How far reaching are God's powers?

[The Grand Nudger]

You're just asking me the same question in a different way, so let's just rephrase your question: "Can you be held morally responsible for sin if you can't control it?"

Correct, I'm asking one question, have always been asking one question.  I can ask the question in many contexts and with any number of examples - which you are well aware of and have, apparently, understood.

Did he have a choice in being raised by a maniacal father, or being blinded in the first World War? How about his miraculous survival in one particular battle that filled his head with delusions of grandeur? Had these things not happened to him, he almost certainly wouldn't have become a maniac himself.

Do any of us?  Supposing that we don't, can we be held morally responsible?

Do you still hold him accountable, though he had no choice in whom he became? Of course you do, because the man was evil. He committed evil acts and posed an existential threat to humanity. He deserved every bit of his suffering in the end.

No, I don't hold anyone morally responsible for this set of things.  Accidents of history, birth, development or upbringing do not satisfy the traditional requirements of moral desert - which is why I keep asking you how they do in your theory of moral desert.

If someone's daddy beats him like a dog I don't hold him morally responsible for what his father has done to him.  You might, your god might, I don't - and I'm interested in how you hold them responsible.

I think this satisfies the rest of your questions, which are really just different attempts at asking the same thing. Every negative you describe (blindness, pride, etc.) is either punishment for sin or necessary to the fulfillment of God's plan, and is therefore justified, because God's intentions are good and yours evil.

I...do not..care. You don't have to waste any time defending your silly gods garbage system. I'm assuming that your god exists, that your god does all of this shit, and that your god is just....because I don't care. I just want to see -how- this chain of moral desert is described. Assuming all of these things are true then there is, necessarily, just such a description.

[brewer]

Why are you claiming that he can't? What about the will? Why would you assume that he need to do what you ask/want? We all hid stuff from each other, not necessarily because we can't but also because we don't want to for some reason. But sometimes when others do that to us, we forget and start making excuses like this one.

I'm stating that there is no evidence in your claims.

If you need to believe that's up to you. But you've provided nothing that would convince me that god is anything but a convenient mental abstraction.

Don't expect me to validate your belief that a god exists outside of mans imagination based on claims or arguments.

[Sound Of Reason]

I was defining the therm God, not claiming.

For example, I human is whoever has a brain and consciousness, etc...

Is English your second language?

It would be helpful if we know that is the case.

Yes, I've edited my comment.

[arewethereyet]

Is English your second language?

It would be helpful if we know that is the case.

Yes, I've edited my comment.

Thank you.

[Sound Of Reason]

Why are you claiming that he can't? What about the will? Why would you assume that he need to do what you ask/want? We all hid stuff from each other, not necessarily because we can't but also because we don't want to for some reason. But sometimes when others do that to us, we forget and start making excuses like this one.

I'm stating that there is no evidence in your claims.

If you need to believe that's up to you. But you've provided nothing that would convince me that god is anything but a convenient mental abstraction.

Don't expect me to validate your belief that a god exists outside of mans imagination based on claims or arguments.

I didn't say in any of my comments that God exists, I was just describing it. Because I feel like it is misunderstood.
I think it's not necessary to give any evidence for God's existence if you're just describing it.

[brewer]

I didn't say in any of my comments that God exists, I was just describing it. Because I feel like it is misunderstood.
I think it's not necessary to give any evidence for God's existence if you're just describing it.

You claimed god created everything ("God should be only described as whoever created everything") so according to you it must exist.

And you're correct, it is misunderstood. Would you like to know why? Because it's whatever/whoever each individual wants to make up in their imagination.

[The Grand Nudger]

If there were some whatever that created everything, instead of a whoever, would you feel inclined to the same sort of worship?

[Sound Of Reason]

If there were some whatever that created everything, instead of a whoever, would you feel inclined to the same sort of worship?

It's an entity that has created everything. Does that sound more accurate? It doesn't matter, because the language is only for explanation purposes, why would you bring worshiping? Guys, I don't understand which part of I'm just describing the term "God" you didn't understand?

Why do you keep pushing that I'm claiming so you can ask for evidence?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's an entity that has created everything. Does that sound more accurate? It doesn't matter, because the language is only for explanation purposes, why would you bring worshiping? Guys, I don't understand which part of I'm just describing the term "God" you didn't understand?

Why do you keep pushing that I'm claiming so you can ask for evidence?

I'm wondering whether you require whatever created everything to be an entity, a who.

There are entities and there are things. All entities are things but not all things are entities. Suppose that whatever created the universe fell into the latter group - would that disqualify it as a god?

Put another way; if a toaster could create a universe, could it be a god..and if it weren't a god or couldn't be a god even though it created a universe....... is whatever "x" that created the universe really what we're talking about when we talk about a god?

[Sound Of Reason]

It's an entity that has created everything. Does that sound more accurate? It doesn't matter, because the language is only for explanation purposes, why would you bring worshiping? Guys, I don't understand which part of I'm just describing the term "God" you didn't understand?

Why do you keep pushing that I'm claiming so you can ask for evidence?

I'm wondering whether you require whatever created everything to be an entity, a who.

There are entities and there are things.  All entities are things but not all things are entities.  Suppose that whatever created the universe fell into the latter group - would that disqualify it as a god?

It means that it is not a God yet, it's probably just a creation of God that created the universe. The true God invented the "thing" and "entity" in the first place. I called God an entity because I don't know what word to use, I'm using "entity" just for explanation purposes.