense or describing it in the philosophical context? What is your viewpoint Tack? That time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe? Do you share the speculative theories that it's a fifth dimension in which events occur in sequence? Or do think Gottfried Leibniz's traditionist viewpoint is more accurate? Please clarify. Is God inside or outside time or neither?

That statement is based off of you stating you live in a state of separation of God. Feel free to rephrase and I'll retract it. If you live in a state separated from God then you're living conscious of God and just in denial of him and living contrary to him, IMO. If this wasn't your intent by this statement (because this isn't an agnostic or weak athesitic stantpoint) then feel free to rephrase. It wasn't erroneous on my part as an assertion, just an observation.

No sir, you are yet again asserting I know there's a magical cosmos creator and am actively denying its existence to propagate some kind of hidden atheist-agenda regardless there's a lack of empirical evidence. I don't claim to know that at all and I think its absurd you claim I do. I apologise in advance, but you are spouting quite an arseload of conspiracist nonsense! I appreciate that it is your perspective or take on the demography, but you are fundamentally incorrect - atheism is not just a rejection of theistic claims, synonymous with strong atheism, it is also a lack of belief in gods, that's not the same thing as living in opposition to God, Jesus, holiness or the divine. You are ignorantly confusing and associating Atheism with Misotheism, Antitheism and Maltheism.

Do I think you deserve oblivion for cherishing this one life, knowing the possibility of God existing, being confronted with God in the afterlife and denying him.. yes I think oblivion is just. If you're only interested in this life and that's all you get when the chips are down I don't see the big deal.

It was rhetorical question and I wasn't even addressing the afterlife.

You speak of second chances? This isn't Mormon theology. I'm not a "son of perdition" here. It is considered Christian doctrine that after this life, this 'opportunity by God's grace' as it where, there is a first resurrection and then the White Throne Judgment to follow. That's the problem: you can't convert once you're dead because it's supposedly too late. If your name's not in the Book of Life you're fucked quite frankly. According to what Christians profess you're judged on what faith/works you accomplish in this life. At any rate you have to prove there's an afterlife first Tack.

You think I deserve to be forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent second death?

Wow Tack, just wow, your make-believe god is a colossal dick whichever way you look at it.

This one I do apologize for. It's not typically in what I've seen of your posts to be "spitting bile" I took "what are you fasting" as an attack rather than a joke bcause I was in some real and serious pain. I took too much offence and shouldn't have resorted to anyhting like what I did, so please accept my apologies for that one, it sometimes gets tiring when you expect an attack at every post.

I was just asking how are you, that's all, because when I used to believe in God I once fasted to the point where I made myself ill and was simply concerned about your health. I maybe going to 'oblivion' (in your opinion) but that still doesn't change the fact that I care about my fellow human beings.

[tackattack]

@tav- Thanks but I came here fully aware that there were atheists that weren't going to welcome an open discussion, or at least one not tainted with distain. She's fully entitled to her opinion and I'll address her "points" now that I have time.

---

No love between humans is mercurial.

I am sure your wife and children will be so pleased to hear that.

I can't see any instance for not loving my wife, aside from her absolutely changing everything I know about her in one foul swoop and being someone else.

So you are totally opposed to change....

I'm quite aware that with my wife's mother's history if I ever cheated on her she'd probably divorce me and love me less at the least.

And now you fear....

You stated human love isn't mercural then followed with a sentence stating things change constantly it's the way the universe works.. I think I'm with the program.. are you?

Oh yes more so than you my friend.......you fear the loss of the affection of a biped you are fond of. The fact that you both have mated and produced offspring as per the biological imperative is also another point of loss for you ....Yes the universe is constantly changing and everything in it ...why do you desperately NEED the "love" of an imagined 'sky daddy' to keep you stable?? Are you so inept that you are unable to stand alone in this universe and live?? Are you of such inadequate character that you can not come home at night and know that tomorrow "all this may be gone" "I will be alone" "but that's OK" Cos "I will be OK"

You do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand or fall on your own???

What the fuck are you teaching your children???

---

1-I love change, it's an integral part of life and it adds flavor to the humdrum. I was speaking of her becoming the complete opposite of who I married. I welcome her to change and better herself, just as she has made me better. We're about to celebrate our anniversary and just yesterday we celebrated how much we've changed and grown together and as individuals.
2-A much as you'd like to believe is, I don't live in fear of my wife leaving me. I was simply restating words she's shared with me about our love. I don't not cheat on my wife because if I did she'd leave me, I don't cheat on my wife because I love her more than any woman beside my mother. In fact I like to keep a healthy dose of change and spontenaity in my life to avert living in fear and trepidation. I've tried living in fear and hopelessness, and it's not to my liking. That's not to say I don't have fears, just that I don't let them control my life.
3-You try and come off as absent from emotion yet spit bile like a cobra at the drop of a sentence. I don't need the love of a sky daddy, but I 'm happy to recieve it where I see it. Nor do I let the want of love or the fear of loss rule anything in my life. I can certainly stand on my own, and am aware that tomorrow it could all be gone. I'm quite fine with that, I'd miss those I care deeply about but we have lived a strong love and lived a good life.
4-Seeing as somewhere you've said you have kids I'm surprised you would go so far as to attack my parenting and my children. I teach my children that people who spew hatred and dissent out of there mouth aren't conducive to living a happy and harmonious life, but they are a part of it. I also teach them that everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if that means their opinion is mallicious and hurtfull, just not to take it personal. I've gotten into this once before with you. You're obviously just trying to goad me into a fight or to leave. While attacking my family was a much beter attempt than attacking my own intestinal fortitude, you'll have to ask me to leave if that's your intent. I'll stop there.

---

Ok the scipture doesn't say UNconditional. I'll stop calling it that if it sounds better to atheists. God's love is only conditional on it's acceptance. It also doesn't end upon refusal, it's as everlasting and patient as God is.

Thank you for being honest with me here; now that we've addressed that issue at least we can make some progress.

And if God's love doesn't end upon refusal then you need to look up Universalism because that's what you're currently advocating.

human love is mercurial because human emotion is erratic and that is life on Earth. But if God's nature is loveeeee, if he's an absolute why would we expect it to be mercurial? IMO it isn't.

Are you implying God's character is immutable? This argument is unattainable though, because the scriptures preach God has a thought-process which in the Bible is evidently capable of change, like making decisions and plans for example, or getting angry, forgiving and so on. Human emotions in reality have the potential to be erratic and unpredictable, of course, but I fear you're generalising a bit by summarizing up people's devotion as "mercurial" every time. This unwittingly puts you in an awkward position in any case because then your love as a theist to your God-concept is nothing but mercurial also. What about all those couples you read up in news tabloids who've only been married together for the majority of their entire lives? That display of dedication is nothing to sneeze at. Surely then you'd accept there are indeed notable exceptions in life and human love isn't all that fickle?

Love always perseveres.. that's scriptural. I'll rphrase so as not to use absolutist language. As long as time exists God's love will persevere.

Beg pardon? We were talking about eternity as a concept and God now exists within time? I thought you interpreted him as 'eternal' therefore not subject to the laws of physics. Time isn't even an event or entity as such. Are you speaking about the quantitative measuring system in the metaphorical sense or describing it in the philosophical context? What is your viewpoint Tack? That time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe? Do you share the speculative theories that it's a fifth dimension in which events occur in sequence? Or do think Gottfried Leibniz's traditionist viewpoint is more accurate? Please clarify. Is God inside or outside time or neither?

That statement is based off of you stating you live in a state of separation of God. Feel free to rephrase and I'll retract it. If you live in a state separated from God then you're living conscious of God and just in denial of him and living contrary to him, IMO. If this wasn't your intent by this statement (because this isn't an agnostic or weak athesitic stantpoint) then feel free to rephrase. It wasn't erroneous on my part as an assertion, just an observation.

No sir, you are yet again asserting I know there's a magical cosmos creator and am actively denying its existence to propagate some kind of hidden atheist-agenda regardless there's a lack of empirical evidence. I don't claim to know that at all and I think its absurd you claim I do. I apologise in advance, but you are spouting quite an arseload of conspiracist nonsense! I appreciate that it is your perspective or take on the demography, but you are fundamentally incorrect - atheism is not just a rejection of theistic claims, synonymous with strong atheism, it is also a lack of belief in gods, that's not the same thing as living in opposition to God, Jesus, holiness or the divine. You are ignorantly confusing and associating Atheism with Misotheism, Antitheism and Maltheism.

Do I think you deserve oblivion for cherishing this one life, knowing the possibility of God existing, being confronted with God in the afterlife and denying him.. yes I think oblivion is just. If you're only interested in this life and that's all you get when the chips are down I don't see the big deal.

It was rhetorical question and I wasn't even addressing the afterlife.

You speak of second chances? This isn't Mormon theology. I'm not a "son of perdition" here. It is considered Christian doctrine that after this life, this 'opportunity by God's grace' as it where, there is a first resurrection and then the White Throne Judgment to follow. That's the problem: you can't convert once you're dead because it's supposedly too late. If your name's not in the Book of Life you're fucked quite frankly. According to what Christians profess you're judged on what faith/works you accomplish in this life. At any rate you have to prove there's an afterlife first Tack.

You think I deserve to be forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent second death?

Wow Tack, just wow, your make-believe god is a colossal dick whichever way you look at it.

This one I do apologize for. It's not typically in what I've seen of your posts to be "spitting bile" I took "what are you fasting" as an attack rather than a joke bcause I was in some real and serious pain. I took too much offence and shouldn't have resorted to anyhting like what I did, so please accept my apologies for that one, it sometimes gets tiring when you expect an attack at every post.

I was just asking how are you, that's all, because when I used to believe in God I once fasted to the point where I made myself ill and was simply concerned about your health. I maybe going to 'oblivion' (in your opinion) but that still doesn't change the fact that I care about my fellow human beings.

---

1- I'm farmiliar with universalism. Most non-denominational churches I've been to have a watered down version of universalism. Usually all of the tenants except universal reconciliation are accepted.
2-Perhaps mercurial has too strong of a connotation to use effectively here. I love my wife with all my heart and couldn't think of any reasonable reason to leave her. However I can't say that I would never leave her. If she attempted to kill my kids and I I would probably leave, get her help and even may still love here if only slightly less. My point in the use of mercurial was that emotions are based off of very subjective perceptions and therefore mutable. Some emotions change quickly and some people love for a lifetime. Yes, that also includes my love for God. I'm speaking of the characteristic of god's love and yes I feel that's immutable from our perspective.
3-Time, ok.. God is outside time. His actions where they interact in this universe are then perceptable to us and therefore exist in that instant and therefore in spacetime. Is that clearer? God's love would be eternal, but our perception of that love can only exist as long as we can perceive.
4-If I misinterpreted your words then I apologize. You stated that I should appreciate you live in a state of seperation from God. That requires that a) you have an idea of God's existence and b) you actively choose to live seperate from that concept. To me I read that as you understand the existence of God and then actively choose to seperate yourself from that. I hold no conspiracy theories as to atheist plots and such. This was simply how I interpreted your stance and only related to you and not athesits in general. If it was wrong I think you've clarified that and it serves no purpose to continue going over it again.
5- "According to what Christians profess you're judged on what faith/works you accomplish in this life" That's only for your heavenly rewards. You're talking about either getting into heaven or stuck in hell. That's not based on works, and thats conerstone to Christianity.
6-You think I deserve to be forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent second death? No, nor did I ever state that. If you don't have a second life through Christ, then I don't see him bringing you back from oblivion just to sent you back.

If you were just being kind about it I do apologize, I was in quite a bit of pain and I expect attacks when I'm here. I do not fast typically. No would I ever do so to the detriment of my health.


@PR- I do agre that parenting has a social aspect to it where other parents should be looking out for all children. I feel that same protecting insticnton the playground watching other kids. However, with KN's track record I feel it was more a personal attack than actual concern, which I believe was the point.

[KichigaiNeko]

@tav- Thanks but I came here fully aware that there were atheists that weren't going to welcome an open discussion, or at least one not tainted with distain. She's fully entitled to her opinion and I'll address her "points" now that I have time.

1-I love change, it's an integral part of life and it adds flavor to the humdrum. I was speaking of her becoming the complete opposite of who I married. I welcome her to change and better herself, just as she has made me better. We're about to celebrate our anniversary and just yesterday we celebrated how much we've changed and grown together and as individuals.
2-A much as you'd like to believe is, I don't live in fear of my wife leaving me. I was simply restating words she's shared with me about our love. I don't not cheat on my wife because if I did she'd leave me, I don't cheat on my wife because I love her more than any woman beside my mother. In fact I like to keep a healthy dose of change and spontenaity in my life to avert living in fear and trepidation. I've tried living in fear and hopelessness, and it's not to my liking. That's not to say I don't have fears, just that I don't let them control my life.
3-You try and come off as absent from emotion yet spit bile like a cobra at the drop of a sentence. I don't need the love of a sky daddy, but I 'm happy to recieve it where I see it. Nor do I let the want of love or the fear of loss rule anything in my life. I can certainly stand on my own, and am aware that tomorrow it could all be gone. I'm quite fine with that, I'd miss those I care deeply about but we have lived a strong love and lived a good life.
4-Seeing as somewhere you've said you have kids I'm surprised you would go so far as to attack my parenting and my children. I teach my children that people who spew hatred and dissent out of there mouth aren't conducive to living a happy and harmonious life, but they are a part of it. I also teach them that everyone's entitled to an opinion, even if that means their opinion is mallicious and hurtfull, just not to take it personal. I've gotten into this once before with you. You're obviously just trying to goad me into a fight or to leave. While attacking my family was a much beter attempt than attacking my own intestinal fortitude, you'll have to ask me to leave if that's your intent. I'll stop there.

Thank you Tacky for the clarification but I am still rather confused with your statements....so it must be.

Also ...apologies I do not answer PMs. Like you I get a bit busy at times

[tackattack]

If there's something you're specifically confused about please specify and I'll be glad to clarify further if you would like.

[Welsh cake]

1- I'm farmiliar with universalism. Most non-denominational churches I've been to have a watered down version of universalism. Usually all of the tenants except universal reconciliation are accepted.

Why I mentioned Universalism at all was because you were constantly emphasizing this unconditional "Love of God", and I was questioning your apparent heterodoxy. I'm aware this isn't mutually exclusively from what Christianity advocates but is more so the core theological belief that a Universalist preaches regarding their concept of God.

2-Perhaps mercurial has too strong of a connotation to use effectively here.

Agreed, let's get back to addressing the God concept's attributes and supposed superior morality.

3-Time, ok.. God is outside time. His actions where they interact in this universe are then perceptable to us and therefore exist in that instant and therefore in spacetime. Is that clearer? God's love would be eternal, but our perception of that love can only exist as long as we can perceive.

This depends on how you define "time". Logically we must define this God concept before discussing its apparent emotions and intelligence any further. How is God, as an entity, physically outside space-time dimensions and yet can still interact and manifest itself in ours without being subject to the laws of physics as well? How can God do anything in a chronological order without being subject to spacetime himself?

4-If I misinterpreted your words then I apologize. You stated that I should appreciate you live in a state of seperation from God. That requires that a) you have an idea of God's existence and b) you actively choose to live seperate from that concept. To me I read that as you understand the existence of God and then actively choose to seperate yourself from that. I hold no conspiracy theories as to atheist plots and such. This was simply how I interpreted your stance and only related to you and not athesits in general. If it was wrong I think you've clarified that and it serves no purpose to continue going over it again.

I was responding to your premise, and pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument when you asserted rejecting God's love results in consequences, that ultimately lead to separation from him, which is of no consequence, since there is no God manifesting himself in our lives, or at least my life. It's as absurdly irrational as threatening people if they don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster their third eye will be starved of spiritual nourishment, and then vanish into thin air.

6-You think I deserve to be forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent second death? No, nor did I ever state that. If you don't have a second life through Christ, then I don't see him bringing you back from oblivion just to sent you back.

Again, please read your Bible before making assertions about what it preaches, its quite clear that sinners die a second death at the hands of your god concept for simply not believing in him. They haven't attacked god or harmed him, indeed by your definition, they can't do anything to god, yet this omnibenevolent deity loves us so much he destroys us utterly.

[tackattack]

---

1- I'm farmiliar with universalism. Most non-denominational churches I've been to have a watered down version of universalism. Usually all of the tenants except universal reconciliation are accepted.

Why I mentioned Universalism at all was because you were constantly emphasizing this unconditional "Love of God", and I was questioning your apparent heterodoxy. I'm aware this isn't mutually exclusively from what Christianity advocates but is more so the core theological belief that a Universalist preaches regarding their concept of God.

2-Perhaps mercurial has too strong of a connotation to use effectively here.

Agreed, let's get back to addressing the God concept's attributes and supposed superior morality.

3-Time, ok.. God is outside time. His actions where they interact in this universe are then perceptable to us and therefore exist in that instant and therefore in spacetime. Is that clearer? God's love would be eternal, but our perception of that love can only exist as long as we can perceive.

This depends on how you define "time". Logically we must define this God concept before discussing its apparent emotions and intelligence any further. How is God, as an entity, physically outside space-time dimensions and yet can still interact and manifest itself in ours without being subject to the laws of physics as well? How can God do anything in a chronological order without being subject to spacetime himself?

4-If I misinterpreted your words then I apologize. You stated that I should appreciate you live in a state of seperation from God. That requires that a) you have an idea of God's existence and b) you actively choose to live seperate from that concept. To me I read that as you understand the existence of God and then actively choose to seperate yourself from that. I hold no conspiracy theories as to atheist plots and such. This was simply how I interpreted your stance and only related to you and not athesits in general. If it was wrong I think you've clarified that and it serves no purpose to continue going over it again.

I was responding to your premise, and pointing out the obvious flaw in your argument when you asserted rejecting God's love results in consequences, that ultimately lead to separation from him, which is of no consequence, since there is no God manifesting himself in our lives, or at least my life. It's as absurdly irrational as threatening people if they don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster their third eye will be starved of spiritual nourishment, and then vanish into thin air.

6-You think I deserve to be forcibly brought back to life by your God-concept only to suffer a no-doubt fairly violent second death? No, nor did I ever state that. If you don't have a second life through Christ, then I don't see him bringing you back from oblivion just to sent you back.

Again, please read your Bible before making assertions about what it preaches, its quite clear that sinners die a second death at the hands of your god concept for simply not believing in him. They haven't attacked god or harmed him, indeed by your definition, they can't do anything to god, yet this omnibenevolent deity loves us so much he destroys us utterly.

---

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

[Purple Rabbit]

Isn't this a silly game? To remodel over and over a god from the scraps of reason. To stuff a god with the gaps of knowledge. To make it into a fully unevidenced cafetariamodel . Plug in something here, keave out something there. Tell me what do adult people do with their constructed transformer gods at the end of the day? Just throw it into a corner like a toy?

[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. I've never said God is unevidenced in every aspect. God reveals himself, and I've seen the subjective evidence of personal experience. 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. Try addressing the points next time or at least staying on topic, I know you can. We've had decent conversations before.