Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Caricature Christianity on your part

No it isn’t.

Option 1: God is a psychopathic thug when judged by moral norms.

Option2: God is a psychopathic thug when judged by moral norms, but those norms don’t apply because God is above all that and knows better.

Option 3: There is no option 3.

Only casuistry is the massaging out of human evil by secular humanism and it's invocation of God when talking about natural evils.

I’m not sure what that wreck of sentence was supposed the mean, but casuistry is actually the fanciful but false reasoning some attempt when religious dogma collides with observed reality. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

When you have a serious point to make, I'll answer you. It is noticeable that all the sarcasm on this forum (and it's the same on others) comes from the non-believers. It doesn't show them in a good light.

It was a serious point. Your response to the observable reality that there isn't a god of the omnis is (apparently arbitrarily) to pick one of those omnis and to dilute it. As I understand it that's a long way from standard Christian theology but, in any case, why pick that omni rather than one (or more than one) of the others? Why not for example decide that your "God" is omnipresent and omnipotent, but just doesn't care much about babies dying of brain cancer? After all, casuistry applied to any of them achieves the same result doesn't it?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But God is the great surgeon and probably the great psychiatrist as well.

Presumably you just forgot to prefix that with, “It is my personal faith belief that…”?

But His modus is to heal people from death and suffering.

Then he’s not very good at is he, what with all the “suffering” there observably is?

Why that should be I don't know but that's not to say I will be forever agnostic.

Fallacy of reification. What you meant was, “Why I would think that that should be…” etc.

Of course it could be argued that no one is resurrected that suffering is meaningless, that God does not exist.

Readily so, yes.

In which case why is the atheist wasting his time over God instead of rectifying the two evils of nature and human evil? Could it be that God is just too Goddam handy.

Definitionally an atheist cannot waste his time over a god he has no reason to think exists. What atheists sometimes do though is to engage with the arguments some attempt for their various gods, particularly given the privileged positions those beliefs have in many societies.

Vis a vis finding contact lenses Alan's God has convinced Alan that He will be with Alan always and i'm sure Alan believes his dealings with God during periods of suffering will take a different tone from the gentle banter of the quotidien. Therefore I don't understand your view that God is gently reminding someone where they left their contact lens and being totally absent from anyone who is suffering.

Why not? Would not, say, relieving the agony of child with cancer and that of her family be a better use of the time of a moral agency than helping Alan find his contact lenses?

The God whom Alan worships does not spare us from the possibility of death and suffering. He did not even spare Himself from that.

So you believe, but again: why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Presumably you just forgot to prefix that with, “It is my personal faith belief that…”?

I left that interpretation as an option for the reader. I was forgetting that every antitheist sunbeam needs to be reminded.............after three everybody...''What a friend we have in Hilllllllllside...Dum Dee Dum Dee Dum Deee Deee.''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I left that interpretation as an option for the reader. I was forgetting that every antitheist sunbeam needs to be reminded.............after three everybody...''What a friend we have in Hilllllllllside...Dum Dee Dum Dee Dum Deee Deee.''

No, what you actually do (consistently in fact) is to state a personal belief as if it's a fact, then follow it with a "therefore" and an assertion as if your premise had been established. It's the same thinking as my saying, "lerprechauns are real, therefore where should be look for the pots of gold?"

[SteveH]

HV,

It was a serious point. Your response to the observable reality that there isn't a god of the omnis is (apparently arbitrarily) to pick one of those omnis and to dilute it. As I understand it that's a long way from standard Christian theology but, in any case, why pick that omni rather than one (or more than one) of the others? Why not for example decide that your "God" is omnipresent and omnipotent, but just doesn't care much about babies dying of brain cancer? After all, casuistry applied to any of them achieves the same result doesn't it?   

God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent, and I have explained how that can be squared with suffering.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

God is omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent, and I have explained how that can be squared with suffering.

No you haven't. What you actually did was to re-define one of those terms to mean something else, thereby creating a gap in which your god could hide: "Omnipresent but not really omnipresent" is casuistry.

[SteveH]

I've explained myself twice now; if you're too thick to understand, I can't help it.

[Nearly Sane]

I've explained myself twice now; if you're too thick to understand, I can't help it.

So if anyone challenges you,  you are right and they are thick. Can you see why this isn't a useful approach?

[SteveH]

I'm not saying I am necessarily right, but that BHS has wilfully failed to understand what I was saying, whether I'm right or wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not saying I am necessarily right, but that BHS has wilfully failed to understand what I was saying, whether I'm right or wrong.

So, he' s not thick, he's lying? Wouldn't it be better to deal with his points rather than this approach?

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

I've explained myself twice now; if you're too thick to understand, I can't help it.

How very Christian of you. Really.

What you actually did though was to cheat - omnipresent but not really omnipresent.

If you think you have a way out of that though, by all means share 

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

I'm not saying I am necessarily right, but that BHS has wilfully failed to understand what I was saying, whether I'm right or wrong.

First thick and now dishonest eh? The Christian judgmentalism keeps on coming doesn't it.

Why though exclude without explanation the third possibility - ie, that I'm right?

[SteveH]

Go away, you silly little person.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

Go away, you silly little person.

So you haven't then. Fair enough.

There's no shame in it by the way - no other Christian has managed to come up with a cogent solution to "the problem of evil" either, but it should at least give you pause I'd have thought.

Just to remind you where you went wrong by the way, in Reply 23624 you said: "Or that God is not as omnipotent as we often think. It depends on what you mean by omnipotence."

No it doesn't: "Omnipotent" means "of unlimited power". If you want to describe something with limited power on the other hand, you can't call it omnipotent. 

QED

[Walter]

I've explained myself twice now; if you're too thick to understand, I can't help it.

fuck me , I must be thick too then 

[floo]

Go away, you silly little person.

It is you who is behaving like a silly little person!

[Walter]

Go away, you silly little person.

well I  hope you don't because I'd really like to see your explanation . c'mon , have another go.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would like to know from Hillside whether he is using his own definition of benevolence when he talks about omnibenevolence. Does he want a celestial sugar daddy or gumball machine?

Am I expecting an answer? Nope.

[Nearly Sane]

I would like to know from Hillside whether he is using his own definition of benevolence when he talks about omnibenevolence. Does he want a celestial sugar daddy or gumball machine?

Am I expecting an answer? Nope.

Have you got a definition that includes letting a baby die in agony but finding a contact lens for someone?

[Shaker]

Have you got a definition that includes letting a baby die in agony but finding a contact lens for someone?

I think the word is 'selective'.

Doesn't exactly square with omnibenevolence, but don't go expecting logic in these things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you got a definition that includes letting a baby die in agony but finding a contact lens for someone?

That for God and us death is not the end.
It is better or more benevolent to create the conditions which give rise to humanity than not to.

I think it was Richard Dawkins who said....and whatever one believes in this is a quote which puts the man amongst the greats

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.....''

[Shaker]

That for God and us death is not the end.

The death (of God) by a thousand cuts springs to mind.

[Nearly Sane]

That for God and us death is not the end.
It is better or more benevolent to create the conditions which give rise to humanity than not to.

I think it was Richard Dawkins who said....and whatever one believes in this is a quote which puts the man amongst the greats

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.....''

What' s any of  that got to do with question about finding a contact lens and letting a child die in agony? You wouldn't describe a person who did that as in any sense benevolent, so why the double standards?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The death (of God) by a thousand cuts springs to mind.

The death of God by a thousand cuts or a thousand c*nts?