thanks, god.

[LukeMC]

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

Eh?
- People claim God spared their lives
- If so, God must have made a decision to spare them
- If God decided to spare some people, he had an active role in choosing who
- God is powerful enough to successfully save whoever he chooses (christian assumption)
- Some people died
- God chose not to save some people

Highlight the superstition please, fr0d0. Sometimes I really don't know what goes through your mind when you make posts... =p

What you're really saying is: "The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen ...and I'm sad as a human at the sad stuff". I think that's all you can rationally say. God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

I'll break this one down too then, stating any assumptions.

- God created the universe [christian assumption]
- God is all-powerful [christian assumption]
- God is all-knowing [christian assumption]
- God created the universe how he wanted with full knowledge of the consequences including all of the evils
- God is responsible for the evils in the world.

You can only get out of this by altering your christian assumptions. Even so, you lose at the first premise. Why?

- God created the universe
- There is evil in the universe
- God created the evil in the universe
OR
- God created a universe in which evil would come to exist and God knew this, therefore he is responsible as he planned for this evil to come about.

You haven't even made an attempt at justifying your side of this debate. You just keep dismissing my points or making feeble comments which contribute nothing to the discussion, such as:

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

I assumed the position of those stating God had an active role in their survival. Your response doesn't fit my post.

God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

You haven't displayed to me how God is all good, only said that God has nothing to do with disaster- without justification of any form. Then you say I don't define God accurately enough, but you give no accurate definition of your own to show what I should be saying. You leave the debate criteria vague, giving you opportunity to move the goal posts if I do get close to an accurate definition.

I think you can't have it both ways. Either you're a miserable git because shit happens, or you're a happy camper accepting that the universe is beautiful.

Nice conversing with you :Wink:

This was an upsetting response. I attempted to articulate how God can be seen as the cause of evils and instead of countering my claim you presented a false dichotomy which if accepted, has nothing to say about the nature of God or the debate we're having. If I accept that you can be happy that the universe is beautiful, this doesn't make God less evil, more evil, the colour pink or similar to the shape of a unicorn. It just means I accept that the universe is beautiful.

You next sentence is in a style that implies the debate has reached its end. It hasn't- you haven't shown your point to hold true yet.

Hard for God to do yet possible for chance? That doesn't work. But I think we're both talking about the same thing. For this physical universe to be what it is, those things you describe as horrific have to be a part. Given other permutations: other outcomes would result. Would they be less or more horrific? I don't agree with the notion that God should have made a cotton candy world where everything would be nicey nicey and sadness wouldn't exist. To me that would be the grotesque reality over this one.

*Strawman argument
*Pointless tautology
*This is besides the point and does not strengthen your argument

In the context of our debate, each example I've quoted is a complete dodge of the main topic.

You also make statements such as:

If God created this existence then he's responsible for the natural laws that sustain it and play out throughout time. In this scenario God is ambivalent.

This statement simply refutes your main premise! If God is even capable of experiencing ambivalence he is not all good! I then go on to tackle your "he's responsbile for the natural laws" statement by talking about his plan, his omniscience, etc, and how responsibility STILL lies with God. And your response?

It's an altogether different level of responsibility though isn't it. I think it's in line with nature's responsibility for the weather.

Any level of responsibility is still responsibility- but God's level is HIGH. He made the game and the rules, he knew the outcome and he watched it happen. In and of itself, the weather comparison is a bad comparison. I explained why it is a bad comparion and you simply replied by saying God put in the ingredients and let things go. This was void of critical analysis, because if God put in the ingredients and let things go, but KNEW what would happen (om-ni-sci-ence) then he was again responsible for the many evils.

As is evident, you are yet to provide any form of logical deduction of God being "all good". The exchange has been pretty fun, but you've used some weak arguments, fell to fallacious means and tried my patience a great deal by defending your point so badly and with so little effort to address what I was saying.

So fr0d0, for the nth time, refute my points.

God created the universe
God created the universe exactly the way he wanted to
God knows everything that will happen as a result of his creation
God knew that he would kill millions of people in various painful ways
God decided to go ahead with the plan
God is responsible for suffering- he caused it
God is capable of evil
God is not all good

Please, show me where my arguments fails and present me with a sound, logical decuction showing God to be all good.

Thankyou.

[bozo]

but but but... no!

The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen. I'd be happy to say God is great for making the universe beautiful, but I'd also be very angry at him for purposefully taking away so many innocent lives in such cruel ways! Come on fr0d0, you know you want to agree with me here God is clearly not all good. He's responsible for some sheer carnage and he justifies it through beauty and fullness. No human being can get away with artistic murder- it isn't justified. Either God is indifferent to morals or God consider some evils to be justified.

I think we absolutely agree LukeMC. Your first line is perfect. The rest I think you seek to attribute too much to God. I don't think it can apply.

What you're really saying is: "The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen ...and I'm sad as a human at the sad stuff". I think that's all you can rationally say. God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

---

Do you think this person really meant "thankyou God for killing everybody"? IMO all she was trying to say was that she was glad to be alive. Being 'thankful'; 'grateful' etc is what people say to express that. It's pretty meaningless.

Frodo, I disagree. Unfortunately for us atheists, lots of stuff from religion has become everyday speech. Saying " thank god " for all sorts of minor things is such an example. The case of surviving a natural disaster is something quite different, yet a recurring thing is for survivors to " give thanks to god " for saving them.
So I think this woman was doing just that, not being grateful but actually thanking the fiend that let her live but condemned the others to death.
That's why we're not that fond of god.

If you follow my reasoning tho' bozo, you see that what you're defining as God isn't accurate. You seem to want a scape goat, not reason.

Frodo, I am not attempting to define something that probably doesn't exist, nor am I making an attempt at scapegoating. I am simply pointing out why I for one could not possibly worship something as capricious in nature as the " god " that the people who survive natural disasters are prone to do. Quite straightforward.

[Giff]

God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

How should you be able to define something that doesn't exist?

Why should you comment on it if you don't think it exists? I have faith that it does, therefore I have grounds to explore it.

You're talking about a specific definition of God, and aren't following the reasoning for that definition. Whether it exists or not is besides the point.

I want to comment here. but I rather want to answer it in the "Exictence of God" thread or what it's called.

But what I've heared have all christians have their own definition of God. Some say that's the way it should be, that everyone should make their own defitinition.

Also just believing in something doesn't make it real. If you want to answer this, then make it in the "Existence of God" thread. Otherwie we could go out of topic and start a identical discussion as the one in "Existence of God".

[fr0d0]

Wha?

Blimey LukeMC - I thought we'd finished.

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

Eh?
- People claim God spared their lives
- If so, God must have made a decision to spare them
- If God decided to spare some people, he had an active role in choosing who
- God is powerful enough to successfully save whoever he chooses (christian assumption)
- Some people died
- God chose not to save some people

Highlight the superstition please, fr0d0. Sometimes I really don't know what goes through your mind when you make posts... =p

100% superstition highlighted

The rest is therefore made nonsense

What you're really saying is: "The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen ...and I'm sad as a human at the sad stuff". I think that's all you can rationally say. God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

I'll break this one down too then, stating any assumptions.

- God created the universe [christian assumption]
- God is all-powerful [christian assumption]
- God is all-knowing [christian assumption]
- God created the universe how he wanted with full knowledge of the consequences including all of the evils
- God is responsible for the evils in the world.

You can only get out of this by altering your christian assumptions. Even so, you lose at the first premise. Why?

Suddenly we're winning or losing... ok.

- God created the universe
- There is evil in the universe
- God created the evil in the universe
OR
- God created a universe in which evil would come to exist and God knew this, therefore he is responsible as he planned for this evil to come about.

Yes, God created a universe where the potential of evil exists. this is a given. The bible states it, how could I not accept it.

Stating that God is evil because he created the potential isn't logical. As you yourself accept: "The universe is beautiful (my interpretation anyway) and bad things do happen."

You haven't even made an attempt at justifying your side of this debate. You just keep dismissing my points or making feeble comments which contribute nothing to the discussion, such as:

You're assuming a lot though, and nothing backs up your logic, apart from superstition.

I assumed the position of those stating God had an active role in their survival. Your response doesn't fit my post.

You openly state you don't know what I meant by that, and now you're hanging me with it?

You're annoyed, and unjustifiably so.

God is nothing to do with it. You just don't define God accurately enough.

You haven't displayed to me how God is all good, only said that God has nothing to do with disaster- without justification of any form. Then you say I don't define God accurately enough, but you give no accurate definition of your own to show what I should be saying. You leave the debate criteria vague, giving you opportunity to move the goal posts if I do get close to an accurate definition.

I have justified it logically with you. We've explored it, I thought to the end of your interest. I had to take a couple of days break so I thought you'd be happy to leave it there. No need for the dramatics, it's hardly warranted.

I think you can't have it both ways. Either you're a miserable git because shit happens, or you're a happy camper accepting that the universe is beautiful.

Nice conversing with you :Wink:

This was an upsetting response. I attempted to articulate how God can be seen as the cause of evils and instead of countering my claim you presented a false dichotomy which if accepted, has nothing to say about the nature of God or the debate we're having. If I accept that you can be happy that the universe is beautiful, this doesn't make God less evil, more evil, the colour pink or similar to the shape of a unicorn. It just means I accept that the universe is beautiful.

I'm sorry you were upset. That honestly wasn't my intention. I was going to be away and I thought, possibly wanting conclusion early, although I didn't see that, that you would be happy to conclude. Again, I apologise. I really didn't mean for you to take that the way that you did.

You accept that the Universe is beautiful, & so do I. If God is evil how is that possible? To me we're saying the same thing.

You next sentence is in a style that implies the debate has reached its end. It hasn't- you haven't shown your point to hold true yet.

Hard for God to do yet possible for chance? That doesn't work. But I think we're both talking about the same thing. For this physical universe to be what it is, those things you describe as horrific have to be a part. Given other permutations: other outcomes would result. Would they be less or more horrific? I don't agree with the notion that God should have made a cotton candy world where everything would be nicey nicey and sadness wouldn't exist. To me that would be the grotesque reality over this one.

*Strawman argument
*Pointless tautology
*This is besides the point and does not strengthen your argument

I disagree with your labeling. You're dodging what I said.

In the context of our debate, each example I've quoted is a complete dodge of the main topic.

Not in my mind. I was trying to address you accurately. I'd have no problem re-addressing it.

You also make statements such as:

If God created this existence then he's responsible for the natural laws that sustain it and play out throughout time. In this scenario God is ambivalent.

This statement simply refutes your main premise! If God is even capable of experiencing ambivalence he is not all good!

Maybe so. Maybe it was the wrong term to use. I'm not claiming perfection here.

I then go on to tackle your "he's responsbile for the natural laws" statement by talking about his plan, his omniscience, etc, and how responsibility STILL lies with God. And your response?

It's an altogether different level of responsibility though isn't it. I think it's in line with nature's responsibility for the weather.

Any level of responsibility is still responsibility- but God's level is HIGH. He made the game and the rules, he knew the outcome and he watched it happen. In and of itself, the weather comparison is a bad comparison. I explained why it is a bad comparion and you simply replied by saying God put in the ingredients and let things go. This was void of critical analysis, because if God put in the ingredients and let things go, but KNEW what would happen (om-ni-sci-ence) then he was again responsible for the many evils.

And I say, that what you want to ascribe to God doesn't seem to be correct. You're making up this god to fit a point. I know the argument and it can disappear into irrelevance with neither side winning. It's ultimately pointless. To my mind it's pointless philosophical posturing beyond the bounds of reason. To you it may be entirely different. I'm not saying I refuse to address the subject. Just understand I know where the discussion goes, and it's pointless.

As is evident, you are yet to provide any form of logical deduction of God being "all good". The exchange has been pretty fun, but you've used some weak arguments, fell to fallacious means and tried my patience a great deal by defending your point so badly and with so little effort to address what I was saying.

And the same backatcha.. no need to be so hostile. It's entirely unwarranted.

So fr0d0, for the nth time, refute my points.

God created the universe
God created the universe exactly the way he wanted to
God knows everything that will happen as a result of his creation
God knew that he would kill millions of people in various painful ways
God decided to go ahead with the plan
God is responsible for suffering- he caused it
God is capable of evil
God is not all good

Please, show me where my arguments fails and present me with a sound, logical decuction showing God to be all good.

Thankyou.

I actually think that could help, even though we're covering old ground again.

"God created the universe" - he did? (joke)
"God created the universe exactly the way he wanted to" - ok
"God knows everything that will happen as a result of his creation" - yup
"God knew that he would kill millions of people in various painful ways" - yup, although egostistically emotive and most probably irrelevant
"God decided to go ahead with the plan" - yup, but you're into theory beyond Christianity here
"God is responsible for suffering- he caused it" - nonsense. this doesn't hold up at all, even by your own supposition
"God is capable of evil" - theoretically yes, but as we can understand his nature from the Bible, then no. You are asking me to consider a God outside of my own logical conclusions. Ok for philosophy, invalid for Christianity
"God is not all good" - philosophically yes, Religiously no.

---

Frodo, I am not attempting to define something that probably doesn't exist, nor am I making an attempt at scapegoating. I am simply pointing out why I for one could not possibly worship something as capricious in nature as the " god " that the people who survive natural disasters are prone to do. Quite straightforward.

I say that saying 'thank god' when you survive a disaster is almost certainly superstition and not religion.

[LukeMC]

I was going for the "thorough" look, not hostile. Sorry for the sharpness of the post.

[quote="LukeMC"]
- People claim God spared their lives

100% superstition highlighted[/quote]

I should have been more clear and said I wasn't necessarily talking about this exact issue. But the fact remains, people do give direct thanks to their God for saving their lives and giving them another chance, etc. I'll find some sources to back this up if you choose not to accept it.

And so, with that in mind, the rest of my argument follows again.

If I placed a shrew and a snake, put them in a box with no food and waited for a while, upon coming back I'd likely find the snake has eaten the shrew. If I put them in that box knowing that the snake would eat the shrew and intending for this outcome to happen, I can take responsibility for this.

If I created the snake with all of its instincts and traits, and i created the shrew also and the box, the conditions inside the box, determined their actions to infinite precision and then put them in the box, I have as good as orchestrated the act myself. This is what God has done.


[quote="fr0d0"]
I have justified it logically with you. We've explored it, I thought to the end of your interest.

I don't feel this to be the case. You've only really told me that the bible indicates it. Hardly conclusive. While we've covered an interesting ground, we still haven't concluded the "all good" point.

You accept that the Universe is beautiful, & so do I. If God is evil how is that possible? To me we're saying the same thing.

Volcanoes are beautiful. They also kill people. Beauty and goodness are not one and the same.

I disagree with your labeling. You're dodging what I said.

The labelling is accurate and I already dealt with the post in previous comments, I wasn't going to go over the same ground twice.

"God is responsible for suffering- he caused it" - nonsense. this doesn't hold up at all, even by your own supposition
"God is capable of evil" - theoretically yes, but as we can understand his nature from the Bible, then no. You are asking me to consider a God outside of my own logical conclusions. Ok for philosophy, invalid for Christianity
"God is not all good" - philosophically yes, Religiously no.

---

I've given an explanation of why God is responsible in countless ways now. My most recent being in this post ^

Allowing you to use the bible as evidence is something I can no longer do. The book holds little scientific knowledge but a lot of outdated and demonstrably wrong theories, large portions of bigotry and prejudice, a wide authorship detailing events nobody could possibly have witnessed, a whole bunch of segments removed, edited, translated and reinterpretted, so as a whole, the book is little more than ancient fiction with a few biographical jottings. The book is a bad example of morality (take out your eye, cut off your hand, hate your family- this isn't even the old testament), a bad example of science (fermement, Noah's ark tale, geocentric universe, flat earth), a bad example of biography (how could a biographer of Jesus forget to mention the virgin birth?) and as such is not worthy of being a starting point, basis or premise in any argument about the nature of supernatural deities.

That is all.

[bozo]

Frodo, you used the s word, so SUPERSTITION in my Chambers dictionary is defined as:-

an ignorant and irrational belief in supernational agency, omens, divination, sorcery etc; a deep-rooted but unfounded general belief.

Thus the true believer thanks god for salvation.
And thus the explanation for the existence of religious faith.

[fr0d0]

I was going for the "thorough" look, not hostile. Sorry for the sharpness of the post.

okeydokely :p

If I placed a shrew and a snake, put them in a box with no food and waited for a while, upon coming back I'd likely find the snake has eaten the shrew. If I put them in that box knowing that the snake would eat the shrew and intending for this outcome to happen, I can take responsibility for this.

If I created the snake with all of its instincts and traits, and i created the shrew also and the box, the conditions inside the box, determined their actions to infinite precision and then put them in the box, I have as good as orchestrated the act myself. This is what God has done.[/quote Wrote:You're pure evil doing that!

So lets look at what God did. God put this world together where animals eat other animals and a balance is struck. Everything works together to produce an overall balance and an environment that self regulates. Then people come along and fuck it up but that's another story

What did God orchestrate here? Something evil or something, when looked
at as a whole, perfect (in our eyes at least).

[quote="fr0d0"]
You accept that the Universe is beautiful, & so do I. If God is evil how is that possible? To me we're saying the same thing.

Volcanoes are beautiful. They also kill people. Beauty and goodness are not one and the same.

From who's point of view? You're being egotistical again. In the interest of a bursting magma layer needing to move rock about it's got to be a good thing. Life is created and survives on this process. Don't you watch David Attenborough?

Allowing you to use the bible as evidence is something I can no longer do. The book holds little scientific knowledge but a lot of outdated and demonstrably wrong theories, large portions of bigotry and prejudice, a wide authorship detailing events nobody could possibly have witnessed, a whole bunch of segments removed, edited, translated and reinterpretted, so as a whole, the book is little more than ancient fiction with a few biographical jottings. The book is a bad example of morality (take out your eye, cut off your hand, hate your family- this isn't even the old testament), a bad example of science (fermement, Noah's ark tale, geocentric universe, flat earth), a bad example of biography (how could a biographer of Jesus forget to mention the virgin birth?) and as such is not worthy of being a starting point, basis or premise in any argument about the nature of supernatural deities.

That is all.

Well there we must disagree then. I totally disagree with everything you said there. I've come to the conclusions I've already stated. I'm fine that this won't hold true for you. But if you dismiss the logic then you dismiss everything I say too. I can only refer to this observation of the nature of my deity. If you want to discuss some other deity then that's fine. I don't know what I could contribute though. I thought the point was establishing if this God was good or bad. If you won't allow evidence from the only trusted source by those who believe in said deity then I can't see how that can progress.

---

Frodo, you used the s word, so SUPERSTITION in my Chambers dictionary is defined as:-

an ignorant and irrational belief in supernational agency, omens, divination, sorcery etc; a deep-rooted but unfounded general belief.

Thus the true believer thanks god for salvation.
And thus the explanation for the existence of religious faith.

Touché

[LukeMC]

You're pure evil doing that!

So lets look at what God did. God put this world together where animals eat other animals and a balance is struck. Everything works together to produce an overall balance and an environment that self regulates. Then people come along and fuck it up but that's another story

What did God orchestrate here? Something evil or something, when looked
at as a whole, perfect (in our eyes at least).

For there to be a balance some creatures must lose out, species go extinct, and babies will wither and die. Regardless of how beautiful the end product is, the orchestrator still must use great evils to achieve a wonderful end. If there is war, death and famine on this planet, in all its beauty, I will still be convinced that God has the capacity for evil (and uses it) even if I justify the evil and think it leads to something wonderful on a whole. God is not all good.

From who's point of view? You're being egotistical again. In the interest of a bursting magma layer needing to move rock about it's got to be a good thing. Life is created and survives on this process. Don't you watch David Attenborough?

See above

Well there we must disagree then. I totally disagree with everything you said there. I've come to the conclusions I've already stated. I'm fine that this won't hold true for you. But if you dismiss the logic then you dismiss everything I say too. I can only refer to this observation of the nature of my deity. If you want to discuss some other deity then that's fine. I don't know what I could contribute though. I thought the point was establishing if this God was good or bad. If you won't allow evidence from the only trusted source by those who believe in said deity then I can't see how that can progress.

Rejecting the bible doesn't render your opinions useless though. We've discussed a lot about God without bible reference being necessary. As for the validity of the bible, maybe in a another thread we go pursue it further as its own subject.

[fr0d0]

For there to be a balance some creatures must lose out, species go extinct, and babies will wither and die. Regardless of how beautiful the end product is, the orchestrator still must use great evils to achieve a wonderful end. If there is war, death and famine on this planet, in all its beauty, I will still be convinced that God has the capacity for evil (and uses it) even if I justify the evil and think it leads to something wonderful on a whole. God is not all good.

What is pure good? You're saying that God can't be good because he isn't 'all good', even tho' you acknowledge that God is ultimately good. Because the route to that good, in this reality, can't avoid some death and suffering, he must be part bad.
I think that your view fits with mainstream Christianity, and on those grounds, I'd probably have to agree with you, that theologically, God has and will do some bad things, in our understanding, whilst remaining ultimately good. I think it fits with the accepted nature of God as defined by the Christian Bible.

So whilst it is possibly over simplistic to state that "God is good". It is essentially true, in broad terms.

A Christian isn't promised any sort of special treatment for being a Christian. "It rains on the righteous as well as the unrighteous". Gods goodness isn't perceived as good in that sense to Christians. The relationship with God primarily focuses on spiritual and not physical matters.

Rejecting the bible doesn't render your opinions useless though. We've discussed a lot about God without bible reference being necessary. As for the validity of the bible, maybe in a another thread we go pursue it further as its own subject.

I reference the Bible completely. You would be rendering me impotent, and I couldn't continue the discussion, as that's the God we're discussing. I guess though that your talking about using the Bible literally, and I don't need to do that. Of course you reject the Bible. I have no problem with that at all.

[LukeMC]

What is pure good? You're saying that God can't be good because he isn't 'all good', even tho' you acknowledge that God is ultimately good. Because the route to that good, in this reality, can't avoid some death and suffering, he must be part bad.
I think that your view fits with mainstream Christianity, and on those grounds, I'd probably have to agree with you, that theologically, God has and will do some bad things, in our understanding, whilst remaining ultimately good. I think it fits with the accepted nature of God as defined by the Christian Bible.

So whilst it is possibly over simplistic to state that "God is good". It is essentially true, in broad terms.

I'm perfectly fine with saying that God is good. I would agree to many extents, in the same way I'd agree that I myself am good. My problem is when you stated that "God is all good". That is all I wanted to debate, as I didn't believe God was entirely good. I think we're coming towards some sort of agreement over this now. I'm not debating that God isn't good, only that God isn't all good as you first stated. You yourself stated that God has and will do bad, so even if he is good, he isn't entirely, completely and exclusively good.