Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I did not mention hostile in my recent posts - just indifferent, implying that unguided forces in nature are aimless and purposeless.

Which is tautology: something unguided would tend to be aimless in terms of assuming some overarching purpose. However, the change from one state to another may involve cause and effect processes but these aren't necessarily purposeful in the sense of there being some intended future state - put simply, stuff happens (but not randomly)! 

But we do not see the big picture - we may not realise just why some aspects of nature seem hostile to life.

More begging the question in presuming there is a 'big picture' and that why (as opposed to how) is a valid question.

There are many things which I do not understand or seem illogical.

Then just say 'don't know' to yourself and await new information.

But I trust that God knows best because I know without any doubt that He loves us all.  Without God there would be no love, no compassion, no existence - nothing.

Here we go again: incredulity plus ignorance, and you don't have the knowledge you claim. 

[Gordon]

God doesn't have a taste for indiscriminate slaughter. The evidence is that mankind does.

So there was no world-wide flood due to God deciding to kill everyone except for a few selected folk (plus some assorted pets) on a home-built boat then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh and BTW, I haven't killed anyone but your god got people to write a collection of books to boast about its liking of slaughter.

I never said you had killed anyone. Which collection of books boast about God's liking of slaughter? I think you've just demonstrated the atheist tendency for biblical bowdlerisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So there was no world-wide flood due to God deciding to kill everyone except for a few selected folk (plus some assorted pets) on a home-built boat then?

I think it's a story with a point Gordon.

[Nearly Sane]

I never said you had killed anyone. Which collection of books boast about God's liking of slaughter? I think you've just demonstrated the atheist tendency for biblical bowdlerisation.

Your god killed random first born, it likes to kill. You worship something that you think carries out genocide.


And you are the one indulging in bowdlerisation. Trying to hide the savagery of the god you worship.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's a story with a point Gordon.

And the point is that your god likes to slaughter children.

[Gordon]

I think it's a story with a point Gordon.

The point being to kill almost everyone on the planet and then have the descendants of the survivors rationalise the slaughter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your god killed random first born, it likes to kill. You worship something that you think carries out genocide.

No evidence that God likes to kill though that is just your embellishment on the thing. Does God kill people miraculously. Possibly, but there's that word miraculous again....something that happens ever so rarely.

[Nearly Sane]

No evidence that God likes to kill though that is just your embellishment on the thing. Does God kill people miraculously. Possibly, but there's that word miraculous again....something that happens ever so rarely.

If it's omnipotent and chooses to slaughter people, what else choice do you have but it likes it. Or does it just kill children because it has no choice? Whatever it is, you worship an indiscriminate killer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point being to kill almost everyone on the planet and then have the descendants of the survivors rationalise the slaughter.

Well I think there is evidence of a large scale flood but the point I think is to warn against complacency that the God free life is a passport to happiness, health and security or that the forces of nature wont or can't change the complacent order.

If you insist on a bit of literalism though Gordon, God promised not to repeat the event and as we all know he hasn't.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I think there is evidence of a large scale flood but the point I think is to warn against complacency that the God free life is a passport to happiness, health and security or that the forces of nature wont or can't change the complacent order.

If you insist on a bit of literalism though Gordon, God promised not to repeat the event and as we all know he hasn't.

so it only slaughters children the one time (oh, apart from the first born), apart from when he tells his followers to do so, and you worship the slaughter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If it's omnipotent

yes

and chooses to slaughter people,

with you so far

what else choice do you have but it likes it.

Er that it is his secondary will, engaged when mankind instituted it's history of evil and he doesn't like it as such

Or does it just kill children because it has no choice?

see the above note

Whatever it is, you worship an indiscriminate killer

Doesn't necessarily follow.

[Nearly Sane]

yes with you so farEr that it is his secondary will, engaged when mankind instituted it's history of evil and he doesn't like it as suchsee the above noteDoesn't necessarily follow.

So it chooses things to happen but it doesn't like it? Did you think that through? Your god can choose anything to happen and it chooses to kill babies and you worship that god.

Could be it's 45th will, your god chooses to kill indeed commit genocide and you worship it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So it chooses things to happen but it doesn't like it? Did you think that through? Your god can choose anything to happen and it chooses to kill babies and you worship that god.

Could be it's 45th will, your god chooses to kill indeed commit genocide and you worship it.

I choose to well, not worship Churchill and Truman but admire there stands and stance. Now, the number of people killed on their say so was of several orders greater than anything God could have wrought in old testament times...and that is, as you do here, taking the stories literally.
That's not the point though which is that war, we hope, was their secondary will.
What they couldn't possibly claim is ownership of the material from which we are all constructed or the ability to resurrect the dead to ultimate glory and it is more on that basis that God is worshipped.

[Nearly Sane]

I choose to well, not worship Churchill and Truman but admire there stands and stance. Now, the number of people killed on their say so was of several orders greater than anything God could have wrought in old testament times...and that is, as you do here, taking the stories literally.
That's not the point though which is that war, we hope, was their secondary will.
What they couldn't possibly claim is ownership of the material from which we are all constructed or the ability to resurrect the dead to ultimate glory and it is more on that basis that God is worshipped.

Your non worship of Churchill and Truman is irrelevant to your worship of an entity you believe slaughters babies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your non worship of Churchill and Truman is irrelevant to your worship of an entity you believe slaughters babies.

And this demonstrates the non existence of God how?

[Gordon]

Well I think there is evidence of a large scale flood

There is evidence of lots of floods - however the point here is surely that the Noahic flood was deliberately caused by God for the purpose of killing everyone bar Noah et al - so not a routine flood due only to natural causes.

but the point I think is to warn against complacency that the God free life is a passport to happiness, health and security or that the forces of nature wont or can't change the complacent order.

Super - doesn't get around the problem that your good God decided to initiate this particular flood so as to kill all but a selected few.

If you insist on a bit of literalism though Gordon, God promised not to repeat the event and as we all know he hasn't.

Does that excuse the first event (and I'll ignore the implication that there is a God who could repeat this)?

[Nearly Sane]

And this demonstrates the non existence of God how?

Did I say that? Oh no! So stop lying. And deal with the idea that you have a 'god' that kills people that you worship?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is evidence of lots of floods - however the point here is surely that the Noahic flood was deliberately caused by God for the purpose of killing everyone bar Noah et al - so not a routine flood due only to natural causes.

Super - doesn't get around the problem that your good God decided to initiate this particular flood to as to kill all but a selected few.

Does that excuse the first event (and I'll ignore the implication that there is a God who could repeat this)?

Again it's likely to be a story and it's likely that you have missed some salient point in a typical atheist bowdlerisation.

Now in the story the whole world apart from a few were evil doers and were killed...presumably according to another part of the bible, to be resurrected by God.

I have no problem with the laws of nature ability to both harm and help or with God to intervene.

What I do find problematic is your slant which completely ignores that those so punished were particularly and possibly dangerously evil.

it will be no surprise though that I think this is a story of being deluded into assuming we can have immunity and impunity from the vagaries of our own decadence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did I say that? Oh no! So stop lying. And deal with the idea that you have a 'god' that kills people that you worship?

Oh put a sock in it. If God is as I say then I think we cannot begrudge him a bit of worship a word you guys have precious little understanding of anyway with your patronising visions of natives in grass skirts and bones in there noses bowing down to some easter island statue.

Even if he was like you said that would mean God existed and all your atheist talk would be shite...which it is in my opinion.

[Shaker]

Oh put a sock in it. If God is as I say then I think we cannot begrudge him a bit of worship a word you guys have precious little understanding of anyway with your patronising visions of natives in grass skirts and bones in there noses bowing down to some easter island statue.

Show us the difference 

Even if he was like you said that would mean God existed and all your atheist talk would be shite...which it is in my opinion.

Except that even after all this time you lot have never coughed with the slightest of reasons to think it does, have you?

[Gordon]

Oh put a sock in it. If God is as I say then I think we cannot begrudge him a bit of worship a word you guys have precious little understanding of anyway with your patronising visions of natives in grass skirts and bones in there noses bowing down to some easter island statue.

Leaving aside the straw man, Vlad, have you considered that what you say about this God might be wrong?

Even if he was like you said that would mean God existed and all your atheist talk would be shite...which it is in my opinion.

Don't be silly, Vlad: even for you the notion that asserting 'God', and then suggesting its characteristics, is sufficient to confirm its existence is poor form. If you were right then every God ever proposed throughout history must exist - do you think that?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside the straw man, Vlad, have you considered that what you say about this God might be wrong?
   

I believe I have stated that God could be like I describe or he could be like Nearly sane describes.

Are you prepared to accept my exposure of your biblical bowdlerisation?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly, Vlad: even for you the notion that asserting 'God', and then suggesting its characteristics, is sufficient to confirm its existence is poor form. If you were right then every God ever proposed throughout history must exist - do you think that?   

I am not here to promote every God proposed merely the God I experience which happens to be in line I find with mainstream Christianity. If it were otherwise I would be in the ranks of the fencesquatters.

[Gordon]

Again it's likely to be a story and it's likely that you have missed some salient point in a typical atheist bowdlerisation.

Now in the story the whole world apart from a few were evil doers and were killed...presumably according to another part of the bible, to be resurrected by God.

The problem there, Vlad, is that even if the Noah flood is a story with a message and not a case of actual divine intervention, and I can why you would treat it as such since it didn't happen in reality (it would have left evidence and there ain't any), but you are still clinging to another story about us being resurrected, which is equally lacking in evidence.

I have no problem with the laws of nature ability to both harm and help or with God to intervene.

Nature is what it is, and those studying the mechanics (such as the volcano the is coming to the boil in Bali) aren't looking for anything divine as part of any explanation: so you are assuming your conclusion. 

What I do find problematic is your slant which completely ignores that those so punished were particularly and possibly dangerously evil.

If the Noahic flood story was true there must have been a lot of 'dangerously evil' babies deserving of being drowned - do you think that in arranging this flood your God sounds reasonable?

it will be no surprise though that I think this is a story of being deluded into assuming we can have immunity and impunity from the vagaries of our own decadence.

No doubt there are people who are insightless regarding themselves, and probably we all are to various degrees, but I doubt many need
a story about mass drownings for them to realise that they have a responsibility to behave reasonably.