Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think Vlad puts, vodka, gin, brandy and whisky on his cornflakes instead of milk.

OI, I’m the one who repeats the same joke over and over on here...........

[Gordon]

Your mistake here was to conclude that atheists do not use God blaming argument. Torridon managed to worm it in in his previous post. God giving babies cancer is a prime fave argument employed by celebrity atheist in chief S. Fry.

But you just said this: "Firstly any argument blaming God is not an atheist argument", so perhaps you aren't explaining yourself clearly enough.

I suspect it is also the case that you're not exercising enough subtlety in your understanding of the rhetoric being used when people point out issues such as children dying of bone cancer: you do get that they aren't actually blaming a God (that they don't think exists in the first place)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think Vlad puts, vodka, gin, brandy and whisky on his cornflakes instead of milk.

You said that as if it was a bad thing........

[Roses]

OI, I’m the one who repeats the same joke over and over on here...........

The joke is you as your posts don't make much, if any, sense at all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you just said this: "Firstly any argument blaming God is not an atheist argument", so perhaps you aren't explaining yourself clearly enough.

. That needn't mean that atheists don't use it. After all we have people on this board who claim they are not philosophical naturalists basing all if not most of  their arguments in philosophical naturalism.

What happens is that atheists try God blaming arguments on, then make a wee hand wave to make it look like an atheist argument. They are never though atheist argument. You are mistaken to believe that just because they are not atheist arguments atheists won't slip them in. That suggests the 'no true atheist' fallacy on your part.

I suspect it is also the case that you're not exercising enough subtlety in yur understanding of the rhetoric being used when people point out issues such as children dying of bone cancer: you do get that they aren't actually blaming a God (that they don't think exists in the first place)?

As I said the rhetoric cannot disguise a non atheist god blaming argument any so called subtlety is, as I mentioned, hand waving subterfuge.

[Gordon]

. That needn't mean that atheists don't use it. After all we have people on this board who claim they are not philosophical naturalists basing all if not most of  their arguments in philosophical naturalism.

Such as?

What happens is that atheists try God blaming arguments on, then make a wee hand wave to make it look like an atheist argument. They are never though atheist argument. You are mistaken to believe that just because they are not atheist arguments atheists won't slip them in.

Would you not say that it is more the case that atheists are using examples, like children dying due to bone cancer, to highlight problems in theistic claims about 'God': a handy label here is the well known 'Problem of Evil', which is a reasonable counter to 'good God' notions.

That suggests the 'no true atheist' fallacy on your part.As I said the rhetoric cannot disguise a non atheist god blaming argument any so called subtlety is, as I mentioned, hand waving subterfuge.

An atheist is just someone who holds no beliefs about the existence of 'Gods', Vlad, and there isn't much 'hand waving subterfuge' involved in that, and as regards subtlety I suspect yours is of the flying mallet variety.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

a handy label here is the well known 'Problem of Evil', which is a reasonable counter to 'good God' notions.

Bad god arguments themselves are on shaky ground firstly because of the betrayal of belief in goodness in the universe and because omnibenevolence is misplaced by atheists in the same category as Omnipotence and omniscience.

Secondly whether they are a reasonable counter to Good God thinking or not it isn't relevant to the fact that 'THEY ARE NOT ATHEIST ARGUMENT' but I am glad that by defending the arguments you have admitted that atheists sometimes use them.

[Gordon]

Bad god arguments themselves are on shaky ground firstly because of the betrayal of belief in goodness in the universe and because omnibenevolence is misplaced by atheists in the same category as Omnipotence and omniscience.

Perhaps you can expound on the theology behind these terms.

Secondly whether they are a reasonable counter to Good God thinking or not it isn't relevant to the fact that 'THEY ARE NOT ATHEIST ARGUMENT' but I am glad that by defending the arguments you have admitted that atheists sometimes use them.

I never said the so-called Problem of Evil was an atheist argument: I said it was a reasonable counter to claims of an all-good 'God', and since I think it is a reasonable counter then I'm happy to refer to it (where its reasonableness has nothing to do with my atheism). 

[Alan Burns]

If this simplistic narrative were true,  then God also created ebola, coronavirus, malaria, smallpox, parasites, anthrax and innumerable other pathogens to bring about unnecessary suffering.  You can't praise a creator for the good things in life without blaming said creator for all the terrible things.  At least, not without donning a massive pair of blinkers, you can't.

As I said, nobody knows the big picture.  Yes, there is a temptation to blame God for all the bad things we perceive.  We do not know the price we have to pay for freedom.  We do not know the power of evil.  So I put my faith and trust in God who has promised to give us strength to endure whatever comes if we keep faith with Him.  I praise God for the gift of life.

[BeRational]

As I said, nobody knows the big picture.  Yes, there is a temptation to blame God for all the bad things we perceive.  We do not know the price we have to pay for freedom.  We do not know the power of evil.  So I put my faith and trust in God who has promised to give us strength to endure whatever comes if we keep faith with Him.  I praise God for the gift of life.

Does your god know the power of evil?

Is your god not more powerful than evil?

[Stranger]

As I said, nobody knows the big picture.  Yes, there is a temptation to blame God for all the bad things we perceive.  We do not know the price we have to pay for freedom.  We do not know the power of evil.  So I put my faith and trust in God who has promised to give us strength to endure whatever comes if we keep faith with Him.  I praise God for the gift of life.

So, anything in the world that you consider to be consistent with your beliefs, you accept as confirmation of them, and anything that is inconsistent with them, you dismiss because we mere mortals don't understand the big picture?

From somebody who claimed to have actual evidence, doesn't anything about that strike you as somewhat problematic? Nothing...?

[Stranger]

After all we have people on this board who claim they are not philosophical naturalists basing all if not most of  their arguments in philosophical naturalism.

Care to give even a single example?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you can expound on the theology behind these terms.

I never said the so-called Problem of Evil was an atheist argument: I said it was a reasonable counter to claims of an all-good 'God', and since I think it is a reasonable counter then I'm happy to refer to it (where its reasonableness has nothing to do with my atheism).

Put simply Power and information are quantitative and goodness is qualitative. Apples and pears.

[Outrider]

No.

Yes.

By delegating the power of free will to other beings, the resulting outcome is the will of those beings, not the will of God.

God could stop it, but doesn't.  God created reality and set it on it's way, knowing it would turn out like this, instead of turning out some other way.  If God chose this reality to create, then it's God's choice; if God didn't, then is it really God?

O.

[Stranger]

Secondly whether they are a reasonable counter to Good God thinking or not it isn't relevant to the fact that 'THEY ARE NOT ATHEIST ARGUMENT' but I am glad that by defending the arguments you have admitted that atheists sometimes use them.

How are you defining an "atheist argument"? It's perfectly reasonable to argue against a specific god-idea by assuming that it exists and then deducing something inconsistent with what we observe and therefore concluding that the god-idea is false. The problem of evil is a perfectly valid (prima facie) objection to the notion of "Good God".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The problem of evil is a perfectly valid (prima facie) objection to the notion of "Good God".

It may be but it is not an atheist argument.

[Gordon]

Put simply Power and information are quantitative and goodness is qualitative. Apples and pears.

Wow - I never knew theology was so simple (or that it involved fruit).

So, whereabouts does information about qualitative matters fit in your theology?

[Stranger]

Put simply Power and information are quantitative and goodness is qualitative.

Firstly, surely if morality is objective (as you often claim) then goodness should be quantifiable. Secondly, how does this distinction affect any "atheist arguments" about it? Please provide examples.

[torridon]

As I said, nobody knows the big picture.  Yes, there is a temptation to blame God for all the bad things we perceive. 
..

That temptation is in reality a temptation to be honest, even handed, call a spade a spade.  Not a bad thing, better than being an apologist who can never be trusted for a straightforward unbiased opinion.

[Stranger]

It may be but it is not an atheist argument.

For the second time of asking, what is an "atheist argument"? Why should it matter to anybody?

[Alan Burns]

Does your god know the power of evil?

Is your god not more powerful than evil?

All I know is that God endured suffering and death to deliver us from evil.

[BeRational]

All I know is that God endured suffering and death to deliver us from evil.

So your god may not be as powerful as the power of evil?

You god is not all powerful?

Also, I thought your god was alive, so not dead at all. In fact in the story dead to one and a half days.

I am prepared to be dead on that basis.

[Alan Burns]

So, anything in the world that you consider to be consistent with your beliefs, you accept as confirmation of them, and anything that is inconsistent with them, you dismiss because we mere mortals don't understand the big picture?

From somebody who claimed to have actual evidence, doesn't anything about that strike you as somewhat problematic? Nothing...?

I find the evidence for God overwhelming.
Sadly, you appear to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss the evidence - even the evidence of your own freedom to do this.
If you seek reasons to dismiss the evidence for God, the Devil will provide them in abundance.

You should try seeking the truth - for the truth sets you free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your mistake here was to conclude that atheists do not use God blaming argument. Torridon managed to worm it in in his previous post. God giving babies cancer is a prime fave argument employed by celebrity atheist in chief S. Fry.

Either you're deliberately trolling again or you genuinely cannot grasp even the simplest abstract argument. What some people actually say is that, if someone wants to assert a god and to ascribe to it certain characteristics, they cannot pick and choose what they are on the basis of their personal preferences. If a god of the omnis would be responsible for sugar and spice and all things nice, then it’d be also responsible for the snips and snails and puppy-dogs' tails. That’s not “blaming god” for anything – it’s just pointing out the consequence of the assertions others make about their gods.

Oh, and you’ve effed up again to re “atheist argument”. “Atheist argument” is just logic – it’s the identification of the faults in the arguments theists attempt to justify their claim “god”; no more, no less.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Atheist argument” is just logic – it’s the identification of the faults in the arguments theists attempt to justify their claim “god”; no more, no less.

That's a bold,minority report, claim exonerating a mass of people from ever being caught talking bollocks