How far reaching are God's powers?

[Mister Agenda]

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?

Like Vishnu, his followers claim he's real and all they have to back it up are scriptures and anecdotes. Who cares about his law if he's not real in the first place? His (or his writers) supposed laws can stand or fall on their own merits, like anyone else's. Not all theistic religions can be true in their theology because they often contradict each other, but they CAN all be false.

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe that our friend Miles acknowledged the possibility that human institutions are corrupt. That would be another point of initial agreement that could be built on, and perhaps it would help to get our friend out of his funk where he imagines that criticism of his beliefs, about, say, moral responsibility...for example.....which may be the products of a corrupt human institution..and wrong...from criticism of whatever real god really exists and is true...true..true true true.

[MilesAbbott81]

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.

---

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.

There was nothing in the post you mocked that was deliberately insulting or denigrating, as far as I know. Maybe I'm wrong. What I know, however, is that people on this forum are constantly insulting and denigrating Christians for having views that question popular scientific theories, and are relentlessly mocked, so I have no problem whatsoever in being "brutally" honest here.

You took offense because you disagree, and I tell you that your disagreement isn't actually with me, but with God.

Give me a break on the whole assertion thing. Every argument on here begins as an assertion. I've made assertions backed up with logic and/or Scriptures (necessary for religious discussions), you've simply mocked me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you are wrong, this is turning out to be a great morning - yet another point of initial agreement.

Could you back up the assertion that moral incompetents can be morally responsible, with logic...you can keep the scripture, I don't care? Can I get an eta on that?

[MilesAbbott81]

Like Vishnu, his followers claim he's real and all they have to back it up are scriptures and anecdotes. Who cares about his law if he's not real in the first place? His (or his writers) supposed laws can stand or fall on their own merits, like anyone else's. Not all theistic religions can be true in their theology because they often contradict each other, but they CAN all be false.

Well, since we're in the "Christian" section of this forum, perhaps it would make sense for you to discuss the Christian God and not Vishnu.

If you don't believe in His existence and have no interest in discussing even His theoretical existence, then maybe you should relegate your participation to other forums.

[HappySkeptic]

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.

Imagine that I set up a test of prayer, in a way that isn't known to the participants.  Their own hearts may or not be pure, but it isn't dependent on me doing the test.  As long as some of them have a pure heart, prayer must have an effect or the hypothesis of prayer is false.

Now, if God realizes that I'm performing a test, and ignores the prayers of people with honest hearts, what sort of god is that?

What is more likely -- that God purposefully acts to make sure there is no evidence of His actions, or that there is no evidence because no such actions have taken place?

Everyone that believes in an active God has an theory for how God works in the world.  But almost none bother to check if their theory is already invalidated by the existing evidence.  Those that realize that prayer or faith or good-living doesn't stop tragedy come up with all sorts of excuses like "God works in mysterious ways".

That's why I find that most zealots tend to be young or new believers. Those who have had a life of experience have evidence that good and bad happens to everyone regardless of faith or goodness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Relegate his participation to other forums?

Said the man who joined a discussion board to aggressively not answer a question.

MA is a fixture here, you're just some random evangelist who doesn't understand and can't explain his own beliefs. Maybe you should relegate your participation to other forums...forums where you can answer simple questions bout the things you claim to believe?

[MilesAbbott81]

Maybe you are wrong, this is turning out to be a great morning - yet another point of initial agreement.

Could you back up the assertion that moral incompetents can be morally responsible, with logic...you can keep the scripture, I don't care?  Can I get an eta on that?

How about "been there, done that" for an eta? Take your apparent frustration elsewhere, because I have no interest in repeating myself yet again.

[Angrboda]

. . . . .

I have two questions for you Miles:

1) Has God ever caused suffering for someone who, not having free will, committed sin?

2) If you were wrong in your thinking about God, how would you discover and determine that you were wrong?

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe you are wrong, this is turning out to be a great morning - yet another point of initial agreement.

Could you back up the assertion that moral incompetents can be morally responsible, with logic...you can keep the scripture, I don't care?  Can I get an eta on that?

How about "been there, done that" for an eta? Take your apparent frustration elsewhere, because I have no interest in repeating myself yet again.

I must have missed it, go ahead and toss me a quote from the response where you explained how a moral incompetent can be morally responsible.

You wouldn't lie to us, now would you? Is lying an act with moral import that you can be held accountable for? Is god in that business? Does your god hold liars to account? How about that, I know you like to tell us about god.

Maybe tell us what god thinks of a liar?