Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So if I torture and murder you, it"s on because I was nice to the okdkady down the road! Alan's god is a sadistic cunt.

No because it would be torture and murder which you had willed.
Factoring in Alan's God his will would be that the universe as a whole would not benefit from an intervention, I would appear subsequent to your murder of me in front of Him devoid of the effects of your wrong doing.
Moderator: Content removed

[Shaker]

No because it would be torture and murder which you had willed.

... and presumably that this god permitted as part of his "created universe of death, disease and suffering". Yes or no?

[floo]

When god created human nature, by putting misery, pain, suffering, and death into the mix, god knew it would have entertainment for all eternity!

[Nearly Sane]

No because it would be torture and murder which you had willed.
Factoring in Alan's God his will would be that the universe as a whole would not benefit from an intervention, I would appear subsequent to your murder of me in front of Him devoid of the effects of your wrong doing.

And Alan's god willed the torture and murder of Charlie Gard.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... and presumably that this god permitted as part of his "created universe of death, disease and suffering". Yes or no?

Yes but again you are cherry picking here spinning a universe exclusive of the good bits. but who's the ''sadistic cunt*'' here, God or Nearly Sane?

Also you are conflating death, disease and suffering in nature which are unconscious processes with the murder and torture willed by Nearly Sane. This is a mistake since with sufficient will disease and suffering due to natural causes could notionally be eliminated
.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes but again you are cherry picking here spinning a universe exclusive of the good bits. but who's the ''sadistic cunt*'' here, God or Nearly Sane?

Also you are conflating death, disease and suffering in nature which are unconscious processes with the murder and torture willed by Nearly Sane. This is a mistake since with sufficient will disease and suffering due to natural causes could notionally be eliminated
.

No, there is no conflation. The point already made multiple times is that AB's genetic fiddler god chooses either to create or ignore hereditary diseases. It is precisely conscious choice because of that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When god created human nature, by putting misery, pain, suffering, and death into the mix, god knew it would have entertainment for all eternity!

I disagree. You haven't read my so called charge sheet against God in a previous post.

[ippy]

We seem to disagree on the source and nature of what determines our conscious actions.

Do you cheat playing patience Alan?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ni, there is ni conflation. The point already made multiple times is that AB's genetic fiddler god chooses either to create or ignore hereditary diseases. It is precisely conscious choice because of that.

I disagree. you are having a go at Alan's God and discounting the attributes of that God which do not suit your case and therefore merely join the long line of atheists saddling Christians with a God they don't believe in anyway.

I have fully acknowledged that things get nasty along the way but that on balance we have been provided with the wherewithal to eliminate natural unconsciously induced suffering if not death and by your logic that overall advantage must be down to God.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree. you are having a go at Alan's God and discounting the attributes of that God which do not suit your case and therefore merely join the long line of atheists saddling Christians with a God they don't believe in anyway.

I have fully acknowledged that things get nasty along the way but that on balance we have been provided with the wherewithal to eliminate natural unconsciously induced suffering if not death and by your logic that overall advantage must be down to God.

It's just the logical outcome of AB's position in his God (and note I am only talking about AB's god). He might not believe in it, but then his god becomes logically contradictory and doesn't exist.

[Shaker]

Yes but again you are cherry picking here spinning a universe exclusive of the good bits. but who's the ''sadistic cunt*'' here, God or Nearly Sane?

The god that "Crashes and" purports to believe in.

Also you are conflating death, disease and suffering in nature which are unconscious processes with the murder and torture willed by Nearly Sane.

Except that if on your reading this god "created a universe of disease, death and suffering" these things are anything but unconscious but explicitly willed into being.

This is a mistake since with sufficient will disease and suffering due to natural causes could notionally be eliminated

If it was a matter of will they needn't have been brought about in the first place, presumably? Will being the operation of the choice between making them or not making them, via AB's beloved free will.

[floo]

Each believer seems to create their version of god in the way which makes them feel comfortable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The god that "Crashes and" purports to believe in.
Except that if on your reading this god "created a universe of disease, death and suffering" these things are anything but unconscious but explicitly willed into being.
If it was a matter of will they needn't have been brought about in the first place, presumably? Will being the operation of the choice between making them or not making them, via AB's beloved free will.

1: No.......It would be whoever willed the torture and murder. In Nearly Sane's scenario, himself.
2: Disease and death are the result of natural unconscious processes but can also be due to acts of will. There is a categoric difference here which you are ignoring. You seem to be making the self same cherry picking error of spinning the universe exclusively as a place of disease, death and suffering. In the case of Torture and murder that is not how God wills people behave . They are not explicitly willed. Gravity and life processes could be I suppose.
3. You are choosing to ignore the attributes of God which do not help your case against said God just like you choose to ignore evidential aspects of how the universe is......see point two.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Each believer seems to create their version of god in the way which makes them feel comfortable.

I disagree.
In fact I have taken Shaker to task for ignoring the aspects of the Christian God simply because they do not suit his argument.

But he is not the only atheist here who has cherrypicked the bad elements around here for the sake of their argument and therefore they have chosen the God they disbelieve in. I'm not saying all of them because I don't make sweeping and generic accusations of the type you've foolishly put in your post.

[torridon]

Is my freedom to worship an illusion?
Is my freedom to contemplate my own existence an illusion?
Is my freedom to discuss ideas an illusion?
Is my freedom to ask these questions an illusion?
I think not

Is Britain a free country ?

We might be inclined to answer yes, but hang on, there are literally thousands of pieces of primary legislation in the UK preventing us from doing all sorts of things - murdering, raping, pillaging and so forth. So is it right to say we are free if we are so curtailed ? Well, we still say yes, because we don't want to do any of those things anyway, by and large, well okay I might be up for a bit of pillaging on a Friday night but mostly, we still feel free because we are not obstructed by external powers preventing us from doing what we want. It is only when we become aware of external infringements on our freedom that we feel the lack of it. Otherwise we feel free, that is the norm, and that is how it comes that we can feel free in a deterministic realm, we simply are not normally aware of or not bothered by the infringements on our freedom, such as not being able to want something that we don't want.  You aren't bothered by your inability to want to be an atheist are you ?

[Shaker]

2: Disease and death are the result of natural unconscious processes but can also be due to acts of will.

Such as those of a god, according to you.

There is a categoric difference here which you are ignoring. You seem to be making the self same cherry picking error of spinning the universe exclusively as a place of disease, death and suffering. In the case of Torture and murder that is not how God wills people behave . They are not explicitly willed.

But disease, death and suffering are - according to you.

3. You are choosing to ignore the attributes of God which do not help your case against said God just like you choose to ignore evidential aspects of how the universe is......see point two.

No, I am pointing out the rank stupidity coupled with the moral infamy of a god you put in the same position as an adult who nips to the shops for some Elastoplast to cover the cigarette burn on a child's face that said adult just willingly and deliberately caused. A deity who, on your account, creates nice stuff to mop up the shit after-the-fact that it created willingly. Why you ignore this simple point is perfectly easy for the rest of us to understand, but I put it to you that this is nobody's idea of moral, laudable and praiseworthy behaviour unless they have had their intelligence  addled and moral sense vivisected by the mental gymnastics of theism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Such as those of a god, according to you.But disease, death and suffering are - according to you.
No, I am pointing out the rank stupidity coupled with the moral infamy of a god you put in the same position as an adult who nips to the shops for some Elastoplast to cover the cigarette burn on a child's face that said adult just willingly and deliberately caused. A deity who, on your account, creates nice stuff to mop up the shit after-the-fact that it created willingly. Why you ignore this simple point is perfectly easy for the rest of us to understand, but I put it to you that this is nobody's idea of moral, laudable and praiseworthy behaviour unless they have had their intelligence  addled and moral sense vivisected by the mental gymnastics of theism.

I have made no bones about life being rough on the way. God has left processes to go on unconsciously and let people do what they will. But  death and disease are not the final state as far as the God you are ranting against is concerned.
You keep focussing on God explicitly willing disease and death and ignoring the evidence which is as far as the unconscious processes which lead to them are concerned we seem to have the upper hand owing to what God, following your logic must have provided. You are just cherry picking and now we have exposed that you seem to be left with just risible rant.

The only gymnastics are your contortions in getting up the cherry tree.

The only one doing the ignoring is you. since you want to consider just the bad things and ignore anything else God has done and that on balance the only thing God will leave uncorrected and unfixed is Will....... if one so wills it.

[Shaker]

Repetition seems to be necessary, as ever with the hard-of-thinking or the merely evasive:

I am pointing out the rank stupidity coupled with the moral infamy of a god you put in the same position as an adult who nips to the shops for some Elastoplast to cover the cigarette burn on a child's face that said adult just willingly and deliberately caused. A deity who, on your account, creates nice stuff to mop up the shit after-the-fact that it created willingly. Why you ignore this simple point is perfectly easy for the rest of us to understand ...

I can explain things for you, but alas I can't understand them for you.

Carry on dodging.

[Maeght]

Is my freedom to worship an illusion?
Is my freedom to contemplate my own existence an illusion?
Is my freedom to discuss ideas an illusion?
Is my freedom to ask these questions an illusion?
I think not

You haven't answered my question onlu stated your opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have made no bones about life being rough on the way. God has left processes to go on unconsciously and let people do what they will. But  death and disease are not the final state as far as the God you are ranting against is concerned.

What astonishing casuistry you indulge in. Essentially you’re re-hashing William Lane Craig’s morally disgusting line – “Hey, no matter what the unimaginable pain and suffering some people suffer through no fault of their own, the God who could prevent it but doesn’t knows best and if they die young that just means they’ll reach the land of non-fattening pizza and endless re-runs of Songs of Praise that much sooner. Happy days!”

Conversely, you could accept the much simpler answer that the universe functions just as you’d expect it to if there is not god – bad things happen to good people in the same ratio they happen to bad ones, and vice versa.

You keep focussing on God explicitly willing disease and death and ignoring the evidence…

Excuse me? You of all people want to talk about evidence?

Seriously?

Wow!

Perhaps then you should turn your mind to finally providing some of it for this “God” of yours in the first place.

Jus a thought…

…which is as far as the unconscious processes which lead to them are concerned we seem to have the upper hand owing to what God, following your logic must have provided.

That’s not evidence at all – it’s just faith, which is fine for you but is epistemically worthless. 

You are just cherry picking and now we have exposed that you seem to be left with just risible rant.

No, he’s trying to stop you from cherry picking. If you want to conjecture a god of sugar and spice and all things nice, then he’s also the god of childhood leukaemia. Deal with it.

The only gymnastics are your contortions in getting up the cherry tree.

Such a pity you have no idea what “irony” means.

The only one doing the ignoring is you. since you want to consider just the bad things and ignore anything else God has done and that on balance the only thing God will leave uncorrected and unfixed is Will....... if one so wills it.

Not sure why you think more lying will help you. No-one is doing that at all. All they are doing is pointing out that you can’t just cherry pick the bits of life you like and say “Goddidit” and pretend the rest is nothing to do with “Him” or is a mysterious part of some grand but lovely plan.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Of course superimposing such a tyrannical determinism onto the will of God is going to give you the standard New Atheist tyrannical monster God.

Indeed, and in my opinion, this monster is arguably the most unpleasant character: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Atheists are welcome to it!

[floo]

Indeed, and in my opinion, this beast is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Atheists are welcome to it!

I thought you believed in god who would appear to be all of the above?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Indeed, and in my opinion, this beast is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Atheists are welcome to it!

Theists have got it.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I thought you believed in god who would appear to be all of the above?

That's an oxymoron, Floo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

That's an oxymoron, Floo.

No it isn't.