Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Gordon. Either there is a problem with suffering or there isn't. If you find it a problem you are acceding that it should be alleviated. So why should it be alleviated? Do you know?

If there is no God then you should not technically be finding suffering a problem.

Nice try at evading and shifting the burden, Vlad, but this exchange follows on from your statement (in case you've forgotten)

Finally Christianity does not have a much curtailed God but a huge, comprehensive God.

to which I replied;

That seems incapable of doing anything that can be unequivocally attributed to it!

So, why is your God seemingly incapable of, say, doing something about bone cancer in children?

[floo]

I see that you are going to have to go back to first principles here.

If you look at the Westminster Confession we start with what is the aim of man.

The idea that man gives God a job description is completely ludicrous. So you see God is not a job description.

So let's look with man's job description i.e. all that the universe has to which leads to enjoymentor should we say fulfilment. Being the pampered robot of some cosmic sugardaddy doesn't lead to that.

I other words whichever much derided apologist who accused antitheists of wanting complete freedom from God while hating him for that very freedom was on the mark.

Finally Christianity does not have a much curtailed God but a huge, comprehensive God.

It is much more likely that humans created the deity than the other way around. It has all worst human characteristics and none of the best.

[Gordon]

We live in a world of opposites. 
For love and compassion to exist, there must be anger and hatred.
For beauty to exist, there must be ugliness.
For light to exist, ther must be darkness.
For life to exist, there must be death.
For good to exist, there must be evil.
For Heaven to exist, there must be hell.
For God to exist, there must be a devil.
For good health to exist, there must be disease.
For everything that is created, there is unwanted waste.

There seems to be a universal law of reality that everything must be balanced in some way.

By sacrificing Himself on the cross, God has tipped the balance in our favour.
To accept this favour, we need to use our God given gift of free will.

I'm familiar with false dichotomies but here we have some spurious one's as well - utterly beyond reason or meaning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice try at evading and shifting the burden, Vlad, but this exchange follows on from your statement (in case you've forgotten)

to which I replied;

So, why is your God seemingly incapable of, say, doing something about bone cancer in children?

I have not evaded I have accepted we have a god who allows suffering in the universe as a consequence of both natural process and human agency. You are silent on the latter and have said you accept the former....but of course we are seeing you accepting suffering and not accepting it.

Either suffering is acceptable or it isn't. If there is no God then technically you should have no problem with suffering.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is much more likely that humans created the deity than the other way around. It has all worst human characteristics and none of the best.

Well as they say, it would be the greatest invention ever.

Worst and best characteristics Floo?.........in whose judgment?

[Bubbles]

Can't or won't? Are you after the elimination of all suffering or that which can and ought to be? I think you have a small conception of the categories you are talking about here.

I think you are after a God like nature or the gods you have......ones which can be subjugated.

God identifies Himself with the human condition in Christ.

Trouble is that sets a limit on God.

Why can't he understand it through Rhiannon, Shaker , Owlswing and Outrider too?

It would be much more varied in understanding " the human condition"

Everyone has a different perspective, which would be far more valuable to understanding the human condition than just through one set of eyes.

Love this song.

http://youtu.be/C4NSMd7v2y4

[Gordon]

I have not evaded I have accepted we have a god who allows suffering in the universe as a consequence of both natural process and human agency. You are silent on the latter and have said you accept the former....but of course we are seeing you accepting suffering and not accepting it.

Either suffering is acceptable or it isn't. If there is no God then technically you should have no problem with suffering.

Of course you are evading Vlad: it is what you do.

So, to get back to the original point: you claimed (remember) ' Finally Christianity does not have a much curtailed God but a huge, comprehensive God.' and I noted 'That seems incapable of doing anything that can be unequivocally attributed to it!' - I didn't mention suffering at that point.

I was rather hoping you'd provide an example of your God having done something that could be unequivocally attributed to it, but no we get your usual evasion - unless of course your inability to answer a question without evading or shifting the burden is an example of your God intervening: I'd always thought that was just you! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Trouble is that sets a limit on God.

Why can't he understand it through Rhiannon, Shaker , Owlswing and Outrider too?

It would be much more varied in understanding " the human condition"

Everyone has a different perspective, which would be far more valuable to understanding the human condition than just through one set of eyes.

God identifying himself with humanity through supernatural links simultaneously with all of creation probably is a feature of God. But that is not as you are suggesting actually ''identifying'' with humanity if you think about it. comprehensive identification is being a person and walking in our shoes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course you are evading Vlad: it is what you do.

So, to get back to the original point: you claimed (remember) ' Finally Christianity does not have a much curtailed God but a huge, comprehensive God.' and I noted 'That seems incapable of doing anything that can be unequivocally attributed to it!' - I didn't mention suffering at that point.

I was rather hoping you'd provide an example of your God having done something that could be unequivocally attributed to it,

That was answered. We don't have unequivocal comprehensive proof for the causation of anything since any natural explanation leaves room for divine involvement.

[Bubbles]

God identifying himself with humanity through supernatural links simultaneously with all of creation probably is a feature of God. But that is not as you are suggesting actually ''identifying'' with humanity if you think about it. comprehensive identification is being a person and walking in our shoes.

Yes

Native American Proverb: "Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins." - See more at: http://www.special-dictionary.com/proverbs/source/n/native_american_proverb/42809.htm#sthash.bB4Boi7q.dpuf

Which could also apply to God, God would need to walk in your shoes to do you justice 

Which is why, just Jesus, won't do 🌹

[Rhiannon]

Can't or won't? Are you after the elimination of all suffering or that which can and ought to be? I think you have a small conception of the categories you are talking about here.

I think you are after a God like nature or the gods you have......ones which can be subjugated.

God identifies Himself with the human condition in Christ.

You think? Sorry, but that's not demonstrated by this post.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes

Native American Proverb: "Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins." - See more at: http://www.special-dictionary.com/proverbs/source/n/native_american_proverb/42809.htm#sthash.bB4Boi7q.dpuf

Which could also apply to God, God would need to walk in your shoes to do you justice 

Which is why, just Jesus, won't do 🌹

I think you have ignored my points.
1: God is with all of us.
2: 1 is not total identification with being human if you think about it. Because no human walks with all others and if they did they would not have experienced what it is to be human.

[Gordon]

That was answered. We don't have unequivocal comprehensive proof for the causation of anything since any natural explanation leaves room for divine involvement.

No it wasn't, and hasn't been by this example of your personal incredulity.

[floo]

Well as they say, it would be the greatest invention ever.

Worst and best characteristics Floo?.........in whose judgment?

In the opinion of any decent human. The deeds attributed to the deity are those of a crazed psycho!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the opinion of any decent human. The deeds attributed to the deity are those of a crazed psycho!

circular argument. Unless there is an absolute standard of behaviour, decency, good and evil are all just pulled out of one's ass.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it wasn't, and hasn't been by this example of your personal incredulity.

Are you saying that a naturalistic explanation is comprehensive ....when naturalism makes a virtue of exclusion of other involvement and reductionism?

[floo]

circular argument. Unless there is an absolute standard of behaviour, decency, good and evil are all just pulled out of one's ass.

Oh come on there are certain things which decent people would agree are WRONG,  sexual abuse and paedophilia for instance!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh come on there are certain things which decent people would agree are WRONG,  sexual abuse and paedophilia for instance!

Non sequitur

[Gordon]

Are you saying that a naturalistic explanation is comprehensive ....when naturalism makes a virtue of exclusion of other involvement and reductionism?

I haven't said anything about naturalism (philosophical or otherwise, Stalin, Dawkins or even turd-polishing) - I've simply asked you to substantiate your claim of a God that is 'huge' and 'comprehensive' (your terms) by citing an example of a something that can be unequivocally attributed to your God.

You seem to be stumped.

[BeRational]

Non sequitur

No it's not wrong.

We determine 'wrong' by it not being useful to survival. Natural selection builds into us certain behaviours that help continued survival.
Jumping off cliffs to your death, or going around killing people, are 'wrong', as they do not help.
They are not wrong because a god says so, they are 'wrong' because they are inefficient.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't said anything about naturalism (philosophical or otherwise, Stalin, Dawkins or even turd-polishing) - I've simply asked you to substantiate your claim of a God that is 'huge' and 'comprehensive' (your terms) by citing an example of a something that can be unequivocally attributed to your God.

You seem to be stumped.

Oh I see........you accept that no other explanations not involving God are unequivocal also.

I'm afraid that's just the nature of philosophical argument.

You are specially pleading therefore that things should be unequivocally be attributed to God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it's not wrong.

We determine 'wrong' by it not being useful to survival. Natural selection builds into us certain behaviours that help continued survival.
Jumping off cliffs to your death, or going around killing people, are 'wrong', as they do not help.
They are not wrong because a god says so, they are 'wrong' because they are inefficient.

But i'm sure a case for killing people in order for survival to take place could be made for example cannibalism on liferafts.

If there is not wrong but inefficiency why not say so rather than invoking the word wrong............surely that is inefficient.

[Gordon]

Oh I see........you accept that no other explanations not involving God are unequivocal also.

I'm afraid that's just the nature of philosophical argument.

You are specially pleading therefore that things should be unequivocally be attributed to God.

You are still evading Vlad: this isn't about what I think and is about you providing an illustration of a 'something' that can be unequivocally attributed to a God you say is 'huge' and 'comprehensive', so surely you can find a single 'something'.

[BeRational]

But i'm sure a case for killing people in order for survival to take place could be made for example cannibalism on liferafts.

If there is not wrong but inefficiency why not say so rather than invoking the word wrong............surely that is inefficient.

Wrong is the word we have used for the act of doing things that are not useful to the survival of our species.

A case for killing can be made of course, but always in line with our survival.

Our genes do not really care what we do, as long as it means we stay alive to keep doing it, and more importantly pass on our genes to the next generation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are still evading Vlad: this isn't about what I think and is about you providing an illustration of a 'something' that can be unequivocally attributed to a God you say is 'huge' and 'comprehensive', so surely you can find a single 'something'.

OK I have to spell it out to you. There is no unequivocal evidence for the cause of anything. It comes down finally therefore to God or not God. There is no knock down argument for either.

So given your repetition and hedging ''Lose on suffering try and win on unequivocality'' don't you think you are now just gameplaying?