The New York Times Just Tried to Disprove God — Here’s the Fatal Flaw in Their Case

  
Via:  Heartland American  •  one week ago  •  556 comments

By:   Sye Ten Bruggencate

The New York Times Just Tried to Disprove God — Here’s the Fatal Flaw in Their Case
Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God. Prove that...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

God is real.  He is the author and creator of logic and science.  All rely on God to make whatever argument they choose to make.  Atheists are simply deniers of reality.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



This week, the New York Times published an article by Peter Atterton, a Professor of Philosophy at San Diego State University, titled: “A God Problem,” with the byline: Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent.” Sadly, the people responding to Atterton’s article have taken his bait. They have defended belief in a “god” that is subject to the laws of logic, rather than THE God that is Lord of them.

In Romans 11:36 we read that from God, through God and to God are all things. What do all things include? Logic, truth, science, morality, and in fact, ALL things! Since all of these things belong to God, it is not a stretch to conclude that they  don’t  belong to anyone else.

Imagine a nation that owned all of the weapons and ammunition that existed. Then, another nation with no weapons at all wanted to challenge them to war. When would they be able to start the war? It would begin when the nation  with  the weapons and ammunition gave some to the nation with none. It might be kind to hand over some ammunition, but I suspect it would be considered an act of treason.

What is Atterton’s main objection? “The concept of God is not coherent.” He is assuming a standard of rationality that God apparently does not meet, but where does he, as an Atheist, get that standard?








According to any Atheistic worldview, man is but the advanced by-product of primordial soup. In that worldview, our brains are highly evolved meat machines, and our thoughts are merely the results of time and chance acting on matter. As Doug Wilson writes:

If this is true then the difference between your thoughts (the atheist’s)  and mine (the Christian’s) correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically.

My question to Atterton would be: “Where do you get the absolute laws of logic by which you call anything ‘not coherent’ when, according to your view, our thoughts amount to nothing more than brain barf?”

Of course, that’s a rhetorical question – we know exactly where he gets logic from – God.

It ought to be sufficient to know that logic comes from God by His declaration in Scripture. I am loath to expand on that as all too often, people take the explanation as the reason for this truth rather than on God’s own Word, nevertheless, I will.








The laws of logic are understood to be universal (apply to all people at all times everywhere), immaterial (not made of matter), and invariant (do not change). God in His Word is known to be universal (Psalm 139:7-10), immaterial (John 4:24), and invariant (Malachi 3:6). Now I am not saying that God IS logic, but indeed He is logical — and we, as Christians, have a worldview in which universal, immaterial, invariant things can and do exist. Logic in the Christian worldview is a reflection of the thinking of God.

How does evolved pond scum know anything to be universal? How does evolved pond scum account for any immaterial entity? On what basis does evolved pond scum expect anything to not change?

It is not logically incoherent for an all-good God to exist and for evil to exist. Indeed, the Atheist would have to prove that God could not have a morally justifiable reason for evil —  something they simply cannot do. The point, however, is that of the two of us, the Christian is the only one who  could  have a problem with incoherence as we are the only ones with a worldview that justifies the laws of logic by which we call anything incoherent. I’m not going to give the Atheist the tools that God has given us, to argue against the Lord that I adore. I am not going to hand over weapons and ammunition so he can attack my worldview. I simply will not do it.

Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God. Prove that positive claim, Mr. Atheist.








Back to Atterton’s article in the New York Times: “The concept of God is incoherent.”

What is the typical response? “Oh ya, well let me show you that God is in fact coherent!”

Granted, some Christians may have difficulty reconciling certain attributes of God, and some responses to Atterton have (in most cases poorly) addressed them  (I even bring it up on the streets on occasion).

This iframe is not allowed

But those are questions more suited for a Bible study, not reasons for handing our weapons to the unarmed.

When someone brings an objection to God’s existence, we want to take that objection at face value and refute it on merit. I believe the desire to do so is sincere but ends up defending belief in a “god” that I don’t believe in and, hopefully, the person offering the defense does not believe in either. We make God subject to the objection of the Atheist, rather than Lord of all.

Earlier I said that my response to Mr. Atterton would be: “Where do you get the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic from that you appeal to when you call the concept of God “not coherent?” I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.

Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won. Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.

Sye Ten Bruggencate is a Christian Apologist in Ontario, Canada. He has  taught apologetics throughout North America and in the U.K. and engages  non-Christians in formal debates and on the streets. His documentary  films include  “How To Answer the Fool”  and “Debating Dillahunty.”   Sye  can be reached via his website  www.proofthatgodexists.org


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    one week ago

“Where do you get the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic from that you appeal to when you call the concept of God “not coherent?” I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.

Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7194/the-new-york-times-just-tried-to-disprove-god-heres-the-fatal-flaw-in-their-case

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @1    one week ago

Even your link to "proof that god exists" doesn't prove god exists. All it does is quote the bible which was not written by god or jesus. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    one week ago

So where is the proof of God? Sorry but asking someone to prove something doesn't exist is as dumb as it gets. 

"Prove God DOESN'T exist!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Fine..

"Prove Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Tinkerbell, Bigfoot, 6 foot tall invisible flying pink elephants etc... don't exist.."

*crickets*

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @2    one week ago

Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7194/the-new-york-times-just-tried-to-disprove-god-heres-the-fatal-flaw-in-their-case?g=7

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @2.1    one week ago

A government minister representing India’s minority communities has assured the United States his country is doing everything it can to protect the most vulnerable in society. The problem is, though, he was lying.

In a recent meeting with U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback, India’s Minister for Minority Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi boasted his country was “an example of unity in diversity for the entire world” and “a heaven for minorities.” 

But it’s hell for many Christians. Since Narendra Damodardas Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took power back in 2014, attacks against believers have skyrocketed. In the year of Modi’s election, 147 violent attacks were recorded against followers of Jesus. In 2018, after four years of his reign, there were 325. 

Want evidence? Check out a few of Faithwire’s stories below:

The situation for Christians in India is serious. Indeed, the sustained violence against believers at the hands of nationalist radicals has earned the country the no. 10 spot on Open Doors USA’s World Watch List. 

“This increase in anti-Christian violence unfortunately follows a predictable cycle,” International Christian Concern’s William Stark told Faitwire previously. “First, BJP politicians and Hindu nationalist leader use religiously divisive rhetoric and policies for political gain. In their speeches, these leaders and politicians single out Christians and Muslims as followers of ‘foreign faiths,’ individuals who are ‘anti-national’ and deserving of suspicion.” 

Stark said this poisonous rhetoric “incites anti-minority violence perpetrated by radical Hindu nationalist groups, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal, or Hindu Munnani.”

“Following these incidents of violence, local authorities do little to help the victimized minority communities,” he continued, adding the constant “cycle of incitement and impunity is essentially what is driving the increased anti-Christian violence in India.”   https://www.faithwire.com/2019/11/01/minister-says-india-is-heaven-for-minorities-despite-brutal-christian-persecution/ 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.1    one week ago

If what we have isn’t real, if our victory wasn’t already assured, people would not sacrifice like this in order to preserve it.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.2    one week ago

Congratulations.  You've just proved Islam to be a true religion.  After all, if it's not real, nobody would crash a plane in to a building for it, would they?

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.1    one week ago
A government minister representing India’s minority communities has assured the United States his country is doing everything it can to protect the most vulnerable in society. The problem is, though, he was lying.

Different countries have different rules. Don't like it, don't go there. Do they have a "freedom of religion" clause in their constitution? 

But it’s hell for many Christians.

So don't go there. Not a difficult concept and you have yet to prove god exists. We'll wait. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.3    one week ago

I knew you’d bring that up.  The difference is that we are willing to passively stand for our beliefs and even give up our lives if need be to stay true to our faith come what may no matter the degree of persecution against us.  We don’t kill ourselves in order to believe or coerce others into believing nor do we do mass killings of large groups of people shouting “god is great” in Arabic in the process.  Our sacrifice is of self and since the reformation we don’t kill people to convert them.  Radical Islamic fascism like that we cut the head off of last week does all that.  Those believers in India and China below are not hurting or killing anyone to maintain their beliefs in the face of the opposition of their governments.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.4    one week ago

They have been there in some form since one of Jesus disciples went there and spread it until he was martyred for our faith.  They are indigenous populations of people and there was no problem with the prior Indian government.  Religion is not something we can have an election over to determine who has to change their beliefs.

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.5    one week ago
The difference is that we are willing to passively stand for our beliefs

That's a joke, right? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    one week ago
Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God. Prove that positive claim, Mr. Atheist.

Why is it that theists so often invent strawman arguments?

Atheism is indeed the lack of belief.   There is no burden of proof to not being convinced there is a god.   Simple.

The author (Sye) invented the claim that rationality can only exist with its God and immediately tries to shift the burden of proof.   Sorry Sye (the notable presuppositionalist) you do not have the authority to assign the inverse of your claims to others.   Now if you hold that rationality can only exist with your God (i.e. this is foundational to your beliefs) then it is up to you to support your claim.   

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3    one week ago

Here’s some support:       A Christian community in the Chinese province of Hebei has occupied their church building in a bid to stop the Chinese authorities from tearing it down.  

The Catholic church of Wu Gao Zhang was notified of the impending demolition November 1 after failed attempts by parish priests to negotiate with the authorities and save their place of worship. According to  Asia News , the destruction was ordered on account of the church not possessing all the correct permits and in spite of it being government-approved.

This iframe is not allowed

The government has been ordering the destruction of several churches in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a 3,000-member church in Anhui province was  bulldozed as congregants worshipped . Another church  was flattened  in Henan province.

“Beijing has been targeting official and unofficial church buildings without all the permits in order, leaving no room for a pardon solution,” persecution watchdog  International Christian Concern  (ICC) noted in a report. “But even if the churches have permit and are state-sanctioned, they could still be subject to demolition, as President Xi Jinping tightens his grip on religion.” 

This iframe is not allowed

The organization noted that a secret deal signed between the Chinese government and the Vatican last year “does nothing to protect these churches.” 

“According to several local Catholics, the agreement actually grants more power to the government authorities, which claim that “the Vatican supports us” and keeps silence on these episodes,” ICC added. “According to parishioners of the diocese of Handang, the government has decreed the destruction of 40 other churches.” 

Please continue to pray for all those persecuted for their faith across the globe.   https://www.faithwire.com/2019/11/01/congregants-stake-out-church-to-stop-chinese-government-demolition/

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    one week ago

That C&P was in no way related to TiG's comment.  It does not refute his comment, nor does it support your position.  It would be best as a stand-alone article.  In the context in which you used it, it is meaningless.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    one week ago

The people of China who would rather give up their freedom or even their very earthly lives than give up their beliefs and faith are proof enough that they know they have already ultimately won, the debate is over, and it’s all up to us to pick a side.  People who hold to such logic and it’s source can not be shaken from it.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3    one week ago

The laws of logic are understood to be universal (apply to all people at all times everywhere), immaterial (not made of matter), and invariant (do not change). God in His Word is known to be universal (Psalm 139:7-10), immaterial (John 4:24), and invariant (Malachi 3:6). Now I am not saying that God IS logic, but indeed He is logical — and we, as Christians, have a worldview in which universal, immaterial, invariant things can and do exist. Logic in the Christian worldview is a reflection of the thinking of God.

How does evolved pond scum know anything to be universal? How does evolved pond scum account for any immaterial entity? On what basis does evolved pond scum expect anything to not change?

It is not logically incoherent for an all-good God to exist and for evil to exist. Indeed, the Atheist would have to prove that God could not have a morally justifiable reason for evil —  something they simply cannot do. The point, however, is that of the two of us, the Christian is the only one who  could  have a problem with incoherence as we are the only ones with a worldview that justifies the laws of logic by which we call anything incoherent.... Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God.... https://www.faithwire.com/2019/03/28/the-new-york-times-just-tried-to-disprove-god-heres-the-fatal-flaw-in-their-case/

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2    one week ago

You (all of us) should use the quote tool when quoting the words of others.   The idea is to distinguish other people's words so that it does not appear as though these words came from you.   Attaching a link does not accomplish this.


In effect, Sye argues that the notion of true vs. false would not be possible without the Christian God.   See, if human beings can distinguish true from false then human beings can derive a formal system based on true and false with rules that we have learned actually work.   There is no need for a god to develop a formal system of logic.  

Sye basically holds that nothing is possible without the Christian God.   That is his presupposition.   All of his argument are based on that presupposition.   Thing is, his presupposition is unproved and unprovable.   

In simple terms, when you peel away the layers of bullshit from all of Sye's arguments you will discover that they all merely claim 'God did it'.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.1    one week ago

It is true that without the Christian God as you call Him there would be absolutely nothing.  He is the source of all that there is the universe.  

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.3  WallyW  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.2    one week ago

Prove it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.2    one week ago
It is true that without the Christian God as you call Him there would be absolutely nothing.  He is the source of all that there is the universe.

That is just your claim, HA.   When you claim something is true you bear the burden of proof.   Anyone can claim anything.   It matters not what you can claim, only what you can support with evidence and reason.   I see none of that from you.

And using others to argue for you is only as good as the surrogate.   Sye is a known joke.   He has the same basic approach which he uses over and over.   It is as real as a magic act.   Pick a better surrogate (or, imagine this, make your own argument).

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  WallyW @3.2.3    one week ago

I don’t have to prove anything.  The Universe and it’s creator are what they are and people will believe it or not.  It’s their free will choice.  I only have to ask if people have heard the message and are they right with God?  If they are not interested, simply move on to the next person until all know and answer the bottom line question as they see fit.  As the author says, it’s unproductive to saving the lost to engage the willful disbeliever in prove it games. The last couple of paragraphs in the seeded article says it all and that’s how I’m going to deal with willful disbelief.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    one week ago

You’ve made your choice and I’ve made mine.  We are at an impasse between us but you and I aren’t the only ones who read discussions here.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.5    one week ago
I don’t have to prove anything.

Of course you don't.  But when you repeatedly claim that you or someone on your side of the argument has proven something, when you haven't, your position appears weak.  Then you engage in ad hom, and your position looks weaker yet.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.7    one week ago

Well what we’re talking about here are statements like that blindly claim there’s no proof of anything just to be antagonistic

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.8    one week ago
blindly

You must be using an interesting definition of "blindly".

 
 
 
pat wilson
3.2.10  pat wilson  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.5    one week ago

I only have to ask if people have heard the message and are they right with God? 

You have to ask ? Do you often do this ? With strangers ?

Neither of your questions are any of your business.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.9    one week ago

well you certainly understood it

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.11    one week ago

I understand it to be not the accepted definition, much as "proof" and "logic" as used by some here fall ludicrously short of their accepted definitions.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.13  Freedom Warrior  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.12    one week ago

That’s not believable you’ve already proven that

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.14  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.13    one week ago

Anyone with a working knowledge of logic and the English language would say otherwise.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.15  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.5    one week ago
The Universe and it’s creator are what they are and people will believe it or not.

512

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.5    one week ago

You made the affirmative claim, so you bear the burden of proving it! Otherwise, it's just an empty, baseless claim with no merit and you lack credibility.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.17  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.16    6 days ago

[Discuss seeded content]

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @3.2.17    6 days ago

I know. But that doesn't mean their BS should pass unchallenged. 

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.19  cjcold  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.18    6 days ago

Agreed. That idiocy needs to be nipped in the bud whenever feasible.

Now, near the end of my life cycle, don't push as hard as I used to.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.20  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  cjcold @3.2.19    6 days ago

I hear an echo echo echo chamber chamber chamber.....

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.5    5 days ago

You should just stop wasting your time talking about God to people who don't believe.

Nothing you can ever say will sway them, and if God Himself presented Himself to them, they would still be doubters.

Just be happy knowing the truth as you see it and don;t worry about what they think.

Makes life much simpler.

And enjoyable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.21    5 days ago
... and if God Himself presented Himself to them, they would still be doubters

This shows you have zero understanding of the agnostic atheist.

The argument for God thus far have been made by men (and women).   Claims of truth by ordinary people (who, by the way, fail to evidence said claims) does not compare to a claim made by an entity that has demonstrated the means to create the cosmos.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.22    5 days ago

And your comment shows you have no understanding of what I wrote.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.23    5 days ago

Platitude.   I explained my comment.   You give the equivalent of 'nuh uh'.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.21    5 days ago
knowing the truth

Evidence that you "know the truth"?

When you and others make such declarations, expect to be asked for evidence, or have your declarations dismissed as merely the effect of indoctrination.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.26  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.25    5 days ago

See, you think I give a damn what your opinion of God or people who believe in Him is.

I don't.

I have no need to prove anything to you, and that is why I don't preach.

Believe what you want. I won't stoop to your level of belittling you for your beliefs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.24    5 days ago

You just don't like my post.

I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.26    5 days ago

Nobody's belittling you for your beliefs.  They're dismissing the beliefs themselves as indoctrination.  Same as Christians who don't automatically accept the beliefs of other religions as "the truth".  Are you belittling those folks by not accepting their beliefs as "the truth"?

I'm just applying the same standards of evidence to your beliefs as to any other beliefs, and they come up just as lacking.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.29  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.27    5 days ago

Your comments do not say anything:  no insight, no explanation, no logic.   Just witless platitudes.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.30  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.29    5 days ago

it isn't my responsibility to understand things for you.

Figure it out on your own, or not.

I don't care.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.31  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.28    5 days ago

Odd how some cannot seem to realize that agnostic atheists are not convinced that any god exists.   It is not just the Christian God but also Allah, Brahma, Zeus, etc.   And it is not rebellion or hatred or anything emotional.   It is very simple:  there is no evidence supporting the belief.   Should convincing evidence arise for a particular god then I would expect plenty of agnostic atheists will ipso facto be theists believing in this god.  

Why do some find this so difficult to understand?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.32  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.30    5 days ago

see @3.2.29

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.33  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.28    5 days ago

That is bullshit.

Read through the comments on here.

Kind of hard to claim that the believers on here have not been called illogical, emotional, indoctrinated, idiots, zealots, fanatics, that their thoughts are baseless, without merit, lack credibility, etc., etc., etc..

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.31    5 days ago
Why do some find this so difficult to understand?

Indoctrination.  They've been told they'll be persecuted, and lacking real persecution, they find it in the lack of participation in their belief.  Which would logically make them persecutors of the followers of other beliefs, if standards were applied equally.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.32    5 days ago

See 3.2.30

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.36  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.21    5 days ago

That was the point of the seed.  To present our message to those who haven’t heard  or otherwise don’t know and to simply ignore and walk away from the prove it deniers gang. From this point on, I will say what I say and not in any way further respond to the prove it deniers.  One can’t say what needs to be said to other believers and to the not yet decided observer when derailed by the militant God deniers. So whether I use the new ignore feature on the militant atheists or simply mentally ignore them, ignore them I will.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.37  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.34    5 days ago

I think it is also a method for resolving cognitive dissonance.   They demonstrably cannot address challenges with facts and reason thus they resort to tactics such as deflection, projection, cherry-picking, etc. and ultimately with the declaration of 'I just believe' sometimes with the added 'and you should too or else'.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.33    5 days ago

They have consistently refused or failed to provide reasons for their beliefs other than emotion and indoctrination, yet some insist on frequently insulting those who don't share those unfounded beliefs.

Do you accept without question everything you're told?  Do you think it's wise to do so?  Do you think it's honest to say it's logical to do so, or to twist logic to say your beliefs are supported by logic?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.39  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.37    5 days ago

I can accept "I just believe".  It's honest, and it makes no demands on me.

"I know the truth" and "you should too or else" - those will and should always lead to objection.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.36    5 days ago
militant God deniers

Who would those be?  Or are you deliberately misstating our position again?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.41  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.31    5 days ago

the fact is that there will be no direct literal proof until the second coming and then it will be too late.  People will believe by faith or they won’t believe at all.  It is that simple.  The irony is that the deceiver will in fact provide the “proof” himself by counterfeiting Jesus himself making appearances and showing the very signs and wonders agnostic atheists seek after and many will follow after him, sorely persecuting Christians who know better.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.42  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.41    5 days ago
the second coming

Of which occurrence you can provide no evidence.  It's the monster hiding under the bed.  Vague, never seen by anyone at all, but dangled over the heads of believers and potential believers to keep them afraid of not believing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.43  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.38    5 days ago
They have consistently refused or failed to provide reasons for their beliefs other than emotion and indoctrination, yet some insist on frequently insulting those who don't share those unfounded beliefs.

Some folks do that, it isn't right to me. But neither is belittling people for their faith.

Do you accept without question everything you're told?  Do you think it's wise to do so?  Do you think it's honest to say it's logical to do so, or to twist logic to say your beliefs are supported by logic?

Of course not, don't be ridiculous.

Live and let live. I don't belittle people who don't believe, and don't expect to be belittled by non-believers.

I am secure enough in my faith to not let what others think bother me. I have no agenda, I am not pushing religion or belief in a Higher Power on anyone.

just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.44  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.36    5 days ago
That was the point of the seed.  To present our message to those who haven’t heard  or otherwise don’t know and to simply ignore and walk away from the prove it deniers gang.

You mean "To present our unproven claims to those who haven’t heard or otherwise don’t know and to simply ignore and walk away from the prove it deniers gang".

You present a definitive, gnostic theist belief claiming that what you believe in is true regardless of any facts that dispute it or its lack of any empirical evidence in support. I don't see any non-believers here claiming there definitely isn't a God, likely because those sane folks know it would be impossible to prove a negative. So, on one side we have a medium sized group of gnostic believers proclaiming their faith is absolutely true regardless of their inability to prove anything, whether they be Christian or Muslim or any other flavor of unproven faith, then a huge group in the middle who are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists who aren't sure one way or the other and are waiting to be convinced with facts and evidence, then a teeny tiny group of gnostic atheists who we apparently have none of here in NT who proclaim to definitely know that no God exists despite their inability to prove it. To me, the negatives, the problems, the issues always seem to arise from the groups on the ends, though due to its size, the gnostic theists tend to stir the pot far more often.

whether I use the new ignore feature on the militant atheists or simply mentally ignore them, ignore them I will.

Where are the militant atheists you speak of? Where is anyone telling you there's definitely no God? All anyone here is asking you to do is present some evidence of your God if you're going to tell everyone to believe in him and obey. That's not being a "militant atheist", it's simply choosing not to be a gullible rube and just believe whatever the rabid religious extremists down the street tell you. If asking you for evidence of your God is an "attack" from "militant atheists", it can only be seen as an attack because it exposes your lack of anything of substance. It's merely pointing out that your "God" gun you keep pointing at us telling us we'd better comply or else is nothing but your finger-gun in our backs.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.45  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.42    5 days ago

You have a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong to believe. Some people would rather not take that chance.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.46  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.43    5 days ago

I don't belittle people for their faith.  Their faith itself is fair game.  Same as their political beliefs, which it seems that some here have no problem belittling.

Of course not, don't be ridiculous.

Great.  Neither do I.  Why do you object to me saying so?  Why do you defend those who do, and object to me saying the same to them?  This article was basically one logical fallacy after another, and it's being called out as such.  You don't object to the logical fallacies, but you object to the logical fallacies being pointed out?

I don't belittle people who don't believe

No, you merely proclaim yourself and fellow believers to be in possession of "the truth", leaving nonbelievers, of course, not in possession of "the truth".  Not because you have any rational reason to do so, but merely because it's what you've been told.

just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.

Better addressed to those twisting logic to make it seem as if their claims possess any, and I'd believe the "both sides" portion if your support weren't always on one side of the question.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.45    5 days ago
just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.

Pascal's wager, easily refuted.  Your math is wrong.  What if you need to believe in one of the thousands of other gods, or in the multiple gods of a polytheistic religion?

Good luck picking the right one(s).

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.48  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.47    5 days ago
What if you need to believe in one of the thousands of other gods, or in the multiple gods of a polytheistic religion?

What makes you think all of those Gods are not working in conjunction with each other and judge based on faith one way or the other?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.49  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.48    5 days ago

Are you proposing that we worship all gods and goddesses?

The Christian one doesn't like that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.50  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.46    5 days ago
I don't belittle people for their faith.

Nice, if true.

Their faith itself is fair game.

Looks exactly like proof your prior statement isn't true.

Great.  Neither do I.  Why do you object to me saying so? 

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

Why do you defend those who do, and object to me saying the same to them?  This article was basically one logical fallacy after another, and it's being called out as such.  You don't object to the logical fallacies, but you object to the logical fallacies being pointed out?

This is what I actually wrote:

Live and let live. I don't belittle people who don't believe, and don't expect to be belittled by non-believers.
I am secure enough in my faith to not let what others think bother me. I have no agenda, I am not pushing religion or belief in a Higher Power on anyone.
just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.

Feel free to interpret any old way you want, but most would not do it in that manner.

No, you merely proclaim yourself and fellow believers to be in possession of "the truth", leaving nonbelievers, of course, not in possession of "the truth".  Not because you have any rational reason to do so, but merely because it's what you've been told.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. Argue what I write--not what you wanted me to write.

Better addressed to those twisting logic to make it seem as if their claims possess any, and I'd believe the "both sides" portion if your support weren't always on one side of the question.

Sorry, my mistake. I assumed most adults know what "both sides" means. I believe in God. You don't. I am cool with that. That is why I don't try and convince you that you are wrong. What you believe is not my business.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.51  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.45    5 days ago
You have a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong to believe.

Really? But what if Mormons have it right, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Shinto, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, or any of the thousands of ancient religions or African tribal religions or the billions of different concepts of what or who God is or isn't? Is it really just a choice between two things? Christianity vs atheism? That seems to be what you and Pascal are claiming, which is a pretty haughty prideful position, simply dismissing all other faiths throughout history with nothing but an upturned nose. The fact that so many Christians are blind to this glaring flaw in their logic is what surprises me most. When I was first presented with Pascals wager by a peer when I was very young my first thought was "But what if there is no hell? Can't you believe in God without believing in hell?" for which I was soundly reprimanded for even suggesting such a ludicrous idea of there not being an eternal place of torment where a supposedly loving God would torture human souls, maybe even baby souls, with unimaginable pain and suffering for their few moments of life they lived that didn't completely align with Gods wishes or hadn't happened to be baptized fast enough.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.52  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.45    5 days ago
You have a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong to believe. Some people would rather not take that chance.

They believe because they find that to be a safe bet?

If there is a god, does it not seem likely that this god would know when people are faking belief based on the odds?   And what if they 'believe' in the wrong god?   What if Allah is the true god?   (see DP @3.2.51 since he already laid this out)

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.53  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.50    5 days ago

Why should beliefs not be criticized?  Are beliefs people?  Does such protection extend to political beliefs?  Will we no longer see any criticism from you about the beliefs of those who disagree with you politically?

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to adhere to the standards you would impose on others.

don't put words in my mouth

These were your words:

Just be happy knowing the truth

I know what "both sides" means.  And I know when someone is pretending to be impartial, but has only ever taken one side of an argument.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.54  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.48    5 days ago

What about the gods that demanded human sacrifice?  Should we be worshipping them, too?

Seems like a bad idea to me.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.55  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.52    5 days ago

Evidently you and DP missed this..............

"What makes you think all of those Gods are not working in conjunction with each other and judge based on faith one way or the other?"

And yes he/she would know............without a doubt as people do now with their fellow man. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.56  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.53    5 days ago

It is the truth for HIM.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Live and let live. I don't belittle people who don't believe, and don't expect to be belittled by non-believers.
I am secure enough in my faith to not let what others think bother me. I have no agenda, I am not pushing religion or belief in a Higher Power on anyone.
just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.57  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.55    5 days ago

Hedging your bets is more a lack of faith, IMO.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.58  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.56    5 days ago

Truth is truth, no matter who one is.  If there is a god, then that god exists for everyone.  Believing there is one does not make it true.

Beliefs are not immune to criticism, religious or otherwise.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.59  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.56    5 days ago

Don’t you realize if you believe something that they don’t or disagree with them not only do they brow beat and belittle you they do it with sanctimony and self righteous.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.60  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.55    5 days ago
What makes you think all of those Gods are not working in conjunction with each other and judge based on faith one way or the other?"

I read this in your other post @3.2.48 but decided to not comment since Sandy already handled it @3.2.49

This odd view presumes that there are many gods all working together.   It is quite different from the notion of a single god with a bunch of non-gods and having someone believe in the wrong god (a non-god instead of the singular true god).

So how does this god networking concept work with your hedging of bets?   Also do you actually believe there are many gods networking with each other?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.61  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @3.2.59    5 days ago

This is about claims of truth, challenges to these claims and the replies to the challenges.   The replies rarely address the challenges.

If one is not interested in discussing / debating one's claim then maybe it would be best to not make the claim in a public forum.

For examples of gnostic claims made in a public forum see HA's comment history.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.62  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.57    5 days ago

It's also a Pascal's Wager

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.63  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.59    5 days ago
sanctimony and self righteous

That's irony for ya.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.64  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.49    5 days ago
The Christian one doesn't like that.

How do you know...........................

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.65  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.60    5 days ago
Also do you actually believe there are many gods networking with each other?

With several claiming to be the one true god?

How do we reconcile those?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.66  sandy-2021492  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.64    5 days ago

Some guy I never met, who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago, said so on a stone tablet nobody can find.

Apparently, he was pissed that his worshippers made themselves another god.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.67  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.63    5 days ago

I would suggest a dictionary or a google search for the meaning of irony.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.68  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.67    5 days ago

Are we going to be repeating the "hyperbole" thing again?

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.69  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.61    5 days ago

You can disagree with a person without shitting on them.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.70  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.68    5 days ago

You can if you want.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.71  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @3.2.59    5 days ago

Truth is not based on personal desire or belief. It's based on facts or evidence that can be demonstrated. People can believe whatever they want. But when they attempt to pass off the belief as fact or truth, then it can & should be challenged. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.72  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.69    5 days ago

Of course you can.  When does TiG shit on anybody?  How often does HA shit on "liberal secular progressives" and "godless scientists"?  Direct your statement where it's needed.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.73  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.41    5 days ago

How is that fact when you can't provide a shred of evidence to support it? That's merely your belief and nothing more. Calling it fact when it's not established as such is as good as lying.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.74  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.58    5 days ago
Truth is truth, no matter who one is.  If there is a god, then that god exists for everyone.  Believing there is one does not make it true.

true enough. I have never claimed otherwise.

Beliefs are not immune to criticism, religious or otherwise.

Never claimed otherwise.

Exactly what are you attempting to argue with me?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.75  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.36    5 days ago

And challenging your BS claims we will too, regardless if you choose to ignore or not. Your disingenuous BS is  not free from scrutiny or challenge. And who here isn't aware of Christianity or what it talks about?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.76  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.34    5 days ago

Indoctrination or delusion. Possibly both.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.77  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.72    5 days ago

I will direct my statement where I want I will call out sanctimony and self righteous as I see it .Just because someone believes they are smarter than the next guy doesn’t make it so.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.78  MUVA  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.71    5 days ago

So it is your job to call out people of faith if I were you I would get another job.Or you can let people believe what they want since it doesn’t effect you.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.79  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.74    5 days ago

Then the "truth as he knows it" is either true or not.  If it's not true, then he doesn't "know" it to be true.  "As he knows it" is a phrase that makes "truth" anything one wants it to be.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.80  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.77    5 days ago

Nobody is claiming to be smarter than anyone else.  The seeder continually seeds articles making proclamations he can't support and attacking those who don't share his beliefs.   If he can't support them, that is his own fault, and nobody is required to coddle him

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.81  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.78    5 days ago

Do you want an echo chamber?   How boring.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.82  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @3.2.59    5 days ago

I know. These kinds of articles always boil down to nothing more than "prove it".

Which is why I rarely participate in them.

I don't care what anyone else believes. If you notice, I never tell anyone that they are illogical for not believing in God, or that they are wrong not to, or that they are going to hell for non-belief. It simply isn't my business. 

For some, I suppose, it makes them feel better and all-knowing to state with a certainty that someone is illogical, indoctrinated, mind-controlled, emotional, etc.

But I also wish people would stop trying to convince them that their way is the only way.

live and let live.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.83  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.79    5 days ago
Then the "truth as he knows it" is either true or not.  If it's not true, then he doesn't "know" it to be true.  "As he knows it" is a phrase that makes "truth" anything one wants it to be.

Since God can not be proven or disproven, I would say that the truth for him regarding God is exactly that--his truth, whether anyone likes it or not. Just like the truth for you is either disbelief in God or not sure because it can't be proven to you makes that your truth.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.84  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.82    5 days ago
some, I suppose, it makes them feel better and all-knowing to state with a certainty that someone is illogical, indoctrinated, mind-controlled, emotional, etc.

The emotional overreactions claiming others are acting  emotionally are the best. 

It's amazing to me how obsessed some are with what others believe.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.85  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.84    5 days ago
The emotional overreactions claiming others are acting  emotionally are the best. 
It's amazing to me how obsessed some are with what others believe.  

That is a fair statement, and can be applied to all sides here.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.86  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.83    5 days ago

A god that is omnipotent should, logically, be able to prove his own existence.  Since he does not, we are left to conclude that he either exists but chooses not to prove himself, or does not exist.

So, he "knows" no "truth".  He's accepting somebody else's conjecture.

You are contradicting yourself.

Truth is truth, no matter who one is.  If there is a god, then that god exists for everyone.  Believing there is one does not make it true (my words)
true enough. I have never claimed otherwise. (your response).

Now you claim that his truth is based on his beliefs.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.87  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @3.2.69    5 days ago

Correct.   And one can also deal with a rebuttal without pretending that it is personal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.88  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.86    5 days ago

If you can prove him wrong, do so. Otherwise, it is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Go!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.89  TᵢG  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.64    5 days ago

The Christian God is defined by the Bible.   Note what God says about other gods.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.90  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.78    5 days ago

It's a discussion forum, MUVA.  Discussing ideas with which one disagrees is a large portion of its purpose.  Should you be required to refrain from responding to people here with whom you disagree, or would that be silly?

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
3.2.91  NV-Robin6  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.64    5 days ago

Now that is just being way dumb downed, Jim. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.93  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.88    5 days ago

Logical fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.94  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.93    5 days ago

I think we're done here.

You simply seem unable to let people believe as they wish about God. You act and post as if it bothers you that some do.

Good luck to you.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.95  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.94    5 days ago
You simply seem unable to let people believe as they wish about God.

Of course I can let people believe what they want about God.  How am I to stop them?

You seem unable to deal with me using standard English definitions for "truth" and "know".  Sorry that vocabulary elicits such a negative emotional response for you.

Have a good day.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.96  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.95    5 days ago

Why don't you use your fantastic vocabulary and your standard English definitions to figure out what "I think we're done here" means?

Now, THAT would be really useful and cool.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.97  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.96    5 days ago

I wasn't aware that I was in control of your keyboard.  If you're done, maybe you should stop posting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.98  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.97    5 days ago
I wasn't aware

would have sufficed nicely.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.99  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.84    5 days ago
It's amazing to me how obsessed some are with what others believe.  

Isn't it, though? C4P constantly posts preachy crap trying to pretend he has proof for his beliefs, and dominionist crap intended to gather support for forcing his beliefs onto others. It truly is an obsession.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.100  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.98    5 days ago

Were you complaining about people being belittled?

More irony.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.101  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.100    5 days ago

Were you claiming to not participate in belittling others for their beliefs?

freaking hilarious!

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.102  Gordy327  replied to  MUVA @3.2.78    5 days ago

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote! Maybe more slowly this time!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.103  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.101    5 days ago

I'm not belittling anybody for their beliefs.  I'm objecting to those beliefs being put forward as "truth" that we "know".  I object to your characterization of me as unable to "let" people believe (I note you finally figured out that "believe" is not synonymous with "know") what they want, because it's absurd, and meant as a personal insult.  If you don't like my objections, don't insult me.  And if you don't like for me to point out that you're belittling while complaining about belittling, don't belittle.  You're getting what you dish out.  This isn't complicated.

And don't expect me to stop commenting on your say-so.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.104  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MUVA @3.2.59    5 days ago

You certainly got that exactly right.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.105  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.103    5 days ago
And don't expect me to stop commenting on your say-so.

I expect nothing from you. And in that, I am never disappointed.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.106  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @3.2.59    5 days ago
Don’t you realize if you believe something that they don’t or disagree with them not only do they brow beat and belittle you they do it with sanctimony and self righteous.

So true. It's a common practice among Christians, and not only have they been brow beating and belittling non-believers for centuries, they often tell the non-believers that they will die and suffer in agony for eternity if they don't start believing as the Christian does, and at times some have even forced conversions at the point of a sword. Talk about sanctimony and undeserved self righteousness.

Sanctimony: noun - the action or practice of acting as if one were morally superior to other people.

I have yet to hear a single non-believer claim they are morally superior to anyone else, so I can only assume you directed that comment at believers who do it all the time.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.107  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.75    5 days ago

You think that everyone who reads NewsTalkers is aware of Christianity and what we believe?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.108  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.105    5 days ago

You're just upset that I've quoted you contradicting yourself.  Painted yourself right into a corner, all in black and white where we can all read it, followed up with a logical fallacy, then tried to end the conversation because it wasn't going your way.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.109  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.76    5 days ago

Sounds like secular progressives to me...

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.110  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.108    5 days ago

No one is stopping you from believing whatever it takes for you to feel good about yourself.

Here, I'll let you have the last word.

Adios!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.2.111  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.107    5 days ago
You think that everyone who reads NewsTalkers is aware of Christianity and what we believe?  

Perhaps there is a tribesman in the middle of the Amazon who recently gained internet access but otherwise has never been exposed to the outside world who just logged in to NT in the last day, but otherwise, yes, everyone who reads NT is aware of Christianity and what you believe. Every day or two you post another "Christians under attack!" article so I can't imagine anyone here has missed your frequently proclaimed beliefs.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.112  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.98    5 days ago
(deleted)
 
 
 
katrix
3.2.113  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.107    5 days ago
You think that everyone who reads NewsTalkers is aware of Christianity and what we believe?  

In the first place, there are 33,000 Christian sects - you guys don't even believe the same things. I seriously doubt you know what all the other Christian sects believe. And I'm sure you don't give other religions the same consideration you expect people to give your beliefs, much less having bothered to learn anything about them. But somehow it's OK for you to dismiss them, but it's not OK for people to dismiss your delusions.

And yes, pretty much everyone in the country if not the entire world is aware of Christianity and its basic tenets. The God-botherers and bible babblers have made sure of that. Many of us have taken the time to learn about other religions too, though, not being as closed minded as those who need religion as a crutch and whose faith isn't strong enough to withstand their actually thinking.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.114  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.112    5 days ago

What Christ-like behavior.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.115  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  katrix @3.2.99    5 days ago

I am neither a dominionist nor a fundamentalist. I am an evangelical Christian.  My posting forces no one to believe anything. The last thing I’d ever advocate for is forcing anyone to believe the way I do.  The other last thing I would ever do is to stop talking about what I believe either about political or religious issues.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.116  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.105    5 days ago

Mega dittos!!!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.117  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.116    5 days ago

More Christ-like behavior.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.118  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.114    5 days ago

He does love you very much.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.119  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.117    5 days ago

Texan is right on in what he said in every way, shape, and form.  I and most conservatives agree with him 100%.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.120  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.119    5 days ago

WWJD?

Would he condone insulting people?

Do you think childish insults further your cause?  Show a religion that helps one to be a better person?

From the outside looking in, it looks like you're justifying childish insults.  It's not a pretty sight.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.121  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.115    5 days ago
I am neither a dominionist nor a fundamentalist.

Then why do you seed so much bullshit from dominionist sites, who have avowed manifestos outlining their strategies to force their Christian Sharia law on everyone?

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Your posts prove otherwise.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.122  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.118    5 days ago
He does love you very much.

He? So you claim your god is a male? Why would it need a penis? Or an appendix, or a duodenum ...

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.123  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.2.106    5 days ago

I do agree with some of what you posted  but I have seen just as much if not more judgement and and so called moral superiority from some of secular progressives remember it is all for the children.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.124  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.90    5 days ago

I can tell someone I disagree with them with out belittling them but you do it your way if you want.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.125  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.81    5 days ago

No ,civility yes less sanctimony definitely I can tell you if I was so easily triggered as some about regional and others beliefs I would stay away from those seeds but that’s just me.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.126  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @3.2.125    5 days ago

Nobody's triggered.  Well, maybe some, but I'm not one of them.  We just recognize bad logic when we see it, and some people can't handle having that pointed out.  They resort to petty insults when they get caught in errors of logic, like above, then hide their behavior behind their religion.  Your silence on that behavior, BTW, speaks volumes.  To me, resorting to insults when one can't debate rationally seems more like being triggered. 

Are articles on religion to be safe spaces, then, not to be entered by nonbelievers?  Are beliefs not to be questioned?  It seems you do want an echo chamber.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.127  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.120    5 days ago

You have been here engaging in childish rants and insults against those who are believers for believing and for presuming to dare to express said beliefs.  I happen to agree with Texan that such behavior is like expecting nothing from another person.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.128  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  katrix @3.2.121    5 days ago

I have yet to seed a single article from an actual dominionist site.  You conflating evangelicals with dominionists doesn’t make it so.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.129  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @3.2.124    5 days ago

Then make a topical argument rather than fabricate personal meta.   

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.130  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  katrix @3.2.122    5 days ago

You think he wasn’t a human male when the Romans nailed Him to the cross?  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.131  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.127    5 days ago

Asking you for evidence and pointing out that you haven't (and are unable to) provide it is not a childish rant against anyone.  You can't support your beliefs, and yet you insult those who don't share them, and back up insults tossed around by others.  That's playground bully sidekick behavior, not Christ-like at all. 

See, I have a higher opinion of Christians than you apparently have, and expect better behavior from them.  I expect them to walk the talk.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.132  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.127    5 days ago

Respond to the topical challenges.   Falsely accusing people of rants, etc. is a common dishonest tactic of deflection.   Going personal when you have nothing else to offer accomplishes nothing good.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.133  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.126    5 days ago

Since the article was seeded from We the People you should abide by the rules of that group.         “For those who still believe in the Constitution and American Sovereignty.

While we shall try and tolerate robust debate, gratuitous name calling and smearing are prohibited.”

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.134  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.131    5 days ago

 I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.

Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won. Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.   https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7194/the-new-york-times-just-tried-to-disprove-god-heres-the-fatal-flaw-in-their-case#c1197152

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.135  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.134    5 days ago

I’m collapsing this thread on screen.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.136  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.133    5 days ago

[Removed

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.2.137  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.135    5 days ago
I’m collapsing this thread on screen.  

And?

You know that anybody can still read and respond to it, yes?

 
 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.139  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @3.2.125    5 days ago

An example of what someone should not do.   This is (I assume) an attempt to trigger people with a witless generalization:

HA @5.1.51 ☞  Atheism; it’s just an excuse to hide behind genocide.  

In what way does not being convinced a god exists provide an excuse for genocide?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.140  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.139    5 days ago

An example of what someone should not do.   This is (I assume) an attempt to trigger people with a witless generalization:                                      “It's just an excuse to hide behind genocide.”        In what way does being convinced God exists provide an excuse for genocide?

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.141  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.107    5 days ago

Christianity is one of the world's major religions and is mentioned in some form or another on a daily basis. So yes, it can be a safe assumption that the majority on Newstalkers is aware of Christianity and it's beliefs. Especially in this day and age where information is easily accessible. I have yet to see anyone on NT, or anywhere else for that matter, ask "what is Christianity" or "what does it believe?"

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.2.142  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.109    5 days ago

Sounds like your understanding of secular progressives is as limited as your understanding of science.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.143  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.140    5 days ago

Deflection.   You claimed that atheism in general is an excuse to hide behind genocide.   Why do you make comments like that?   Similarly you routinely deem the science of evolution to be pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy.   And you declare that those who do not believe in your God (in the right way per you) will pay the price in the end.

What is the point of making such profoundly wrong generalized claims?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.144  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.143    5 days ago

Perhaps you should look at the context of what you are replying to:                                             

_v=63f541536188793
5.1.47     NV-Robin6     replied to    lady in black @ 5.1.7       7 hours ago

It's just an excuse to hide behind genocide. 

 
like.png?skin=ntNewsTalkers3&v=156674641   2  
    REPLY  
 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.145  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.143    5 days ago

Are you going to get on her case for saying that about believers?  

 
 
 
charger 383
3.2.146  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.21    5 days ago
and if God Himself presented Himself to them, they would still be doubters.

If God would Present himself it would answer some questions and maybe God could answer the other and new questions that would come up  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.147  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.144    5 days ago

You are still deflecting.    You oft state that you stand by your words.   

You claimed that atheism in general is an excuse to hide behind genocide.   Why do you make comments like that?   Similarly you routinely deem the science of evolution to be pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy.   And you declare that those who do not believe in your God (in the right way per you) will pay the price in the end.

What is the point of making such profoundly wrong generalized claims?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.148  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.147    5 days ago

Notice the hypocrisy of ignoring a post made by a fellow traveler making a sweeping generalization about Christianity and genocide and then when said comment had its flag disallowed I turn the comment around on atheists, the objection to my comment and only my comment in reply is objected to.  Where’s the logic in that?   

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.149  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.147    5 days ago

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and numerous others make my comment actually true.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.150  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.148    5 days ago

Deflection.   Take ownership of your own words or state that you did not mean what you wrote. 

Your comment stated that all atheism is an excuse to hide behind genocide.   Direct, specific and without qualification:

HA @ 5.1.51 ☞ Atheism; it’s just an excuse to hide behind genocide.  

You have not retracted this so I can only assume that this is your intent.  And that would be consistent with other absurd statements from you such as the science of evolution to be pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy.   And you declare that those who do not believe in your God (in the   right   way per you) will pay the price in the end.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.151  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.149    5 days ago
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and numerous others make my comment actually true.

Hitler was raised Catholic and made a deal with the Vatican during his time in office.   Stalin studied to be a priest.   Pol Pot was a Buddhist.

But let's just go with the notion that these men were atheists when they were murdering people.   The fact that atheists have been in power and committed horrendous acts of genocide does not in any measure of reason mean that:

HA @ 5.1.51 ☞ Atheism; it’s just an excuse to hide behind genocide.  

Given you are doubling down and standing by your words means then that you actually mean what you wrote.    jrSmiley_92_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.2.152  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.151    5 days ago

I see. Anyone who ever attended a church cannot be an atheist. Great point.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.153  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.152    4 days ago
Anyone who ever attended a church cannot be an atheist.

That is ridiculous Sean

I see. 

Apparently not.   You can read better than that.   Read my entire response; comprehend it as a single point.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.154  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.151    4 days ago

I mean it as much as Robin meant what I responded to.  Just because people were born into a belief or were as a young person doesn’t mean that the acts of their adult life reflect that.  Hitler supplanted religion with himself and his 1000 year Reich ideology and openly spoke often against democracy, capitalism, and Christianity.  The others went all in with state mandated atheism and religion being the opiate of the masses mantra.  Atheism = genocide too much of the time.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.155  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.154    4 days ago
Atheism = genocide too much of the time.  

Just posting this nonsense to illustrate yet another one of your positions which lead to your being challenged.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4  Kathleen    one week ago

You just can’t prove it either way.  Both sides can argue till you are blue in the face, you will have to wait till you die to find out. Even then you may not. 

So stop worrying about it and start ‘living’.

People that are dying talk about living and people that are living talk about dying. Funny isn’t it?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Kathleen @4    one week ago
You just can’t prove it either way.

While you are correct that you cannot prove a negative, you most certainly can prove a positive.  The God of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament seemed ready and eager to prove himself.  From burning bushes to parting of the Red Sea, raining bread from the sky, turning water to wine, or simply walking on water, he was not shy. 

So why is he so hesitant now that we have scientific methods of seeing and recording his "miracles"? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    one week ago

If that were the case then none of us would be talking about it. I think you missed the point I was trying to make.  Sure, if you believe the Bible was all true, but not everyone does. 

If every human being believed in the same thing, then it would make it easier. There are so many different religions, it’s hard to imagine that one or all are right.

On the flip side, saying there is nothing or no existence after we die is not a proven fact either.

So we are back to square one. Nothing has really changed over thousands of years. We still can’t guarantee anything.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    one week ago

Actually the walking on water and turning water to wine are in the New Testament.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    one week ago
The God of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament seemed ready and eager to prove himself.  From burning bushes to parting of the Red Sea, raining bread from the sky, turning water to wine, or simply walking on water, he was not shy.  So why is he so hesitant now that we have scientific methods of seeing and recording his "miracles"?

If someone walked on water today the only conversation would be "how did he do it?" 

We would hear about secret new technologies or mass hypnosis techniques, or even space time warps, but not of God. 

God is a supernatural entity. It can neither be proved or disproved by natural means. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.3    one week ago

If God made one universe, as is claimed, then he obviously is supposed to have had effects in the natural, observable world.  So, yes, evidence could be offered, if it existed. 

Instead, we are to rely on the millenias-old "observations" (actually, retellings, for the most part) of frequently-unknown authors whose existence is often unverified, amalgamated with the written and oral traditions of other tribes around them, translated and mistranslated, subject to political approval and disapproval, as "proof".

God could make another planet within observable distance from Earth in a short time period.  I mean, it took a week the first time, according to the Bible.  He could provide evidence in the natural world, if he exists, and chooses to do so.  He either exists and chooses not to do so, or does not exist.

If someone walked on water today the only conversation would be "how did he do it?"

That's a problem inherent to the "god of the gaps".  Humans now can do things that humans in the past thought only gods could do.  What reaction would a human 2000 years ago have had to a person being resuscitated with a defibrillator?  To an airplane?  Even to a medical procedure we consider routine today, like a c-section in which both mother and child survive?  To them, those would be miracles, the acts of beings superior to humans.  To us, they're not mysterious at all.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.4    one week ago
God could make another planet within observable distance from Earth in a short time period.  I mean, it took a week the first time, according to the Bible.  He could provide evidence in the natural world, if he exists, and chooses to do so.  He either exists and chooses not to do so, or does not exist.

If that happened you would be convinced that it proved the existence of God? 

Please. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    one week ago
If that happened you would be convinced that it proved the existence of God? 

It's certainly more convincing than anything presented so far.  You don't think witnessing a modern-day act of creation on the scale of the creation of Earth would support the position "there is a god who created the Earth"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.5    one week ago
If that happened you would be convinced that it proved the existence of God? 

First we would need a much more precise definition of 'God'.   If, for example, 'God' is defined as 'that which created our planet', then an entity capable of creating a planet like Earth would provide quite good evidence supporting its claim of 'God'.

Acts that are so far beyond our abilities should be considered by us against the claims made by the actor.   Follow the evidence to wherever it leads using objective reasoning.

But in all cases I am talking about supporting evidence, not proof.

Now, per Sandy's point, the claim oft made is of the existence of the grandest possible entity —the creator of everything— an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, eternal being whose perfect word is embodied by the Christian Bible.   Given the staggering grandeur of this claim, one would expect commensurate evidence yet the actual evidence falls quite short;  we have nothing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.2    one week ago

Actually the walking on water and turning water to wine are in the New Testament.  

Never claimed otherwise.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.2    one week ago

And they're still nothing more than stories with no basis on fact or supporting empirical evidence.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.6    6 days ago
It's certainly more convincing than anything presented so far.  You don't think witnessing a modern-day act of creation on the scale of the creation of Earth would support the position "there is a god who created the Earth"?

Not really practical, if you think about it. God would have to shake and bake a planet every couple of generations in order to keep proving He exists to people who didn't see the last one created. Be a pretty crowded solar system, don't you think? 

Yes, I know. It doesn't necessarily have to be a planet every time. Could be something else. Doesn't really matter though because it wouldn't make any difference. Suppose you saw such a planet created before your very eyes. Will that make you suddenly recognize yourself as a depraved sinner, hopelessly and justly bound for eternal destruction unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior and God's right to rule over you? Would you recognize that, without God, you are nothing and without worth? Would it cause you to desire to know God above every other desire in your life? Would it cause you to abandon all you thought you wanted and accept the new life God wants for you? A life where you reject what you were in order to be conformed to the image of Jesus? Meaning, to think, act and believe what he does, with his goals, motivations and character? 

I think there are a lot of reasons why God doesn't do things like create a planet in an hour, a day or a week simply to prove He exists. One of them is that it isn't necessary. All one has to do is read the Bible and actually ask God to show Himself. There is a catch, though. Only the humble, the poor in spirit, will get an answer. 

You see, God isn't interested in proving to you that He exists. He is interested in an eternal relationship with you. Seeing a planet created in an instant isn't going to make you want that. It won't make you reject the life you have now for the one He wants for you. Billions have listened to what the Bible has to say and have found Him. It promises that if you seek, you will find. So, why should He have to do special effects all the time when in all likelihood it won't make any difference? Seeing a planet instantly created might make you believe God exists, maybe, but it won't make you think He has a right to your submission. You will only recognize that you owe it in light of who you are in light of who God is.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.10    6 days ago

A nicely worded copout.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.10    6 days ago
Not really practical, if you think about it. God would have to shake and bake a planet every couple of generations in order to keep proving He exists to people who didn't see the last one created. Be a pretty crowded solar system, don't you think? 

If done now there would be full scientific recording.   Real evidence of the act.   This would be both unique and staggering evidence of a cosmological power.

Suppose you saw such a planet created before your very eyes. Will that make you suddenly recognize yourself as a depraved sinner, hopelessly and justly bound for eternal destruction unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior and God's right to rule over you?   ...

Absolutely not.   I would not be thinking anything about the Bible or religions.   Rather I would be thinking about what I was observing.   Such an act would do absolutely nothing to affirm any religion.   It would be evidence of a creator entity (not proof, but rather good evidence).   But it would not be evidence of anything in the Bible and certainly would not cause me to think of myself (and everyone else) as a depraved sinner.   Good grief man.

All one has to do is read the Bible and actually ask God to show Himself. There is a catch, though. Only the humble, the poor in spirit, will get an answer. 

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

You see, God isn't interested in proving to you that He exists. He is interested in an eternal relationship with you.  ( and the balance of your post )

As always, I must ask how you know this?   How is this not you speaking for the grandest possible sentient entity?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.13  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.11    6 days ago
A nicely worded copout.

In what way? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.14  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.12    6 days ago
Absolutely not.

I rest my case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.14    6 days ago

But you rest your case by excluding the balance of my post.   Why are you omitting this?:

TiG @4.1.12 It would be evidence of a creator entity (not proof, but rather good evidence). 

Kind of an important detail to overlook.

Also, it is not clear what case you are resting.   One typically expects that the opening line would establish the case.   Your opening line was this:

Drakk @4.1.10Not really practical, if you think about it. God would have to shake and bake a planet every couple of generations in order to keep proving He exists to people who didn't see the last one created. Be a pretty crowded solar system, don't you think? 

This establishes the case that the evidence would be insufficient (even dismissed) after a few generations.   Yet I addressed that right off the bat:

TiG @4.1.12If done now there would be full scientific recording.   Real evidence of the act.  This would be both unique and staggering evidence of a cosmological power.

You ignored this.

Not really a situation where one can simply rest one's case.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.16  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.15    6 days ago
Why are you omitting this?:

Because it is irrelevant. The obvious point of my post was that there isn't any amazing trick, like creating a planet out of thin space in a day, that would convince you. If God created a bunch of planets in whatever time period impressed you, only they were all in the shape of a letter of the alphabet and, when He lined them up and it spelled out "I am the God of the Bible", would ...

… you suddenly recognize yourself as a depraved sinner, hopelessly and justly bound for eternal destruction unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior and God's right to rule over you? Would you recognize that, without God, you are nothing and without worth? Would it cause you to desire to know God above every other desire in your life? Would it cause you to abandon all you thought you wanted and accept the new life God wants for you? A life where you reject what you were in order to be conformed to the image of Jesus? Meaning, to think, act and believe what he does, with his goals, motivations and character? 

If not, what would be the point for God to bother with such things? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.10    6 days ago
God isn't interested in proving to you that He exists. He is interested in an eternal relationship with you.

So "He" wants a relationship with me, but "He's" not interested in letting me know he exists? That seems pretty silly.

"God would have to shake and bake a planet every couple of generations in order to keep proving He exists to people who didn't see the last one created. Be a pretty crowded solar system, don't you think?"

Most believers think God can do anything, so if this God of yours wanted to prove itself so that no human forgot who "He" was, wouldn't you think "He" could do it? Or is your God not capable of getting around your logically porous roadblock?

Billions have listened to what the Bible has to say and have found Him. It promises that if you seek, you will find.

The same could be said of the Koran. Just because a faith is successful at gathering adherents, it doesn't make it any more accurate. All the faiths and religious books on earth have exactly the same evidence backing up their claims, all have the same average prayer success rate, which also happens to be the same success rate as many placebos.

The fact is, if God or any other spirit was taking an active roll in human life, it would be calculable. We have been able to not only discover planets orbiting other stars but can figure out their sizes and how far they are from their star as well as orbit speed, yet we've never so much as empirically recorded or proven a single spirit sneeze or levitating pebble. I'm not saying that we even need the recording of the event, just the statistical data of the spirit realm interacting with humans and thus changing outcome, where those praying to the right God the right way are statistically more likely to avoid accidents, have lower rates of cancer, have children born with statistically fewer maladies or birth defects, or are in any other way measurably "blessed".

If I saw with a good telescope a giant being in space create a new planet and proclaim with a booming voice heard by all, sure, of course most would become believers. But all I'm waiting for is some measurable effect of any Gods presence. I studied many other religions after being disillusioned with Christianity, and they all made similar claims of knowing who or what the universal creator was/is and how best to worship him/her/it. None of the followers of any of the faiths can show any surprising statistical anomaly about their faith, religious traditions or way of life that could be argued as proof they were following the "right" God. I think the closest I've seen was looking at the lifestyle of those living on Okinawa where they have the highest percentage of people living well past 100, but it's their eating habits and active lifestyles that are the likely cause, not their religious traditions. Though their religious traditions are something I find far more interesting than the current close-minded fascist brand of Christianity I often see expressed.

"Okinawan religion is believed to have been developed from animism, which was superimposed by shamanism, ancestor worship, Taoism, Buddhism, Neo-Confucianism, Shintoism, and others.  Animism  is “the belief that all things have a spirit or soul, including animals, plants, rivers, mountains, rocks, stars, the moon, and the sun. Each being is considered a spirit that can offer help or harm to humans.”  In short, Okinawan religion is a hybrid religion, a mixture of multiple beliefs."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/health/japan-longevity-centenarians-aging-population/index.html

http://www.japanupdate.com/2016/11/okinawan-religion-centers-on-family-based-on-mix-of-beliefs/

My point is, if God exists and is actively interacting with humans, then we'd be able to measure "His" interaction. It seems to me it either doesn't exist or doesn't interact with humans for some unfathomable reason, or perhaps doesn't even know we exist, we were just an early experiment when some cosmic being went through a "fling things into the cosmos to see what happens" phase but lost interest millennia ago. No one knows. Anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. All we can be mostly certain of are the things we can see, measure, touch and interact with. All I know is I'm not going to sit around waiting for some savior to come and rapture me to heaven. If humanity needs saving, we're going to have to save ourselves.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.16    6 days ago
Because it is irrelevant.

Of course.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif    Irrelevant = 'I have no response'

The obvious point of my post was that there isn't any amazing trick, like creating a planet out of thin space in a day, that would convince you. 

Look at how you opened your post.   The above is not the obvious point.   If anything, you had several points.   Nonetheless, I remind you that my initial response contained this:

TiG @ 4.1.12  ☞   It would be evidence of a  creator entity  (not proof, but rather good evidence). 

I would follow the evidence to where it leads.   I am sorry Drakk, but creating a planet is not evidence that the Bible is true.    It is evidence of an entity that could have created us.

If God created a bunch of planets in whatever time period impressed you, only they were all in the shape of a letter of the alphabet and, when He lined them up and it spelled out "I am the God of the Bible", would ...

Well now you have changed the scenario.   That is now evidence that the Bible is true.   The entity has demonstrated powers of cosmological creation AND has claimed (with this newly earned credibility) that it is the God of the Bible.   That would be evidence.   (And it would be frightening given the nature of the biblical God Yahweh.)

If not, what would be the point for God to bother with such things? 

Well what if the actual 'God' did not consider us to be depraved sinners?   I think I would want to find out directly from the current candidate.   Maybe ask some questions rather than assume that we know the mind and intentions of this entity based on an ancient, errant, man-made book?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.19  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.17    6 days ago
So "He" wants a relationship with me, but "He's" not interested in letting me know he exists? That seems pretty silly.

Sorry. I'm always assuming people understand the context based on the conversation. 

The context of the conversation before I entered it was simply about proving whether or not God exists. Non-believers want some sort of scientific empirical proof or evidence that He exists and they think He should provide it in a manner of their choosing. God isn't interested in applying for human recognition like some sort of supplicant.  That's what seems silly to me. Like God has to get His paperwork approved by humans to be recognized. Besides, He already provided the proof. You can read about it in the Bible. 

 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.20  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.18    6 days ago
Well now you have changed the scenario. 

And you didn't answer the question.

Well what if the actual 'God' did not consider us to be depraved sinners?   I think I would want to find out directly from the current candidate.   Maybe ask some questions rather than assume that we know the mind and intentions of this entity based on an ancient, errant, man-made book?

Well, good luck with that. Hope you find an answer. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.19    6 days ago
Besides, He already provided the proof. You can read about it in the Bible. 

This is the crux of our different views.

The Bible is proof that ancient men wrote of god(s).   There is no proof, not even evidence, that their words are true (or even credible) when it comes to supernatural claims.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.20    6 days ago
And you didn't answer the question.

Why must I always repeat my answers? : 

TiG @4.1.18 ☞ Well now you have changed the scenario.   That is now evidence that the Bible is true.   The entity has demonstrated powers of cosmological creation AND has claimed (with this newly earned credibility) that it is the God of the Bible.   That would be evidence.   (And it would be frightening given the nature of the biblical God Yahweh.)

Or do you have some other question in mind?   If so, ask the question.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.23  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.22    6 days ago
If so, ask the question.

Will that make you suddenly recognize yourself as a depraved sinner, hopelessly and justly bound for eternal destruction unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior and God's right to rule over you? Would you recognize that, without God, you are nothing and without worth? Would it cause you to desire to know God above every other desire in your life? Would it cause you to abandon all you thought you wanted and accept the new life God wants for you? A life where you reject what you were in order to be conformed to the image of Jesus? Meaning, to think, act and believe what he does, with his goals, motivations and character? 

It's a yes or no question. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.23    6 days ago

No.    Drakk, read the answer I gave you earlier:

TiG @4.1.12 Absolutely not.   I would not be thinking anything about the Bible or religions.   Rather I would be thinking about what I was observing.   Such an act would do absolutely nothing to affirm any religion.   It would be evidence of a creator entity (not proof, but rather good evidence).   But it would not be evidence of anything in the Bible and certainly would not cause me to think of myself (and everyone else) as a depraved sinner.  

And the key reason for this was answered here:

TiG @4.1.18 I would follow the evidence to where it leads.   I am sorry Drakk, but creating a planet is not evidence that the Bible is true.    It is evidence of an entity that could have created us.

Evidence of a creator entity is not evidence, in any way shape or form, that the Bible is true.   It has absolutely nothing to do with religions or religious artifacts.   Only when you add the additional constraint that this entity (which just gained credibility as a potential creator) declares itself the biblical God do we have evidence of same.   And even then I would seek answers directly from this entity rather than rely upon ancient, errant (and clearly self-contradicting) words in an ancient book.

Or, as I have already written:

TiG @4.1.18 ☞ Well what if the actual 'God' did not consider us to be depraved sinners?   I think I would want to find out directly from the current candidate.   Maybe ask some questions rather than assume that we know the mind and intentions of this entity based on an ancient, errant, man-made book?
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.25  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.13    6 days ago

It boils down to "God could, but he chooses not to.  You should just believe."

I might as well tell my son who's a foot taller than me that I could beat him in an arm-wrestle, but I'm just too busy to prove it right now.  He'd roll his eyes, and rightfully so.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.10    6 days ago
Will that make you suddenly recognize yourself as a depraved sinner, hopelessly and justly bound for eternal destruction unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior and God's right to rule over you? Would you recognize that, without God, you are nothing and without worth? Would it cause you to desire to know God above every other desire in your life? Would it cause you to abandon all you thought you wanted and accept the new life God wants for you? A life where you reject what you were in order to be conformed to the image of Jesus? Meaning, to think, act and believe what he does, with his goals, motivations and character? 

Sounds like the very definition of codependency.  A terribly unhealthy relationship.  Why in the world would we enter into such an emotionally abusive relationship with a being we don't even know exists?  Sounds masochistic to me.  It's very sad that religion compels some of its followers to see their fellow humans like this - as depraved.  I would imagine it's likely to lead to religious bigotry.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.27  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.24    5 days ago

So, considering your answer of "no" and what Sandy says in 4.1.25 and .26, I again rest my case. There is literally nothing God could do scientifically that would convince you to submit to Him. So, why would God bother Himself with pointless activities? Not saying that's His view of this, but it seems rather obvious to me. Jesus himself says of the Jewish leadership of his day that although they demanded signs, none would be given other than that of Jonah's. This was because it would make no difference. They still would not submit. It is no different here.

This is because it isn't a matter of science. It is a matter of the spirit. It's sinful pride vs God. Science is just the excuse people use to justify their rebellion. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.28  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.19    5 days ago
God isn't interested in applying for human recognition like some sort of supplicant.  That's what seems silly to me. Like God has to get His paperwork approved by humans to be recognized.

If a person opens a business, they are wanting customers, so not doing any advertising, not even putting the business name on the building seems like a silly way to operate.

So far, we have a street full of faith vendors with their signs trying to draw in non-believers, but not a single one can actually provide what they're offering. They all claim to have a direct line to the creator, yet they all set their empty plates in front of parishioners, tell them it's a delicious filet mignon and other rare delicacies. And when the new customer asks where the food is they tell you "You just have to have faith to see it." then they leave you with the bill, even expecting a tip. All the faith restaurants serve the same empty plates, they just have different cuisines listed as what they're supposedly serving. Want something exotic? Go to India for an empty helping of Hinduism. Feel more like Southern cooking? Well the Southern Baptists have your desired fantasy plate.

Until the creator of the universe opens its own religion and starts to provide actual, empirical substance, all anyone is doing is chewing on air.

Besides, He already provided the proof. You can read about it in the Bible.

I've read it cover to cover several times over in my life, it's what led me to look elsewhere for truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.27    5 days ago
So, considering your answer of "no"

... and not considering my explanation.   This is a perfect example of confirmation bias.   You pick and choose from my answers to produce the fabricated answer you desire.   No wonder we have trouble communicating; it does not matter what I write.

There is literally nothing God could do scientifically that would convince you to submit to Him.

The word 'submit' is a euphemism given the questions you asked.   You asked if after getting evidence of an entity capable of cosmological creation if I would (Drakk @ 4.1.23 ):

•  ... suddenly recognize yourself as a depraved sinner, hopelessly and justly bound for eternal destruction unless you repent and accept Jesus Christ as your savior and God's right to rule over you?

•  ... recognize that, without God, you are nothing and without worth?

•  ... desire to know God above every other desire in your life?

•  ... abandon all you thought you wanted and accept the new life God wants for you? A life where you reject what you were in order to be conformed to the image of Jesus? Meaning, to think, act and believe what he does, with his goals, motivations and character? 

The above is all Christian religious belief.   It is also a particular variant of Christian belief.    Further, it is man-made;  part of the well-honed sales pitch designed to keep the faithful faithful.

No, Drakk, I am not going to move from recognizing a powerful entity to immediately accepting ancient, errant, contradictory writings by bronze and iron age men.   My answer includes this extremely important part which you clearly purposely ignore and I am repeating now for a third time to watch you ignore it yet again:

TiG @ 4.1.18  ☞ I would follow the evidence to where it leads.   I am sorry Drakk, but creating a planet is not evidence that the Bible is true.    It is evidence of an entity that could have created us.
TiG @ 4.1.18  ☞ Well what if the actual 'God' did not consider us to be depraved sinners?    I think I would want to find out directly from the current candidate.    Maybe ask some questions rather than assume that we know the mind and intentions of this entity based on an ancient, errant, man-made book?

As I just noted in my prior reply:

TiG @ 4.1.24 Evidence of a creator entity is not evidence, in any way shape or form, that the Bible is true.   It has absolutely nothing to do with religions or religious artifacts.   Only when you add the additional constraint that this entity (which just gained credibility as a potential creator) declares itself the biblical God do we have evidence of same.   And even then I would seek answers directly from this entity rather than rely upon ancient, errant (and clearly self-contradicting) words in an ancient book .

In short your confirmation bias generated claim of:

There is literally nothing God could do scientifically that would convince you to submit to Him. 

Ignores what I have written.   If there were a God who wanted human beings to submit to Him I am sure He would be perfectly capable of convincing even the most skeptical.   The fact that you cannot devise a suitable method for skeptics to immediately consider themselves depraved and worthless is a rather poor 'case' given you are a mere human being (and you think you are depraved worthless sinner).    God, on the other hand, is certainly capable and if not, then why would we consider him God?    And, as I have stated, I would ask questions.   Part of my questions will be to find out what God expects of us.    From the source, not from ancient writings that were clearly inventions of ancient men who produced an errant, contradictory book that declares itself divine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.27    5 days ago
This is because it isn't a matter of science. It is a matter of the spirit. It's sinful pride vs God. Science is just the excuse people use to justify their rebellion. 

It is not rebellion, it is just basic skepticism.   Christianity is founded in the Bible.   The Bible is thus crucial to these beliefs.   That is, one must believe the Bible divine to believe the various conclusions embodied in the various Christian religions.   Well, I find the Bible to be an excellent argument against its claimed divinity.   Countless examples of contradictions should be enough to convince anyone (who is thinking objectively) that the Bible is a product of mere fallible human beings.   Beyond being errant and self-contradicting (enough to show it as not divine) the Bible fails to offer any information beyond what would be known to mere ancient men.   Nothing in the Bible evidences divine wisdom;  nowhere does the Bible make specific predictions that can be verified.    On top of that, the Bible is vague and is (demonstrably) interpreted in many contradictory ways;  makes zero sense that a God would use such a poor method to communicate to His creations.    Sorry, it is nonsense.

On top of that, biblical scholars have for centuries analyzed the Bible, associated ancient documents, historical records, use of language and dialects, etc. in an attempt to get to the truth.   The net conclusion of this work is that the Bible is not divine;  that it is the work of mere men.   That is, the Bible itself reveals itself as nothing more than ancient words of men with pens.

There is no sinful pride nor is their rebellion.   It is just the case of not buying the claims made by other human beings.   I do not buy the claim that the Bible is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator of everything.    The Bible itself is the best evidence against this nonsense claim.

Now if faced with an entity of cosmological creative power, I would ask the entity directly what it expects of me.  That, Drakk, would be something I would take seriously.

 
 
 
NV-Robin6
4.1.31  NV-Robin6  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.4    5 days ago

Exactly.  There was a time when mankind believed in Thor/Odin, Poseidon, Zeus, etc.

This too shall pass. IF mankind outlives its stupidity or the cosmos natural selection. Only chance we have right now is waining this ignorance out and finding solutions for interstellar travel. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.32  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.28    5 days ago
If a person opens a business, they are wanting customers, so not doing any advertising, not even putting the business name on the building seems like a silly way to operate.

Yes. That's why we have the Bible and people who belong to Jesus Christ and churches. In a sense, that is advertisement. 

So far, we have a street full of faith vendors with their signs trying to draw in non-believers, but not a single one can actually provide what they're offering.

I disagree, but perhaps that is because we differ on what you call "faith vendors" are offering. What is it you think they offer? 

They all claim to have a direct line to the creator, yet they all set their empty plates in front of parishioners, tell them it's a delicious filet mignon and other rare delicacies. And when the new customer asks where the food is they tell you "You just have to have faith to see it." then they leave you with the bill, even expecting a tip.

My experience is somewhat different. To be sure, there are "faith vendors" in the Christian religion. Most obvious in my opinion are the prosperity gospel types (which is no gospel at all). But there are many, if not most, churches that do what they are supposed to do. Be a community of believers in pursuit of God. Not sure what more you expect from a church.

I've read it cover to cover several times over in my life, it's what led me to look elsewhere for truth.

Why? Did it say something you didn't agree with? Didn't say what you wanted it to say? Didn't confirm your own ideas? Did not make sense to you? 

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.33  katrix  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.32    5 days ago
Why? Did it say something you didn't agree with? Didn't say what you wanted it to say? Didn't confirm your own ideas? Did not make sense to you?

In my case, it's also reading the bible which led me to stop believing. At first, I realized it described a truly evil genocidal maniac, and realized I couldn't possibly worship something that evil. Then I realized it was just a bunch of ancient stories which couldn't possibly be factual - the silly flood myth (stolen from Gilgamesh), the ridiculous story of why humans speak multiple languages, the idea of some maniac going to convoluted lengths to torture and murder humans and animals rather than just smiting someone ... and it provided absolutely no justification for believing in the Abrahamic god over any of the other gods humans have invented over the eons.

 
 
 
cjcold
4.1.34  cjcold  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.2    5 days ago

I have done both. No big deal.

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.35  charger 383  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.10    5 days ago

"You see, God isn't interested in proving to you that He exists. He is interested in an eternal relationship with you."

an eternal relationship would start by proving he exists and is the correct God, his book says something about not having other Gods before him.  So I need to know that he exists and is the right God before I want to have an eternal relationship.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.36  Drakkonis  replied to  charger 383 @4.1.35    5 days ago
an eternal relationship would start by proving he exists and is the correct God, his book says something about not having other Gods before him.  So I need to know that he exists and is the right God before I want to have an eternal relationship.  

Except billions have had that relationship over thousands of years without the sort of "evidence" some people demand. What is so special about you that God has to bow to your demand? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.37  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.36    5 days ago
Except billions have had that relationship over thousands of years without the sort of "evidence" some people demand

They only believed they did or were told they did, or otherwise deluded themselves into thinking that. That doesn't mean there was any actual "relationship." Just a belief and nothing more. Kind of like a "relationship" a child has with their imaginary friend. Any such relationship would seem quite 1-sided.

What is so special about you that God has to bow to your demand? 

The only "demand" is on believers who posit their god as real or true to prove it.

 
 
 
charger 383
4.1.38  charger 383  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.36    5 days ago

I ain't easily fooled, If I am one of God's creations then he should be happy with me for that.  The Devil has not proven himself either.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.36    5 days ago

Billions of people believing things without evidence does not make the belief truth.   Human beings have a very long history of believing things that were false.   The critical way to break free of such beliefs is to follow the evidence to where it leads rather than accept that which one wishes to be true.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.40  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.37    5 days ago
They only believed they did or were told they did, or otherwise deluded themselves into thinking that. That doesn't mean there was any actual "relationship." Just a belief and nothing more. Kind of like a "relationship" a child has with their imaginary friend. Any such relationship would seem quite 1-sided.

That's great. Prove it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.40    5 days ago

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

True, Gordy's rebuttal bears the burden of proof but so does your original claim.

We cannot talk to billions of people to find out how they determine they are interacting with God (and how they define God).   If they define God as that defined by the Bible then given the definition is contradictory (and thus false) it is clear they are incorrect.   But they might still be having a relationship with the true creator of the universe (one not captured in any of the 'holy' books of the world's religions).   The question really is how do they know it?

If they know it because if ' feels right' then I submit that correlates with Gordy's view.    If, however, they experience divine wisdom (e.g. given information that goes beyond their personal abilities like a specific future prediction) then that would be considered evidence of at least something supernatural.    If not divine wisdom, maybe something else?

So what convinces you beyond any doubt that you are communicating with God (as in the creator of the universe)?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.42  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.27    5 days ago

Exactly right in every point.  Well said!  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.43  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.40    4 days ago
That's great. Prove it.

How many of them were taught to believe as children by their parents? Childhood indoctrination can be quite strong. How many turn to god during some trauma or emotional turmoil, as an attempt to find some emotional comfort? How many of them have some kind of mental illness? Or how many of them believe due to social pressures? I could also add how many of them were on drugs too? Regardless, billions of people can come up with their own stories of why the believe as they do. But none can demonstrate any actual "relationship" or establish their beliefs as actually being true. It essentially boils down to a matter of the mind, with emotional need/comfort being the most probable common denominator.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.44  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.43    4 days ago

I agree.   There are myriad reasons why someone would turn to religion.   Many people speak of finding Jesus and gaining comfort from their despair.   Jailhouse conversions do not strike me as particularly surprising.    But, of course, the biggest reason for religious thinking is no doubt indoctrination as a child and the continued societal factors that keep people religious.   Based on behavioral biology, creatures (including us) are more likely to do something if we find others doing it.   The USA remains very religious (at least superficially) and that perpetuates our religious culture.   (Yet even here this is waning ... approaching the irreligious views of other cultures in Europe, Asia, ...).

We have no proof for billions of extant religious followers, but an objective look at the world's religions suggests that indoctrination and fleeing a desperate situation are major factors.   Islam is a perfect example, to me, of this phenomenon.

Ultimately it remains curious because religious beliefs necessarily must suppress critical thinking.   One must put aside the fact that an errant, self-contradictory book (the Bible) cannot logically be the divine word of a perfect God and just believe (on faith) that it is nonetheless divine truth.   One must put aside the fact that the existence of any omniscient entity means that free will is impossible.   One must put aside the fact that a God who condones slavery (and, importantly, never provides divine moral instruction that slavery is immoral) cannot be the source of objective morality (unless slavery is indeed moral).   On and on ...

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.45  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.44    4 days ago

I agree too. "Peer pressure," either from family, friends, society, ect., especially at a young age can be a major factor for one to dive into a religion or religious belief. It's the willful suppression of critical thinking and reasoning, especially in this day and age where education and information is easily accessible, in favor of religious belief that boggles the mind.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.1.46  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1    4 days ago
The God of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament seemed ready and eager to prove himself.

The god of the bible was seemed ready to annihilate it's own creation on several occasions.  Even according to the bible, it DID annihilate it's creation. 

The god of the bible is not a deity to be worshiped.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.47  Gordy327  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.46    4 days ago
The god of the bible is not a deity to be worshiped.

Based on the bible, said deity is also quite incompetent. 

I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God - I really tried. I really really tried. I tried to believe that there is a god who created each one of us in his own image and likeness, loves us very much and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize...something is F--KED UP. Something is WRONG here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is NOT good work. If this is the best god can do, I am NOT impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently run universe, this guy would have been out on his all-powerful-ass a long time ago. [George Carlin, from "You Are All Diseased".]

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.48  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.45    4 days ago

Yep.  It’s all a giant conspiracy against the modern secular progressive logical mind that thinks it can take the place of and play god in place of the real God.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.49  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.46    4 days ago

Actually He is a God to be worshipped.  He preserved His creation through the great global flood and will again after the judgement and hell are over.  This world will be as it was pre sin and will become the center of the universe with God Himself living here.  Again though, no one has to choose to worship and follow Him.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.48    4 days ago
... modern secular progressive logical mind that thinks it can take the place of and play god in place of the real God

You are entirely misguided about atheism and science.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.51  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.47    4 days ago

Yet another example of the blame God for the ills created by the rebellion against Him led by Satan.  Blame God for what Satan does.  Blame God for evil men do at the behest of the evil one.  Blame God for giving his creation free will.  Deny that there is free will.  Blame God for creating people and beings who could sin.  Blame God for not destroying the rebellion outright.  Blame God for letting Satans rebellion play out in the universe for all to see and decide.  Blame God for how he dealt with sin and the unrepentant in the Old Testament.  Blame God for being in the background in the New Testament requiring belief by faith.  Say all that and then deny He even exists....

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.51    4 days ago

If God is omniscient and omnipotent then God rules over Satan.   If God allows Satan to do evil then God is ultimately responsible for Satan's evil.   The buck stops with God.

Or do you think that God is unable to control Satan?  

Cognitive dissonance should be at play right now.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.53  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.52    4 days ago

God could have destroyed Satan the instant he starting sinning in his mind and thinking he could be like the most high.  Then all creation would have worshipped and obeyed out of fear instead of love.  That would have made for an unpleasant universe.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.55  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.51    4 days ago
Yet another example of the blame God for the ills created by the rebellion against Him led by Satan.

Another example of giving god a free pass and shifting the blame for His screw-ups!

 Blame God for what Satan does.  

God created Satan, right? God knew exactly what Satan would do, right? And yet, god did NOTHING! God not only created Satan, he did so KNOWING full well what Satan would supposedly do and what would happen, leaving us to deal with it. So yes, God deserves the blame! 

Blame God for evil men do at the behest of the evil one.

At the very least, God is an accomplice.

 Blame God for giving his creation free will.  Deny that there is free will.

If god is omnipotent and omniscient, then free will is not logically possible.

 Blame God for creating people and beings who could sin.

Exactly! After all, god created beings who would sin. When the new car you buy turns out to be a lemon, you blame the auto manufacturer.

 Blame God for not destroying the rebellion outright.  Blame God for letting Satans rebellion play out in the universe for all to see and decide.  Blame God for how he dealt with sin and the unrepentant in the Old Testament.  Blame God for being in the background in the New Testament requiring belief by faith.  

Yep, god deserves all the blame! He created this mess, and he just sits back and does nothing about it, while you just brush it off and blame anyone else but your god. It's like someone who owns a dog. That person can be the biggest dirtbag in the world. but the dog will think he's the greatest guy in the world, without question or fail. 

Say all that and then deny He even exists...

Still waiting for you to prove god exists to begin with!

God could have destroyed Satan the instant he starting sinning in his mind and thinking he could be like the most high.

Could, woulda, shoulda. And it would have save all of us a lot of trouble over the years.

 Then all creation would have worshipped and obeyed out of fear instead of love.

So Adam & Eve worshipped god out of fear before they "sinned?" I would think god throwing his tantrums and trying to commit genocide with floods, plagues, disasters, ect., would elicit more fear than love.

 That would have made for an unpleasant universe.  

Yeah, because this universe with Satan running around as you believe seems to be just so peachy. >sarc<

It’s all a giant conspiracy against the modern secular progressive logical mind that thinks it can take the place of and play god in place of the real God.  

I'm sure you actually believe it's a conspiracy too. Such paranoid delusions does not actually address and otherwise completely misses the point made.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.56  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.53    4 days ago

Ergo God allows Satan to do evil.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.58  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.56    4 days ago

Ergo, god is to blame. Or at the very least, shares the blame.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.1.59  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.49    4 days ago
Actually He is a God to be worshipped.  He preserved His creation through the great global flood and will again after the judgement and hell are over

That's rich.  He preserved his creation?  The very flood you mention DESTROYED his creation minus 2 of everything.  Keeping that 2 of everything in mind, that means your god also supports incest.  

Again, no, it's not worth worship.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.1.60  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.56    4 days ago
Ergo God allows Satan to do evil.

According to the bible, the evil is a creation of this god.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.61  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.55    4 days ago

You made a point somewhere?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.62  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.56    4 days ago

God allowed all of His creation the free will to love and obey Him or not. Giving another being freedom doesn’t mean the other being isn’t responsible for what they do with it.  God is blameless for evil and sin which he has never committed.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.63  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.58    4 days ago

So no matter how well you raise your child you are all or part to blame for every mistake they make in their lives?  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.64  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.59    4 days ago

No one has to do so.  Everyone has the free will choice to do so or not along with the consequences of either decision.  You have no idea the extent of the evil or the patience of God before he acted against humanity or nations in the Old Testament.  At the tome of the second coming, things will be as bad here as it was at the time of the flood and then the rebellion against God will be brought to an end. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.65  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.60    4 days ago

Actually it says nothing of the sort.  Satan is an expert in the transference of blame for his actions and choices from himself to God and many secular so called logical humans ape the behavior making the choice whom they will serve.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.66  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.61    4 days ago
You made a point somewhere?  

I guess you weren't paying attention. Can't say I'm surprised.

God allowed all of His creation the free will to love and obey Him or not.

Free will is logically not possible with an omnipotent, all-knowing god

Giving another being freedom doesn’t mean the other being isn’t responsible for what they do with it.  

They are responsible if they know the outcome of giving that freedom.

God is blameless for evil and sin which he has never committed.  

Sounds like a version of Stockholm Syndrome.

So no matter how well you raise your child you are all or part to blame for every mistake they make in their lives?  

Do parents not bear responsibility for the actions of their children? Or how their children might turn out? Bad parenting increases the risk of bad children.

 You have no idea the extent of the evil or the patience of God before he acted against humanity or nations in the Old Testament.

So, nations with a much smaller population and certain societal mores were somehow more "evil' than nations today? 

 At the tome of the second coming, things will be as bad here as it was at the time of the flood and then the rebellion against God will be brought to an end

More unsubstantiated belief and nonsense!

Actually it says nothing of the sort.  

one merely needs to rationally analyze the bible to see the kind of evil ogre god was. Of course, some prefer to ignore that and make excuses for god.

Satan is an expert in the transference of blame for his actions and choices from himself to God and many secular so called logical humans ape the behavior making the choice whom they will serve.  

So it was Satan who attempted global genocide via flooding or other calamities? Or unleashed plagues on people? Or cause direct harm to individuals?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.62    4 days ago
God allowed all of His creation the free will to love and obey Him or not. Giving another being freedom doesn’t mean the other being isn’t responsible for what they do with it.  God is blameless for evil and sin which he has never committed.  

God is either all powerful and all knowing or He is not.   God cannot hold all the cards — have the ability to choose reality as He sees fit — and then be not responsible for the reality that He created.

God gets what God wants.   Anything that happens is a result of what God knowingly allowed to happen.   This is what the Bible claims in its definition of God.   Yeah, it is a logical contradiction and yes I see the cognitive dissonance being resolved by ignoring the problem.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.68  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.67    4 days ago
God is either all powerful and all knowing or He is not.   God cannot hold all the cards — have the ability to choose reality as He sees fit — and then be not responsible for the reality that He created.
God gets what God wants.   Anything that happens is a result of what God knowingly allowed to happen.   This is what the Bible claims in its definition of God.   Yeah, it is a logical contradiction and yes I see the cognitive dissonance being resolved by

It might be as simple as not holding God to some mere mortal's laws, demands, and wishes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.69  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.68    4 days ago

Does God get what God wants?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.69    4 days ago
Does God get what God wants?

I am in no position to think I know everything God wants.

You might be better off asking Him instead.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.71  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.68    4 days ago

That is the bottom line.  The problem is that when they aren’t denying He exists they are blaming him for everything wrong in the world and thinking they are smarter than and know more than He does.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.72  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.70    4 days ago

Bingo.  While we can point others to Him and tell what we know about Him, we can’t begin to know all God knows or what he wants for us unless we ask him.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.73  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.70    3 days ago
I am in no position to think I know everything God wants.

I purposely asked you a direct and very simple question.   My intent was to be so crystal clear that there is no way to misinterpret.   I did not ask you what God wants.   I did not ask anything about what God wants.   I asked this very clear, very direct question that you quoted:

TiG @4.1.69 ⇨ Does God get what God wants?

If you are going to run away from taking a stand on such a basic question why do you make any comments on this topic?


God is defined in the Bible as omniscient, omnipotent, perfect, etc.   Omniscient means He knows everything (even the future).   Omnipotent means He can do anything that He wishes to do (barring illogical non-acts like making a God superior to himself).

See?   That is what is taught in the Abrahamic religions (Christianity is a generalization of Abrahamic religions).   God is, per the Bible, the creator of everything with ultimate power and knowledge.

So ,,,

Does God get what God wants?

(If not, then something is powerful enough to mitigate God.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.72    3 days ago
... we can’t begin to know all God knows or what he wants for us unless we ask him

True.   You cannot possibly know what God wants.

Now, does God get what God wants?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.75  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.73    3 days ago
Does God get what God wants?

Asked and answered. Just because you don't like my answer has zero to do with the fact I answered you.

How could I possibly know if God gets what He wants if I don't know exactly what He wants?

That is like asking me if YOU get what you want? How could I make that determination if I don't know what YOU want? 

You wish to argue, apparently just for the sake of arguing. Have fun!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.75    3 days ago

Deflection (changing my question to one you could answer) with your routine cliche line ("you just do not like my answer").    jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

I am not surprised that you will not take a stand and answer this direct question.    You, however, might now consider this privately and try to figure out how it is possible for something to happen and not ultimately be the will of God given God is defined by the Bible as having all knowledge and all power.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.77  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.68    3 days ago
It might be as simple as not holding God to some mere mortal's laws, demands, and wishes.

It's a simple application of logic. TiG's question is also very simple. All it requires is either a 'yes' or 'no.' Which is it?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.78  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.75    3 days ago
How could I possibly know if God gets what He wants if I don't know exactly what He wants?

C'mon Tex. You have to think outside the box.

Psst,  all you gotta due is ask Santa, he'll know what God wanted, he does, check it twice you know !

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.77    3 days ago
It's a simple application of logic. TiG's question is also very simple. All it requires is either a 'yes' or 'no.' Which is it?

it isn't as simple as you wish it was.

You are still applying MAN'S "logic" to God. Why would you do that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.80  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.76    3 days ago

Deflection??

W-h-a-t???

Your question is the same--"Does God get what God wants?"

I changed absolutely nothing, and I answered you.

I have no idea if God wants anything or nothing.

I have no idea if God gets what He wants or if He even wants anything.

Do you?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.81  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.80    3 days ago
I have no idea if God gets what He wants

Now, ( surprisingly ), you answer the question I asked.   

I asked:  

TiG @ 4.1.69 ⇨ Does God get what God wants?

You now finally answer by claiming you have no idea.

No idea?   Not a single clue?   Not a hint?

God is defined as all powerful and all knowing yet you have no idea that God ipso facto holds all the cards — that everything that exists (all powerful) is a result of His will and thus everything that happens (remember all-knowing) is a result of His will.

But, you have no idea if He gets what He wants.    Apparently you think it is possible that some other force/entity can go against the will of an all-powerful, all-knowing supreme entity that has created everything that exists (except Himself).    

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.82  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.79    3 days ago
it isn't as simple as you wish it was.

Yeah, it kind of is simple.

You are still applying MAN'S "logic" to God. Why would you do that?

You assume there's another "logic" such as a supernatural version of logic, when there is no reason to and no evidence to support such a notion. That's quite illogical.

and I answered you.

I musty have missed it in all these posts. Can you specify where you answered yes or no to TiG's question?

I have no idea if God wants anything or nothing.

Then you missed the point of TiG's question. TiG even explained it for you.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.82    3 days ago

My question, of course, cannot be directly answered without admitting that God is ultimately (per the Bible) the source for everything.   By definition, an entity cannot know everything and have unlimited power and somehow be unaware that something is (or would be) happening and unable to stop (or prevent) it.

So, in the case of Satan where we have not a tiny event but a major player in the religious saga, how can anyone who believes in the biblical definition of God not realize that God (as defined) could stop Satan at any point?    Given, per religious lore, God does not stop Satan then God ipso facto allows Satan to operate.   Satan continues to operate because it is God's will to not stop him.   

One of many direct contradictions in religions.   And people seem to think that the claim:  'God allows Satan because God allows free will' means that Satan's acts (per religious lore) are somehow not ultimately because God allows this to occur.   If God allows Satan free will to do evil then God has allowed evil.   If God does not want Satan's evil, God could mitigate Satan.

The attributes of omniscience and omnipotence are poison pills.   The biblical authors painted themselves into a logical corner.   But that is understandable given these authors were mere fallible ancient men creating and embellishing stories to pretend to know and speak for 'God'.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.84  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.43    3 days ago
How many of them were taught to believe as children by their parents? Childhood indoctrination can be quite strong. How many turn to god during some trauma or emotional turmoil, as an attempt to find some emotional comfort? How many of them have some kind of mental illness? Or how many of them believe due to social pressures? I could also add how many of them were on drugs too? Regardless, billions of people can come up with their own stories of why the believe as they do. But none can demonstrate any actual "relationship" or establish their beliefs as actually being true. It essentially boils down to a matter of the mind, with emotional need/comfort being the most probable common denominator.

Surely you realize none of this even approaches evidence, let alone proof? All you are expressing is opinion. That's fine. You get one, but your opinion doesn't equate to fact, evidence or proof. So, here's what you said, just to remind you...

They only believed they did or were told they did, or otherwise deluded themselves into thinking that. That doesn't mean there was any actual "relationship." Just a belief and nothing more. Kind of like a "relationship" a child has with their imaginary friend. Any such relationship would seem quite 1-sided.

In order for any of this to be true, you have to demonstrate empirically that it is true. Have you done that? I think not. Instead, you insinuate conclusions throug the questions you ask. For instance...

How many of them were taught to believe as children by their parents?

Insinuating they only believe whatever they do because they were taught to. There's a lot of truth to that because that is the nature of a child. Most of what they believe they believe because someone taught it to them. A four year old may believe that gravity holds her to the ground because mommy said so, but she's not likely to really understand it very well. Does that make the child deluded? 

Further, since relationships are subjective, what basis do you have, what empirical method do you have to prove or otherwise provide evidence for a relationship with God is delusional? A being that, even if you don't believe exists, is at least understood to be supernatural? What instrument are you going to use to detect that? 

How many turn to god during some trauma or emotional turmoil, as an attempt to find some emotional comfort?

My guess? Most of us. How does that prove there is no relationship between ourselves and God? Your insinuation is ridiculous. It's like saying drug addicts only go to rehab clinics because their lives have gotten so bad they're desperate. Of course they do. And of course people turn to God when they reach the end of their rope or something traumatic happens. How can that possibly be considered evidence that the relationship is fiction? The only logical conclusion that is supportable is that people often turn to God when things get bad enough. There can be no logical deduction as to whether that God is real or not, nor whether the relationship is real or not. 

But none can demonstrate any actual "relationship" or establish their beliefs as actually being true.

They don't need to and that wasn't the issue. The issue was that you declared it all delusion and are unable to prove or provide evidence. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.85  Drakkonis  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.80    3 days ago
Your question is the same--"Does God get what God wants?

Don't worry too much about the question. I've answered TiG on this question a few times and he just ignores whatever you say because it doesn't fit with what he thinks God should be, not what He is, what free will consists of and such things. You just end up wasting electrons. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.86  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.81    3 days ago

I answered your question the very first time you asked me. You apparently didn't care for my answer, which matters not to me.

Anyone with a brain can clearly see my answer.

Now, why would God want anything at all?

if you assume that God is all-powerful and omniscient, then it would be rather stupid to assume that He would "want" anything.

You keep wanting to apply the logic of man to help you understand the Creator. 

Good luck with that!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.85    3 days ago
I've answered TiG on this question a few times and he just ignores whatever you say because it doesn't fit with what he thinks God should be, not what He is, what free will consists of and such things.

Now that speaks volumes Drakk given I routinely quote you directly and give a context-specific response.  Further, during the course, I necessarily make my rebuttal multiple times before you even acknowledge it.   Your comment here illustrates that this is not an accident on your part.    


Either you did not look at the question I asked and the answer provided or you are deliberately playing games.   

Here is what I asked:

TiG @4.1.69 ⇨ Does God get what God wants?

Here is Texan's reply:

Texan @4.1.70 I am in no position to think I know everything God wants.   You might be better off asking Him instead.

I did not ask what God wants or if Texan knew what God wants.   Texan's answer, which he repeatedly gave, was the answer to a different question - one that I did not ask.   I asked if God gets what God wants?   You do not see the deflection?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.88  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.85    3 days ago

Thanks for your reply.  It’s right on and expressed better than I have done so far.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.89  Texan1211  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.85    3 days ago
Don't worry too much about the question. I've answered TiG on this question a few times and he just ignores whatever you say because it doesn't fit with what he thinks God should be, not what He is, what free will consists of and such things. You just end up wasting electrons. 

Every once in a while it is rather amusing to see how people lacking faith in God tell us how God should be--according to them, anyways!

I liken it to people who don't believe in God or the Bible who quote the Bible to score some obscure "points" that they seem to think show their mental superiority.

All the arguments always, always, always boil down to nothing more than "prove it".

LMAO!

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.90  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.86    3 days ago

The only thing I can say as to what God wants is to remember that Jesus said it was the Fathers desire that all mankind would choose to be saved by faith.  Beyond that I think it not the best choice to try to speak to His wants.  He exists on a realm we can not begin to comprehend or understand.  When Daniel was praying to God, God sent an angel from Heaven with the answer during that same prayer.  And we mere sinful mortals are supposed to know and comprehend how that happened? 

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.91  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.87    3 days ago

Maybe you should seriously ask God what he wants regarding you and see what He says? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.92  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.89    3 days ago
Every once in a while it is rather amusing to see how people lacking faith in God tell us how God should be--according to them, anyways!

What is funny (sad actually) is that I was asking a question of God given how He is defined by the Bible.    My comments use the religious and biblical definitions of God.   Odd that you cannot see this.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.93  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.91    3 days ago

Not the question asked.   Funny how this question is routinely avoided.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.87    3 days ago

Asked AND answered.

You keep assuming that God wants something.

Until you can admit that, I suppose you will still cling to "He didn't answer my question" bs.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.95  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.94    3 days ago
You keep assuming that God wants something.

Do you reject the Bible?   Do you reject Christianity?   You would have to do so if you claim that God does not want anything. 

I do not have to assume anything.   I am going by Christianity and the Bible and it clearly defines a God with plans, expectations and intent.   God, as defined by Christianity, wants certain things to happen.   See?   Now if this has all escaped you then you know nothing of your religion.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.96  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.87    3 days ago
You do not see the deflection?

I couldn't care less whether or not Texan deflected. My point was even if he hadn't, arguing whether God gets what He wants or not with you is pointless. You do not argue whether God not getting what He wants is logically consistent with God as depicted in the Bible. You argue whether it's consistent with your idea of what God should be. Then you use that to claim contradiction or error in the Bible. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.97  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.91    3 days ago

As some here are trying very hard not to understand, what, specifically, God wants is irrelevant.  If God is both omniscient (as described) and omnipotent (as described), then God always gets what God wants.  If Satan is influencing world events, that is because God chose to make Satan, knowing that he'd influence world events, and chooses not to thwart Satan, even though he could.  If a hurricane drowns thousands in the Caribbean, it's because God caused the hurricane to form, to hit vulnerable islands, and chose not to change its path.

If God made everything and everyone, and knew how everyone would act, then God is the one in control.  Before we were even a twinkle in our daddies' eyes, God knew what paths we would choose, right?  So God's responsible.

So, the specifics don't matter.  If God is omniscient, and omnipotent, then everything is going according to God's plan, and God gets what God wants.

And can take the blame for it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.98  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.92    3 days ago
What is funny (sad actually) is that I was asking a question of God given how He is defined by the Bible.    My comments use the religious and biblical definitions of God.   Odd that you cannot see this.

What I find especially odd is someone who doesn't believe in God pretending to know what He "wants". 

Also odd is you thinking I would know what God "wants" when I am not sure if God "wants" anything.

But hey, if He decides to let me know, I'll clue you in, okay?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.99  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.96    3 days ago
I couldn't care less whether or not Texan deflected.

Well you should care because you just implied that he has answered my question.   Do you not care about your own intellectual integrity?    

My point was even if he hadn't, arguing whether God gets what He wants or not with you is pointless. You do not argue whether God not getting what He wants is logically consistent with God as depicted in the Bible. You argue whether it's consistent with your idea of what God should be. Then you use that to claim contradiction or error in the Bible. 

The only sentence above that is true is that I claim contradiction.   I do not posit my own personal idea of what God should be.   I state how God is defined by the Bible and by Christianity.    I routinely deliver scripture as well and even then you equivocate away from the quoted verses.

This truth is uncomfortable for you, I get it, but pretending that I am making up my own definition for God is simple intellectually dishonest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.100  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.98    3 days ago
What I find especially odd is someone who doesn't believe in God pretending to know what He "wants". 

Keep trying.   Maybe eventually you will make a sentence that is accurate.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.101  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.97    3 days ago
As some here are trying very hard not to understand, what, specifically, God wants is irrelevant.

Well, clue TG in because he is the one asking if God gets what God wants, and you just described that question as irrelevant, Couldn't agree more.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.102  Drakkonis  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.89    3 days ago
Every once in a while it is rather amusing to see how people lacking faith in God tell us how God should be--according to them, anyways!

I know what you mean, but it's more frustrating than amusing, especially from people who keep harping about critical thinking but don't seem to employ it. I think they confuse critical thinking with materialism. That is, if it isn't within the purview of materialism it isn't critical thinking. For instance, there is no empirical evidence that any given individual has a relationship with God, therefore critical thinking, according to them, suggests that there is no relationship. They sieve everything through materialism, removing anything not materialistic and then apply critical thinking. Go figure. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.103  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.101    3 days ago

Faux obtuseness.   

What God wants is not the question.   The question is, per Christianity, does God get what He wants?    One need not know what God wants to answer the question.  One only need understand the religious definition of the Christian God.   

You apparently have no idea how the Christian God is defined by Christianity.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.104  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.101    3 days ago

Read a little more carefully.  TiG has not asked what God wants.  He asked if God gets what God wants.  You can tell the difference, I trust?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.105  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.102    3 days ago
For instance, there is no empirical evidence that any given individual has a relationship with God, therefore critical thinking, according to them, suggests that there is no relationship.

I am amazed that you think I would ever argue that the absence of evidence means something is impossible.   Where do you come up with this crap?   That is not even remotely close to anything I have written.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.106  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.99    3 days ago
Well you should care because you just implied that he has answered my question.   Do you not care about your own intellectual integrity?    

I simply said talking to you about whether or not God gets what He wants is a waste of time. You want to read that as implying something other than that is on you. 

I do not posit my own personal idea of what God should be.   I state how God is defined by the Bible and by Christianity.    I routinely deliver scripture as well and even then you equivocate away from the quoted verses.

Okay, let's test that. The answer to your question is no, God doesn't always get what He wants. 

Your move. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.107  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.104    3 days ago

He says he does not know the answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.108  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.106    3 days ago
I simply said talking to you about whether or not God gets what He wants is a waste of time.

False.   Here is what you wrote:

Drakk @4.1.85 - I've answered TiG on this question a few times and he just ignores whatever you say because it doesn't fit with what he thinks God should be, not what He is, what free will consists of and such things. 

So, no, you just misrepresented what you wrote.    Wise because what you wrote was a lie.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.109  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.106    3 days ago
The answer to your question is no, God doesn't always get what He wants. 

Give an example for us to work with.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.110  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.100    3 days ago
Keep trying.   Maybe eventually you will make a sentence that is accurate.

You keep trying, too. Maybe one day you will be able to understand an answer written in plain English.

BTW, why (use your infamous logic here) would an entity such as "God is defined as all powerful and all knowing yet you have no idea that God ipso facto holds all the cards — that everything that exists (all powerful) is a result of His will and thus everything that happens (remember all-knowing) is a result of His will" would such a Being HAVE any wants? Does that really sound logical to you?
 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.111  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.110    3 days ago

Wants = intention for a particular result

Are you really trying to pretend that you thought  'wants' referred to 'need'?    I doubt anyone would fall for that equivocation.

And by the way, your post just tacitly admitted that God would not have any needs because God is all powerful and all knowing.   In other words, God gets what God wants.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.112  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.93    3 days ago

You are not the only one who gets to ask questions.  What would he say to you if you asked Him?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.113  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.112    3 days ago

How on Earth would anyone answer that question HA?   Read what you wrote and figure out what a dumb question that is.

What would God say to you if you asked Him any question?   If you can answer that then you are pretending to know the mind of God.

jrSmiley_92_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.114  Texan1211  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.104    3 days ago
Read a little more carefully. 

I'll do my best. Promise.

TiG has not asked what God wants. 

I know. Who said he did?

He asked if God gets what God wants. 

Yes, multiple times, even though I answered him the first time he asked.

You can tell the difference, I trust?

Trusting that I know that would be a good thing for you to do.

Since I didn't claim otherwise, why is that comment directed to me?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.115  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.109    3 days ago
Give an example for us to work with.

Um, no. You must have had some reason for asking the question. Just dropping the ball back on my side doesn't work. What was the point of your question? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.116  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.108    3 days ago
So, no, you just misrepresented what you wrote.    Wise because what you wrote was a lie.

Believe what you want, TiG. I don't really care. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.117  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.115    3 days ago

You are playing games.  I asked for a particular example so that we could be grounded in specifics and not in the abstract.   I am willing to discuss / debate this and you have stated that God does not always get what He wants.   Okay, give me an example where God does not get what He wants and we will go from there.

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.118  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.97    3 days ago

There will be the vast majority of humanity blaming God from outside the walls of the New Jerusalem exhorted on by the now prince of this world until they all see their lives flash before their eyes and all the missed opportunities do have done differently, and then every knee will bow.  Then comes the battle of Armageddon when the evil one launches one last attempt to storm the city and strip Jesus from His throne.  Hell then rains down upon the invaders in self defense and then the experiment of sin and rebellion will be forever concluded in the universe.  Then the new earth is recreated and Gods capital and Heaven is established here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.119  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.116    3 days ago
Believe what you want, TiG. I don't really care. 

Yeah, well it is right there on record in the thread.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.120  sandy-2021492  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.114    3 days ago

Then you misunderstood me.  I never said that the question "Does God get what God wants" is irrelevant.  I said that what God wants is irrelevant.  You conflated the two.

As some here are trying very hard not to understand, what, specifically, God wants is irrelevant.
Well, clue TG in because he is the one asking if God gets what God wants, and you just described that question as irrelevant, Couldn't agree more.

So, we're agreed that they're two separate questions, yes?  And that what God wants is irrelevant to TiG's point, which is that God always gets what God wants, if we are to believe the Biblical descriptions of God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.121  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.118    3 days ago

So God has a plan and He will achieve His plan.  Right?  God is going to win in the end because God gets what He wants.   Right?  God always wins because God is perfect, omnipotent and omniscient.   Right?

After all, is it not the Christian belief that the Christian God is THE supreme entity who created everything and has control over everything?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.122  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.111    3 days ago
Wants = intention for a particular result

Odd to write to me. I haven't written anything suggesting otherwise.

Are you really trying to pretend that you thought  'wants' referred to 'need'?    I doubt anyone would fall for that equivocation.

Pretend? What insaneness is that? Please quote me from post 4.1.10 even writing the word "need". 

And by the way, your post just tacitly admitted that God would not have any needs because God is all powerful and all knowing.   In other words, God gets what God wants.

I don't think God would have any needs OR wants because I do consider him omniscient. I haven't ever denied that. What conclusions you draw are up to you. 

In other words, God gets what God wants.

Then it was extremely pointless for you to have asked the question since your mind was already made up on the answer.

next time, save us all the bs and just write that to begin with.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.123  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.118    3 days ago
As some here are trying very hard not to understand, what, specifically, God wants is irrelevant.
Well, clue TG in because he is the one asking if God gets what God wants, and you just described that question as irrelevant, Couldn't agree more.

Sure, sure, fire and brimstone and all that jazz.

And all according to God's plan.  Omniscience plus omnipotence equals total responsibility for the outcome.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.124  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.122    3 days ago
I don't think God would have any needs OR wants because I do consider him omniscient. I haven't ever denied that. 

Well, gee, Tex then you realize that God knows everything.   Now, do you consider God omnipotent?   If so, then not only does God know everything, God can make anything (that is possible to happen) happen.

In other words, God gets what God wants.

So does God get what God wants?    

This should be easy for you to answer now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.125  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.124    3 days ago
Well, gee, Tex then you realize that God knows everything. 

I think it is swell of you to agree with me, but find it rather odd for someone who doesn't believe in God.

Now, do you consider God omnipotent?  

Yes.

If so, then not only does God know everything, God can make anything (that is possible to happen) happen.

Okay.

In other words, God gets what God wants.

Those are your words.  In post 4.1.122, I already addressed that. "I don't think God would have any needs OR wants because I do consider him omniscient".

So does God get what God wants?  

Asked multiple time now, and answered multiple times. It is getting old. 

Some people who would read this:

"I don't think God would have any needs OR wants because I do consider him omniscient".

would think that it is a rather silly and definitely pointless question to ask of me.

This should be easy for you to answer now.

it was easy each and every time you asked the question.

Your comments don't make it easier or harder to answer.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.126  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.125    3 days ago

You just cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything.

I think that is both funny and sad.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.127  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.126    3 days ago
You just cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything.

That statement is a flat out falsehood. I have never denied it, and challenge you to provide any quote from me anywhere at any time to support your preposterous claim.

Sad indeed when one has to resort to falsehoods.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.128  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.127    3 days ago

Oh so you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.129  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.117    3 days ago
You are playing games.

Very well. Let's see who's actually playing games. 

Examples of God getting what He wants.

  • Creation
  • Creation if Israel
  • Syria attacking Israel as punishment

Examples of God not getting what He wants.

  • Israel to remain faithful to the covenant
  • Sinners going to Hell because they refuse salvation

Now, you've already given your reply way back in 4.1.67. 

God is either all powerful and all knowing or He is not.   God cannot hold all the cards — have the ability to choose reality as He sees fit — and then be not responsible for the reality that He created.
God gets what God wants.   Anything that happens is a result of what God knowingly allowed to happen.   This is what the Bible claims in its definition of God.   Yeah, it is a logical contradiction and yes I see the cognitive dissonance being resolved by ignoring the problem.

Why was it necessary for me to provide you with examples when you've already stated your argument??? Now, who's playing games?

Further, let's look at what you said. 

God is either all powerful and all knowing or He is not.  

Point? 

God cannot hold all the cards — have the ability to choose reality as He sees fit — and then be not responsible for the reality that He created.

God does not hold all the cards. Each individua holds at least one. That is whether or not they will obey God or reject Him.

That God gave them that card doesn't make Him responsible for what they do with it. That would be like saying the government that gave a business licence to a business that went on to defraud it's customers is responsible for the crooked dealings of the business. 

But you're not entirely wrong. God is responsible overall but again, as with the example of the crooked business, in the same sense the government is responsible for administering justince and punishment to that business, so God is responsible for seeing justice done in His creation. 

God gets what God wants.

You say you argue from the Biblical perspective yet ignore that it so clearly illustrates that He does not. Yet you keep making this claim. So, tell me again how you're arguing from a Biblical perspective rather than your own idea that an omnipotent and omniscient God gets what He wants? Oh, wait! Because you're not. You're arguing from a purely logical point of view. In your view, an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarly get what He wants, else He wouldn't be God. 

Somehow, though, it escapes you that such a God would or could will that His creation have a will of it's own and be prepared for the consequences. 

Anything that happens is a result of what God knowingly allowed to happen.

Which is not at all the same as willing it to happen. 

This is what the Bible claims in its definition of God.

No, this is your interpretation of a book you don't understand. This is evidenced by your repeatedly claiming that "God gets what God wants," even though the Bible clearly demonstrates this isn't true with even a cursory reading. Therefore, you're actually projecting what you think God should be. 

Yeah, it is a logical contradiction...

Well, if it is you have yet to point out why. 

and yes I see the cognitive dissonance being resolved by ignoring the problem.

The problem is that you're not arguing from a Biblical perspective, therefore you insert your own definitions and then claim this nonsense.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.130  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.128    3 days ago
Oh so you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything?

Man, nothing gets by you, now does it?

Do you have some vague point that you aren't making?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.131  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.129    3 days ago
Sinners going to Hell because they refuse salvation

Okay, let's take this.   God created all human beings.   God knew prior to creation how the future would unfold.   Are you suggesting that an omnipotent entity is not capable of creating human beings who would all accept salvation?

Why was it necessary for me to provide you with examples when you've already stated your argument??? 

I asked you for a single example of where God does not get what He wants.   I told you why.   And, yes, you are indeed playing games.

God does not hold all the cards. Each individua holds at least one. That is whether or not they will obey God or reject Him.

Oh so you do not think God has control over how each individual was created?   You do not think an omnipotent entity could create individuals who behave as He wishes?   Not really omnipotent then is He?

That God gave them that card doesn't make Him responsible for what they do with it.

It was God's choice to give the card.   Are you saying that God did not have a choice ... that He had to give the free will card?   

That would be like saying the government that gave a business licence to a business that went on to defraud it's customers is responsible for the crooked dealings of the business. 

Governments are not omniscient and omnipotent.   Remember those attributes since they are absolutely crucial to the point.

But you're not entirely wrong. God is responsible overall but again, as with the example of the crooked business, in the same sense the government is responsible for administering justince and punishment to that business, so God is responsible for seeing justice done in His creation. 

(see above)

You say you argue from the Biblical perspective yet ignore that it so clearly illustrates that He does not.

Excuse me.   God is not omniscient and omnipotent??

Yet you keep making this claim. So, tell me again how you're arguing from a Biblical perspective rather than your own idea that an omnipotent and omniscient God gets what He wants? Oh, wait! Because you're not. You're arguing from a purely logical point of view. In your view, an omnipotent and omniscient God would necessarly get what He wants, else He wouldn't be God. 

That was pure emotion.   Calm down and explain to me how an omniscient and omnipotent entity would NOT get what it wants.

Somehow, though, it escapes you that such a God would or could will that His creation have a will of it's own and be prepared for the consequences. 

Nope, if you posit free will then I will note that it was God's choice to give free will and that God knew exactly how the free will would play out.   I predict you will ignore this.

Which is not at all the same as willing it to happen. 

You are really grasping at straws here Drakk.   If something happens in the domain of an omniscient, omnipotent entity the notion of will seems lame.   This entity controls everything and knows everything.   Nothing escapes this entity and nothing prevents this entity from taking action.   If something happens it is because the entity knowingly allowed it to happen.  God gets what God wants.

No, this is your interpretation of a book you don't understand. This is evidenced by your repeatedly claiming that "God gets what God wants," even though the Bible clearly demonstrates this isn't true with even a cursory reading. Therefore, you're actually projecting what you think God should be. 

Is God omnipotent?   Is God omniscient?   If so then your above statement is bullshit.   I am taking the Christian definition for God and playing it back to you.   And if you do not think God is omnipotent and omniscient then please educate your fellow Christians because they really are missing something.

Well, if it is you have yet to point out why. 

Happy to.  First admit that the Christian God is defined to be omnipotent and omniscient (or state that God is not omnipotent and omniscient).

The problem is that you're not arguing from a Biblical perspective, therefore you insert your own definitions and then claim this nonsense.

And you end with bullshit.   I have offered two attributes: omniscience and omnipotence.   If those are not attributes of the Christian God then explain why.   If they are, then it is intellectually dishonest to claim that I have inserted my own definition.

Make your choice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.132  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.130    3 days ago

No need, you tacitly admitted that God gets what God wants.   I know, you will deny it, but everyone reading this can see that you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything and since you hold that the Christian God has those properties you admit that the Christian God has full control over everything.   Now if the Christian God has full control over everything that means God gets what God wants.   See?   

No ... you do not see.   Ask someone else to explain it to you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.133  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.132    3 days ago

Doubtful if anyone can explain such gibberish, but I'll ask around in case someone here is fluent in it.

Did you ever have any real point, or just deliberately being antagonistic?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.134  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.132    3 days ago
No need, you tacitly admitted that God gets what God wants.   I know, you will deny it, but everyone reading this can see that you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything and since you hold that the Christian God has those properties you admit that the Christian God has full control over everything. 

I never denied that God is omnipotent and omniscient. That's twice now in the last few posts that you have posted complete falsehoods. I aske for quotes before to support your outlandish claims, and now I will again.

You are making an argument that I am not engaged in.

A little curious as to how someone who doesn't even believe in God can be so sure about what He can or can't do. How are you so sure?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.135  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.133    3 days ago

It’s clearly the latter and has been through over the last 500 posts or so of this seed.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.136  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.134    3 days ago

He is the unique human entitled to sit in judgement of God....

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.137  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.131    3 days ago
Okay, let's take this.   God created all human beings.   God knew prior to creation how the future would unfold.   Are you suggesting that an omnipotent entity is not capable of creating human beings who would all accept salvation?

Since I am not God, nor even close, I can't definitively say what God is and isn't capable of in every case. That said, certain logical deductions can be made from the Bible concerning this question. God is perfect, meaning not only is He perfect in Himself, everything He does is perfect. If that is true, then He has created human beings perfectly in that His overall goal will be achieved. Had there been a better, more perfect way, He would therefore have done that instead. 

But perhaps where you go wrong is your apparent understanding of what "omnipotent" means. Omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do whatever one can imagine. It means being able to do whatever one wills to do. God cannot do some of the things we can. Lie for instance. That doesn't detract from His omnipotence in the slightest as it is something He would never will to do. 

Oh so you do not think God has control over how each individual was created?   You do not think an omnipotent entity could create individuals who behave as He wishes?   Not really omnipotent then is He?

Thanks for proving my earlier statement accurate. 

I've answered TiG on this question a few times and he just ignores whatever you say because it doesn't fit with what he thinks God should be, not what He is, what free will consists of and such things. 

You are not arguing from a Biblical perspective concerning the capabilities of God. You are arguing from your own ideas of what God should be and what He should be able to do. I am only arguing what is demonstrable from the Bible. 

In any case, yes, I know God has control over how each individual was created. Do I think God could create individuals who behave as He wishes? Depends on what exactly you mean. Do I think God could create individuals with free will but never chose against him? Yes. Not all the angels rebelled. Most of them did not, so these individuals have and are doing what God wants them to do. But God did not make them not reject Him. They exercised their free will and chose to obey. 

We could have done the same thing, but we didn't. God created us with that potential to remain obedient. That He knew we would fall doesn't change that in the slightest. It isn't His fault that we fell. That was our choice. 

Jesus Christ was the only human to actually lived entirely as God wished. There is speculation as to the exact nature of Jesus as a human. Some think that he had a sinful nature, just like the rest of us, but never indulged it. Some think that his nature was entirely divine and not really human. Both views have major problems though. The one that makes the most sense is that his nature was that of Adam and Eve's before they fell into sin. His nature was human without the sin. He is what we should have been. 

But, in another sense, the sense I think you're asking, no, God could not do what you suggest because to get that he'd have to eliminate free will. The square circle problem. 

Since God is accomplishing exactly what He wants to, I'd say He's pretty much the definition of Omnipotent. 

It was God's choice to give the card.   Are you saying that God did not have a choice ... that He had to give the free will card?

Well, I don't know, TiG? How does God want to give free will without actually having to give it? If it is His will that we should have free will, how can He have a choice if He wants us to have it? That's like saying, I want you to hold this book but I don't want you to hold it. 

Governments are not omniscient and omnipotent.   Remember those attributes since they are absolutely crucial to the point.

Omnipotence and omniscience aren't relevant to the point. The point was responsibility. God is responsible for giving man free will, just like governments are responsible for giving businesses licenses. Admittedly, governments don't know which businesses are going to cheat but that's not really relevant. God does know, but that's not really relevant, either. The individual still chooses to do wrong even though God already knew they would. It doesn't make God any more responsible than government.

  Excuse me.   God is not omniscient and omnipotent??

Yes. For the life of me, though, I can't understand why you have a problem understanding this. Can an omnipotent and omniscient God not choose to allow His creatures to oppose His will for a time? Is it impossible for an omnipotent, omniscient God to create man and say, you may choose to obey me or reject me, but there are consequences for your decision? How does that impinge on His attributes in the slightest? If God wills that His creatures have free will and allows them to exercise it, how does that detract from His omnipotence and omniscience, especially since those attributes is what allows Him to do so in the first place?

That was pure emotion.  

Nice dodge.

Calm down and explain to me how an omniscient and omnipotent entity would NOT get what it wants.

Again? Fine. God wants all to come to salvation but not all will. He doesn't get what He wants because, by the free will He wanted them to have, they choose not to be saved. What is so hard about this? God wanted us to have free will. That is the sort of thing were His will prevailed and we had no choice in it. But in doing that, God accepted that it necessarily meant that He would not get everything He desired. I think we both agreed one time that God can't do the logically impossible, like make a square circle. This is that. You can't both allow free will and prevent them from using it. That would not be free will. 

Nope, if you posit free will then I will note that it was God's choice to give free will and that God knew exactly how the free will would play out.

Totally agree. I just don't know what your point is. 

You are really grasping at straws here Drakk.   If something happens in the domain of an omniscient, omnipotent entity the notion of will seems lame.   This entity controls everything and knows everything.

Um, so you're saying there's no difference between allowing something to happen and willing it to happen? If so, I think you're fingering the wrong guy concerning straw grasping. 

So, answer this. How can God not allow a thing to happen yet still allow that individual free will? 

Nothing escapes this entity and nothing prevents this entity from taking action.   If something happens it is because the entity knowingly allowed it to happen.  God gets what God wants.

Uh, yeah, something prevents God from taking action. His will to allow free will. As for the rest, that's some pretty twisted logic. Basically, you've simply devolved on insisting it's that way. God does knowingly allow things to happen but there's no logical connection to the conclusion that God gets what God wants, unless you're saying that God wanted the individual to exercise their free will, but that doesn't mean God wanted the action that free will resulted in. That's an accusation, not logic. 

Happy to.  First admit that the Christian God is defined to be omnipotent and omniscient 

God is omnipotent and omniscient. As if I haven't made that abundantly clear years ago. 

And you end with bullshit.   I have offered two attributes: omniscience and omnipotence.   If those are not attributes of the Christian God then explain why.   If they are, then it is intellectually dishonest to claim that I have inserted my own definition.

They are attributes of God. The problem is that you apply them incorrectly. Do you get that? It isn't that we are arguing whether or not God has those attributes. It is that you refuse to understand how God can have those attributes and be defied. It's because He chooses to allow it. For a time, at least. Ultimately everyone will get what they deserve. No one will defy Him forever. 

The biggest weakness to your argument, what actually destroys it, really, is that you don't explain why God, with those attributes, cannot possess them and still be defied. It's pretty obvious that He can be because He allows it. It's really that simple. Or is it your contention that it isn't possible for an omnipotent, omniscient God to allow His creations to defy Him? He can't choose to do that? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.138  Drakkonis  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.88    3 days ago

You're welcome, and thank you!

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.139  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.123    3 days ago

Anyone on the receiving end of fire and brimstone will be 100% responsible for being there and have no excuses whatsoever. It will not be Gods fault that they chose eternal separation from Him and from life.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.140  sandy-2021492  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.139    3 days ago
It will not be Gods fault that they chose eternal separation from Him and from life.

Of course it will, according to the Bible. If God made us, as the Bible insists he did, and is omniscient, as the Bible says he is, then he knew before he made us what we would do.  He made us in the full knowledge of the future choices we'd make, and is therefore responsible for those choices.

If God doesn't get what God wants, then either the term "omniscient" or "omnipotent" must not be used to describe God.

If one is being honest, that is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.141  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.137    2 days ago
Since I am not God, nor even close, I can't definitively say what God is and isn't capable of in every case.

So your particular variant of Christianity holds that God has limitations?   God is not really all powerful and all knowing?    

See this is a simple question.   If an entity is all-knowing and all-powerful then that entity gets what it wants (barring illogical things like making a superior entity).   You admit that God is defined this way (omniscient, omnipotent, ...) yet claim that there might be limitations.    Is that the Christian God or is it the Drakk God whose omniscience and omnipotence has special unknown limitations?    

Omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do whatever one can imagine. It means being able to do whatever one wills to do. God cannot do some of the things we can. Lie for instance. That doesn't detract from His omnipotence in the slightest as it is something He would never will to do. 

I have qualified my statements throughout.   I am not talking about omnipotence in the sense that it accomplishes the impossible (I twice gave the example of God creating His superior).   I am talking about what is possible.   For example, God could create Adam & Eve in such a way that they would not disappoint Him.    God could nullify Satan (remove his powers).   On and on and on.    Right?  

You are not arguing from a Biblical perspective concerning the capabilities of God. You are arguing from your own ideas of what God should be and what He should be able to do. I am only arguing what is demonstrable from the Bible. 

False.  Show me where I do this.  My whole argument thus far is based on omnipotence and omniscience as defined by Christian theology.   You suggest there are limitations on omnipotence (an oxymoron) and then claim that I am the one rolling my own definitions.   Hello?    

You claim that each individual can obey or reject God as an example of a limitation on omnipotence.   That means you do not think God could have created individuals who would simply obey Him.   Where did this limitation come from?   Explain how you know that God has no power to create individuals who will not reject Him.   Where is this limitation of God's power stated in Christian theology?   Or is this just Drakk's definition of God?

In any case, yes, I know God has control over how each individual was created. Do I think God could create individuals who behave as He wishes? Depends on what exactly you mean. Do I think God could create individuals with free will but never chose against him? Yes. Not all the angels rebelled. Most of them did not, so these individuals have and are doing what God wants them to do. But God did not make them not reject Him. They exercised their free will and chose to obey. 

How are you not contradicting your prior claim?   If God can create individuals who behave as He wishes then clearly those individuals would not have the means to choose to follow or reject Him.   Either God can create compliant entities or He cannot.   Resolve the contradiction.

We could have done the same thing, but we didn't. God created us with that potential to remain obedient. That He knew we would fall doesn't change that in the slightest. It isn't His fault that we fell. That was our choice. 

Deflection.   Focus on the definition of God.   The nature of man is not in debate here.

But, in another sense, the sense I think you're asking, no, God could not do what you suggest because to get that he'd have to eliminate free will. The square circle problem. 

I agree, that is a logical issue and I do not insist (and I made that clear upfront) that omnipotence means doing what is logically impossible to do.   Free will and non-free will cannot logically coexist.   But here is the key.   God chooses to grant free will or not.   That is God's choice.   God still holds the cards.  If an all-knowing God grants free will (in this case this at least means His creations can now reject Him) then the rejection is a result of God granting free will.   If God did not want rejection, He would not provide free will.   And note that God could create free-will anyway He wishes.   Indeed, He (if He were real) has done so.   None of us can control our biochemistry.   We cannot will our immune system to focus more on fighting a cold or even will our brains to shut down the annoyance of tinnitus.   If you do the research, human beings have very little control over our own bodies.   So God could grant free will to choose our careers, mates, etc. but not allow us to reject Him.   Does not matter if you think that is a bad idea, the point is that He could if He wanted to.   That, Drakk, is my point.

Since God is accomplishing exactly what He wants to, I'd say He's pretty much the definition of Omnipotent. 

Well is that not what we are debating?   I am the one who posited that God gets what God wants.   You just wrote that you agree with my posit.   What on Earth are you arguing about?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.142  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.134    2 days ago
A little curious as to how someone who doesn't even believe in God can be so sure about what He can or can't do. How are you so sure?

Well if you would follow what I actually write instead of inventing your own lines and trying to put them in my mouth you would not be so confused.

I did not define the Christian God as omnipotent and omniscient.   I am taking that from Christian theology.   See?

So this is real simple.   Any unique entity that is all powerful and all knowing gets what it wants (barring the logically impossible).   After all, what greater force is going to stop this entity?   Now why is it that you cannot wrap your head around that very simple conclusion based on Christian theology?

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.143  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.139    2 days ago
Anyone on the receiving end of fire and brimstone will be 100% responsible for being there and have no excuses whatsoever. It will not be Gods fault that they chose eternal separation from Him and from life.  

And here you go again with the declaration that those who do not believe as you do are damned (fire and brimstone even).

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.144  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.141    2 days ago
Well is that not what we are debating?   I am the one who posited that God gets what God wants.   You just wrote that you agree with my posit.   What on Earth are you arguing about?

And thank you. You again prove my original post to Texan. It's a waste of time talking to you about this. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.145  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.142    2 days ago
Well if you would follow what I actually write instead of inventing your own lines and trying to put them in my mouth you would not be so confused.

I have no need to do something so weak. I actually quoted your words--something you have been completely unable or unwilling to do when making false statements about what I have claimed.

Here are your words--"Oh so you agree that an omnipotent, omniscient entity has full control over everything?"

While many inane posts can be entertaining, the vast majority fall into blathering gibberish. Your post definitely is in the majority of inane posts.

I have never denied what you claim--that God is omnipotent and omniscient. You keep saying I do, but you simply run out of steam when asked to back that false assertion up with a quote from me.

Go ahead and quote me---for ONCE.

PROVE what you falsely and deliberately claim.

And since it seems important to you, I will let you have the last word. 

Go!

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.146  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.144    2 days ago

You argue for (apparently) the sake of arguing when you all along agreed with my posit that God gets what God wants and then claim I did something wrong.

Instead of dealing with my rebuttals you offer a claim that is contradicted by what I have written here (I responded to each of your points —as is my style— up to the point where you inexplicably agreed with my posit) yet you declared I ignore your points.   

Impressive display of intellectual honesty Drakk.    \s

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.147  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.145    2 days ago
I have never denied what you claim--that God is omnipotent and omniscient.

What would stop a uniquely omnipotent / omniscient entity from getting what it wants?   Here we have an entity defined to have as much power and knowledge as is possible to have and you refuse to acknowledge that this entity clearly will get what it wants.   What could possibly stop this entity?   It has all the power and knowledge.

Hello?

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.1.148  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @4.1.118    2 days ago

What an active imagination you have. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.149  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.147    2 days ago
What would stop a uniquely omnipotent / omniscient entity from getting what it wants?  

Nothing that I know of--if you assume that God has any wants. Why would the Supreme Being "want" for anything?

I am not so presumptious to assume that God wants or needs anything. That would be ludicrous to me.

 Here we have an entity defined to have as much power and knowledge as is possible to have and you refuse to acknowledge that this entity clearly will get what it wants.  

This is at least the third time that you say I refuse to do something. Each time you have posted it, the post has been a lie.

For once--quote me or please stop telling lies.

You ARE capable of debate without lying, aren't you?

Or am I mistaken to assume that about you?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.150  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.146    2 days ago

So your particular variant of Christianity holds that God has limitations?  

It is not a variant of mine. Every Christian knows there are things God can't do. Find a Christian who thinks God is capable of lying and I'll show you a "Christian" that is in some sort of weird fringe thing. And limitations probably isn't even the correct term anyway. Is not being able to lie an actual limitation or is it perfect character? 

God is not really all powerful and all knowing?

How does God's limitations mean He is either not all powerful or all knowing? You already agree that omnipotence doesn't mean being able to do the logically impossible. Why would not being able to do evil make Him less omnipotent? Of course, you can personally believe that to be omnipotent you must be able to do evil. As I said, I think the correct definition of omnipotence is the one in the dictionary with an addition. "Unlimited power" to do what one wills. 

See this is a simple question.   If an entity is all-knowing and all-powerful then that entity gets what it wants (barring illogical things like making a superior entity).   You admit that God is defined this way (omniscient, omnipotent, ...) yet claim that there might be limitations.    Is that the Christian God or is it the Drakk God whose omniscience and omnipotence has special unknown limitations?

Not "might" be limitations. God cannot do certain things. This is because it is not in His nature to do them. He can't want to do them. The limitation is not with His omnipotence. The limitation, if it's correct to call it that, is His nature. And that is the Christian God, not my version of Him. All one has to do is read the Bible for confirmation or, lacking the desire to do so, ask any Christian. 

I have qualified my statements throughout.   I am not talking about omnipotence in the sense that it accomplishes the impossible (I twice gave the example of God creating His superior).  

I know, so let's not bring it up again.

I am talking about what is possible.   For example, God could create Adam & Eve in such a way that they would not disappoint Him.    

First, you can't be disappointed when you already know what is going to happen. Second, I think if God could have gotten what He is after some other way that was better then He would have done it. So, no. I don't think your question is correct. 

God could nullify Satan (remove his powers).   On and on and on.    Right? 

Yes, God could have nullified Satan in some manner, but apparently it is necessary that He not do so in order to attain His goal. And on and on. 

What you are trying to do is say that if God is really omnipotent and omniscient then that would mean that there must be some way that God can avoid the consequences of evil caused by His creation having free will. You argue that God being God, He can create any reality He want to. Not true. God cannot create a reality where sin doesn't matter. Where sin can be overlooked. Maybe he can create a reality where magic is real but in that reality, the consequences of creatures with free will doing evil will be exactly the same as this one. He can create a reality where the physics of that universe are nothing like ours, yet the sin problem would still be exactly the same. God cannot change that because He cannot change Himself. 

False.  Show me where I do this.

Why? You've already decided whatever I say will be false. In any case, here you go.

I am talking about what is possible.   For example, God could create Adam & Eve in such a way that they would not disappoint Him.

This is simply an assertion on your part without considering who the Bible describes God to be. It is based on your assumptions concerning what being omnipotent and omnipotent would be for God, apart from what the Bible says about the subject. You are arguing from an atheist's logical concept of what a God should be able to do in your view. Well, sort of. I've asked you more than once how God can create a creature with free will and at the same time make it so they cannot rebel against Him, but you have yet to posit a method. 

 My whole argument thus far is based on omnipotence and omniscience as defined by Christian theology.

I know you think you have but you do not believe me, a Christian, when I tell you you're not. I doubt you'd believe any Christian. Instead, you are taking the popular understanding of omnipotence, which doesn't really have much depth of thought behind it (the popular meaning) and saying it's the Christian view. It's not. The actual dictionary definition is "unlimited power." It isn't "unlimited power to do whatever you can think of that isn't logically impossible," although the popular definition is often thought to mean one can do even the logically impossible. 

The actual definition of omnipotence as pertains to God is that He can do anything He decides to do. There is nothing that can stop Him from doing what He decides to do and there is no instance where what He decides to do will not be accomplished. There is no possibility that what God decides to do could be thwarted. That is the Biblical definition of omnipotence. 

You suggest there are limitations on omnipotence (an oxymoron) and then claim that I am the one rolling my own definitions.   Hello?

No. I said there are limitations on what God can do because of His nature. There isn't limits on His omnipotence, as I just explained in the previous paragraph. 

You claim that each individual can obey or reject God as an example of a limitation on omnipotence.

No, I said nothing like this. I said, in effect, that each individual was given the free will to obey or reject God. This isn't a function of God's omnipotence, but of His will. It is something He decided to do. 

That means you do not think God could have created individuals who would simply obey Him.  

Doesn't mean that, either. God could have created such individuals, but I don't think He could do it and give them free will at the same time. A square circle problem.

Where did this limitation come from?  

Logically, one cannot give a creature free will and prevent them from using it. It would be the same as not having free will in the first place.

Explain how you know that God has no power to create individuals who will not reject Him.  

I haven't made such a claim. In fact, I gave the example of the angels who did not rebel against Him as an example of just such beings. But God did not create them in such a manner that they could not reject Him, as the fallen angels proves. The angels who did not reject Him chose not to reject Him. God didn't make them choose Him. 

Where is this limitation of God's power stated in Christian theology?   Or is this just Drakk's

A meaningless question as it is based on an incorrect understanding of what I have previously said. 

How are you not contradicting your prior claim?   

Primarily because you do not appear to have understood most of what I have said so far. 

If God can create individuals who behave as He wishes then clearly those individuals would not have the means to choose to follow or reject Him.   Either God can create compliant entities or He cannot.   Resolve the contradiction.

What contradiction? God can certainly create robots that do what He desires them to do, but that is all they will be. Automatons. God apparently desires creatures that choose to love and obey Him because they want to and they can't do that unless they have the free will to choose to do so. Not sure what the problem or contradiction you are claiming is.

Deflection.   Focus on the definition of God.   The nature of man is not in debate here.

It's relevant, since you keep harping about how God is responsible for everything because He's "omnipotent and omniscient."

If an all-knowing God grants free will (in this case this at least means His creations can now reject Him) then the rejection is a result of God granting free will.

Um, no. The rejection is made possible by God's granting of free will, not the result. By saying it is the result you are saying the rejection is because they have free will. That is the rejection was directly due to having free will. This isn't the case. They reject Him because they choose to, not because having free will makes them do so. But even if it were true, it would be equally true to say that not rejecting God is the "result" of free will. 

So God could grant free will to choose our careers, mates, etc. but not allow us to reject Him.   Does not matter if you think that is a bad idea, the point is that He could if He wanted to.   That, Drakk, is my point.

Well, you're right in that it doesn't matter what I think about it. Even so, I don't think it's either good or bad. I just don't think it's possible to do it this way and God get's what He's after. You're still taking free will out of the picture. You're still ending up with robots. Robots that may obey God, but not love Him. Sure, your life might seem great and all, but what is the point of it all for God concerning love? 

Further, our happiness is only part of the issue. While God does care about our joy, it isn't the overriding concern about why all this is happening. At the root of it all is whether Satan is right or God. Satan rebelled against God, a thing that had never been done before in all of created existence, however long that was before God created our universe and us. 

Well is that not what we are debating?   I am the one who posited that God gets what God wants.   You just wrote that you agree with my posit.   What on Earth are you arguing about?

No rational, competent person could possibly read what each of us wrote and come away thinking we are in agreement on this. Your position is that God gets what God wants. My position is that God does not get what He wants in all things. My saying that God is accomplishing exactly what He wants to is not the same as saying God gets what God wants. God created a reality where it is possible to reject Him. That does not logically mean that he wants to be rejected. You could not possibly think that my saying God is accomplishing exactly what He wants is in agreement with your position with any honesty. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.151  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.149    2 days ago
Why would the Supreme Being "want" for anything?

Not sure it is possible to explain this basic idea to you Texan.   Apparently you cannot distinguish between the concept of desired result vs. need.   

This is at least the third time that you say I refuse to do something. Each time you have posted it, the post has been a lie.

So you acknowledge that this entity clearly will get what it wants?

 
 
 
Heartland American
4.1.152  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.150    2 days ago

Perfect reply in every point and every way.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.153  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.150    2 days ago
It is not a variant of mine.   Every Christian knows there are things God can't do. Find a Christian who thinks God is capable of lying and I'll show you a "Christian" that is in some sort of weird fringe thing. And limitations probably isn't even the correct term anyway. Is not being able to lie an actual limitation or is it perfect character? 

I have repeatedly stated I do not include logically impossible things.   Use examples other than the logically impossible.   I am okay with God being defined as perfect and 100% honest.  

You already agree that omnipotence doesn't mean being able to do the logically impossible.

Correct.   Remember that.

How does God's limitations mean He is either not all powerful or all knowing?

Depends on the limitation.   If God is unable to do that which is logically possible to do then God is by definition not omnipotent.   For example, God created us (per your belief) and thus He logically could create us so that we all follow Him.   If He cannot do so then He is still awesomely powerful but not omnipotent.

Why would not being able to do evil make Him less omnipotent?

I did not write anything about not being able to do evil.   

Of course, you can personally believe that to be omnipotent you must be able to do evil. As I said, I think the correct definition of omnipotence is the one in the dictionary with an addition. "Unlimited power" to do what one wills. 

Omnipotence = unlimited power to do what one wills.    Works for me.   God get what God wants.   And this means (since you are currently focused on evil) that God could indeed do evil if that is what God wants to do.

Not "might" be limitations. God cannot do certain things. This is because it is not in His nature to do them. He can't want to do them. The limitation is not with His omnipotence. The limitation, if it's correct to call it that, is His nature. And that is the Christian God, not my version of Him. All one has to do is read the Bible for confirmation or, lacking the desire to do so, ask any Christian. 

-and-

The limitation, if it's correct to call it that, is His nature.

From where does God get His nature?   Was He created by a higher God who provided His nature?   Did God create His own nature?   If you argue that God does not have control over His own nature then you are arguing that God is indeed not omnipotent.   So let's use your new ploy:  Q: Why did God not just create us to follow Him?A: Because it is not in His nature to do so.  Viola, another 'God works in mysterious ways' catch all.   Trouble is, you have zero credibility to speak of what is or not in God's nature or to even claim that God is limited by His nature.   Further, and crucially, moving something logically possible into God's nature (implicitly out of God's control) tacitly admits that God cannot really omnipotent (per what is logically possible).

First, you can't be disappointed when you already know what is going to happen. Second, I think if God could have gotten what He is after some other way that was better then He would have done it. So, no. I don't think your question is correct. 

Correct.   God cannot be disappointed since he knew what was going to happen with Adam and Eve.  We agree on that.   Apparently, you think God pretended to be disappointed then?   When He reacted to the offense and cast Adam & Eve from the garden and cursed all their progeny?   Just a big show to cap off a grand setup?   If God knew Adam & Eve would disappoint Him then He set them up to fail.

Genesis 3:

11 The Lord God said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten fruit from the tree I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “It’s the fault of the woman you put here with me. She gave me some fruit from the tree. And I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What have you done?”

The woman said, “The serpent tricked me. That’s why I ate the fruit.”

14 So the Lord God spoke to the serpent. He said, “Because you have done this,

“You are set apart from all livestock and all wild animals.      I am putting a curse on you.   You will crawl on your belly.   You will eat dust all the days of your life.   

15 I will make you and the woman hate each other.   Your children and her children will be enemies.   Her son will crush your head.   And you will bite his heel.”

16 The Lord God said to the woman, “I will increase your pain when you give birth.   You will be in great pain when you have children.  You will long for your husband.      And he will rule over you.”

17 The Lord God said to Adam, “You listened to your wife’s suggestion. You ate fruit from the tree I warned you about. I said, ‘You must not eat its fruit.’   “So I am putting a curse on the ground because of what you did.    All the days of your life you will have to work hard.   It will be painful for you to get food from the ground. 

18 You will eat plants from the field,  even though the ground produces thorns and prickly weeds.   19 You will have to work hard and sweat a lot  to produce the food you eat.   You were made out of the ground.   You will return to it when you die.   You are dust, and you will return to dust.”

20 Adam named his wife Eve. She would become the mother of every living person.

21 The Lord God made clothes out of animal skins for Adam and his wife to wear. 22 The Lord God said, “Just like one of us, the man can now tell the difference between good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out and pick fruit from the tree of life and eat it. If he does, he will live forever.” 23 So the Lord God drove the man out of the Garden of Eden. He sent the man to farm the ground he had been made from. 24 The Lord God drove him out and then placed angels on the east side of the garden. He also placed there a flaming sword that flashed back and forth. The angels and the sword guarded the way to the tree of life.

What a setup.   God knew this would happen and He had all the punishment laid out and ready to go.   And the perfect God who cannot lie pretends (a lie) as though He is disappointed (that means surprised).  

Long post, I will break here and see if anything of value arises.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.154  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.151    2 days ago
So you acknowledge that this entity clearly will get what it wants?

What does it matter to you if I acknowledge it or not? You'll just keep on claiming I stated something I didn't anyways, as proven time after time after time.

Not sure it is possible to explain this basic idea to you Texan.   Apparently you cannot distinguish between the concept of desired result vs. need

For being one who likes to believe he is always so logical, that is an amazing statement.

You don't get my simple premise that a Being as great as God doesn't need anything and doesn't want anything--including desired results. Would an omniscient and omnipotent Being be in control of the results already? Or maybe the results of some things doesn't matter to God?

BTW, what difference does all of this make? Do you actually have some point you deliberately are not making? What is your desired result for the outcome of this discussion?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
4.1.155  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.153    2 days ago
Depends on the limitation.   If God is unable to do that which is logically possible to do then God is by definition not omnipotent.   For example, God created us (per your belief) and thus He logically could create us so that we all follow Him.   If He cannot do so then He is still awesomely powerful but not omnipotent.

Just before this you said being omnipotent doesn't mean doing the logically impossible. We agree on this. But then you say this and claim God can do the logically impossible because He's omnipotent. That is what you are suggesting here. I'm not arguing that God cannot create us so that we all follow Him. He can. But we would not have free will. 

Apparently, you feel that God should have just not done free will? That this would solve the problem of evil and the suffering we experience? If so, I guess you'd have to take that up with Him. 

I did not write anything about not being able to do evil.

You said...

So your particular variant of Christianity holds that God has limitations?   God is not really all powerful and all knowing?

Since the limitation I spoke of was that God couldn't lie (do evil, essentially) I couldn't imagine what else you could be speaking of.

Omnipotence = unlimited power to do what one wills.    Works for me.   God get what God wants.   And this means (since you are currently focused on evil) that God could indeed do evil if that is what God wants to do.

God cannot want to do evil. 

From where does God get His nature?   Was He created by a higher God who provided His nature?   Did God create His own nature?   If you argue that God does not have control over His own nature then you are arguing that God is indeed not omnipotent.   So let's use your new ploy:  Q: Why did God not just create us to follow Him?;  A: Because it is not in His nature to do so.  Viola, another 'God works in mysterious ways' catch all.   Trouble is, you have zero credibility to speak of what is or not in God's nature or to even claim that God is limited by His nature.   Further, and crucially, moving something logically possible into God's nature (implicitly out of God's control) tacitly admits that God cannot really omnipotent (per what is logically possible).

Complete crap and complete fabrication not based on anything I said. 

Correct.   God cannot be disappointed since he knew what was going to happen with Adam and Eve.  We agree on that.   Apparently, you think God pretended to be disappointed then?   When He reacted to the offense and cast Adam & Eve from the garden and cursed all their progeny?   Just a big show to cap off a grand setup?   If God knew Adam & Eve would disappoint Him then He set them up to fail.

You have the free will to believe whatever you want. 

What a setup.   God knew this would happen and He had all the punishment laid out and ready to go.   And the perfect God who cannot lie pretends (a lie) as though He is disappointed (that means surprised).

You have no idea at all what is actually happening in the verses you posted. Absolutely none. 

Long post, I will break here and see if anything of value arises.

Don't bother. I'm done wasting my time. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
4.1.156  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.150    2 days ago
Yes, God could have nullified Satan in some manner, but apparently it is necessary that He not do so in order to attain His goal. And on and on. 

And given He chose to not nullify Satan, the evil done by Satan is His choice.   Omniscience and omnipotence.   

What you are trying to do is say that if God is really omnipotent and omniscient then that would mean that there must be some way that God can avoid the consequences of evil caused by His creation having free will.

Actually I am pointing out that God gets what God wants.   So if Satan is around doing the evil thing it is because that is what God chose to happen.

You argue that God being God, He can create any reality He want to. Not true.

It is amazing the things you think you know about God.   Really Drakk.   You know that God was unable to create a reality without Satan?   How could you possibly know this?

God cannot create a reality where sin doesn't matter.

Why not?

God cannot change that because He cannot change Himself. 

Go on.   Explain how you know what God (Himself) is and how you know that God had no choice but to have Satan do his thing.   Oh, that is the end of the quote; you neglect to explain this amazing claim you just made.   

This is simply an assertion on your part without considering who the Bible describes God to be. It is based on your assumptions concerning what being omnipotent and omnipotent would be for God, apart from what the Bible says about the subject. You are arguing from an atheist's logical concept of what a God should be able to do in your view. 

More bullshit.  I consistently focus on omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipotence (all-powerful) and I have never insisted that omnipotence means God can do what is logically impossible.   So, you are repeating a claim that is demonstrably a lie.

Well, sort of. I've asked you more than once how God can create a creature with free will and at the same time make it so they cannot rebel against Him, but you have yet to posit a method

You could try reading what I write:

TiG @4.1.141I agree, that is a logical issue and I do not insist (and I made that clear upfront) that omnipotence means doing what is logically impossible to do.   Free will and non-free will cannot logically coexist.   But here is the key.   God chooses to grant free will or not.   That is God's choice.   God still holds the cards.  If an all-knowing God grants free will (in this case this at least means His creations can now reject Him) then the rejection is a result of God granting free will.   If God did not want rejection, He would not provide free will.   And note that God could create free-will anyway He wishes.   Indeed, He (if He were real) has done so.   None of us can control our biochemistry.   We cannot will our immune system to focus more on fighting a cold or even will our brains to shut down the annoyance of tinnitus.   If you do the research, human beings have very little control over our own bodies.   So God could grant free will to choose our careers, mates, etc. but not allow us to reject Him.   Does not matter if you think that is a bad idea, the point is that He could if He wanted to.   

Read this ⇧ Drakk.  I gave you a method.  We do not have totally free will as human beings right now.  So free will is already limited.   We do not have absolute free will.   There is no major hurdle here.   Or are you going to argue that it is God's nature that makes it impossible for Him to grant freedom to choose a mate, clothing, career, etc. but no freedom to not follow Him?  

What contradiction? God can certainly create robots that do what He desires them to do, but that is all they will be. Automatons. God apparently desires creatures that choose to love and obey Him because they want to and they can't do that unless they have the free will to choose to do so. Not sure what the problem or contradiction you are claiming is.

I did not say robot.   I am talking about one choice:  the choice to follow Him.   Plenty of choices remain.   

Can God create compliant human beings or not?   You tacitly agree that God could indeed create human beings who are incapable of not following Him.   You say He chose to not do so.   Fine.  But the point is that He could have chosen otherwise.   This is not a logically impossible thing.   Thus God created human beings with the ability to not follow Him.   He then plays a grand game of hide and seek and those who do not follow Him (the majority of people on the planet by the way) are to be damned.   Another grand setup to follow that of Adam and Eve.   

The rejection is made possible by God's granting of free will, not the result.