Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

But God created this world according to you. God is also omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent according to Christians. This means God knows what he has created AND what that will lead to.

He shouldn't be helping you through your trials, he should be apologising to you face to face. But God doesn't because he is a coward and a bully.

God is the source of all that exists - including entities of free will.  By definition, these entities of free will are not under God's control - if we were we would not have the freedom to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.  Cowards and bullies are indeed symptoms of the consequences of free will - but they are not God's will.

[Outrider]

No, your position is more akin to someone invited to a party, refusing the invitation...then gets angry that he's not enjoying the benefits of the party so then tries to tear the party venue down.

No, my position is that I'm stuck out in the cold and wet, I know people that don't have coats, who haven't eaten, who are diseased and pained, and the person that's stuck us out in the cold is dangling this invitation to a party like we should be glad to get it, and all we have to do is prostrate ourselves and be grateful for being made to suffer in order to be let in.

Oh, but if you try to get in early you're excluded.

Oh, and if the host doesn't like the friends he set you up with, you're excluded.

Oh, and if didn't hear about the invitation that's your own fault, and you're excluded.

Oh, and if your copy of the invitation is in the wrong language and you don't understand it, you're excluded.

Oh, and the invitation doesn't make sense, doesn't say where the party is, doesn't have a dress code, and there are seventy-nine versions of it all of which say something different but... you're fault.

Now shut up and be 'joyful' that you're so loved...

Complaining that God is responsible for a bad relationship doesn't seem to be an atheist argument.

It isn't, it's an argument against some of the core tenets of most forms of Christianity, but it's intriguing to see how far believers are willing to go to accept what is, on the face of it, a pretty twisted situation.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’re overreaching again. It’s not “knowing” god, it’s believing that you “know God”. Does it not even give you pause that countless people who have believed in countless other gods that you think to be false have also reported feeling euphoric about their beliefs too?

If it doesn't occur to you, it really should. 

It may occur to you, because you do not know God.
My knowledge of God comes from God making Himself known to me.

[Enki]

God is the source of all that exists - including entities of free will.  By definition, these entities of free will are not under God's control - if we were we would not have the freedom to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.  Cowards and bullies are indeed symptoms of the consequences of free will - but they are not God's will.

This is a good example for the existence of moral relativity. My sense of morality is different to yours in that if I had been responsible for giving the power of 'free will' to all humanity  then I would feel personally responsible. I would therefore regard any entity which chose to divest humanity with 'free will' with contempt and disdain if it didn't take personal responsibility and rectify all the bad things which have resulted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

John 6.37 whoever comes to me I will in no way turn away

Amongst others.

So it’s written in a book then? OK, my turn next:

‘’The long game was ended, the Snitch had been caught, it was time to leave the air…”

J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Your turn.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Where is the abstraction and where the physical being?

Your random word generator seems to have self-started again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God is the source of all that exists -…

Blind faith claim to begin. Next...

…including entities of free will.

Except “free” will as you fondly imagine it to be is logically impossible (for reasons that have been explained to you countless times and that you always either run away from or try to address with fallacious reasoning).

By definition, these entities of free will are not under God's control …

No, not “by definition” at all – or at least not unless you can justify first the various premises on which this unqualified assertion rests.

- if we were we would not have the freedom to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

Non sequitur (another fallacy)

Cowards and bullies are indeed symptoms of the consequences of free will - but they are not God's will.

And an incoherent blind faith assertion to finish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It may occur to you, because you do not know God.
My knowledge of God comes from God making Himself known to me.

It’s been a while since you tried the fallacy of circular reasoning: “I know god because god made himself known to me, therefore I know god because god…etc”, then repeat endlessly:

"The circular reasoning fallacy is an argument that assumes the very thing it is trying to prove is true. Instead of offering evidence, it simply repeats the conclusion, rendering the argument logically incoherent."

https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/circular-reasoning/#:~:text=The%20circular%20reasoning%20fallacy%20is,time%20to%20go%20to%20bed.%E2%80%9D

Welcome back old friend.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So it’s written in a book then? OK, my turn next:

‘’The long game was ended, the Snitch had been caught, it was time to leave the air…”

J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Your turn.

With a veritable plethora of fable produced by you for this forum over the years I'm surprised you opted for JK Rowling.
You chose Rowling and thus entertained us with a prime cut example of category balls up..........I've missed them and reading yours feels a bit like meeting an old friend.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hillside why not try a hatrick and throw out another logical fallacy out shamanically.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

With a veritable plethora of fable produced by you for this forum over the years I'm surprised you opted for JK Rowling.

What “fables” would they be?

You chose Rowling and thus entertained us with a prime cut example of category balls up..........

What category “balls up” do you think you found? You quoted from a book as if that in some way concretised the statement it made as a fact. I did the same thing.

Possibly your mistake here is that you don’t know what a category error is?
   

I've missed them and reading yours feels a bit like meeting an old friend.

Missed what – category errors? You haven’t found one yet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside why not try a hatrick and throw out another logical fallacy out shamanically

You can’t have an “another” when you haven’t found an earlier one yet. Given your heavy reliance on logical fallacies though and your inability (correctly) to identify any from me, you’ve made a particularly poor choice of hill to die on here.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You can’t have an “another” when you haven’t found an earlier one yet. Given your heavy reliance on logical fallacies though and your inability (correctly) to identify any from me, you’ve made a particularly poor choice of hill to die on here.

Reification according to your source requires an abstraction to be treated like a physical entity.
When I asked what was the abstraction and what was the resultant physical entity you were incapable of providing. You thus chucked the fallacy of Reification as an accusation hoping you would not have to justify it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Reification according to your source requires an abstraction to be treated like a physical entity.

Ah, I see where you’ve gone wrong again there. You’re trying to finesse “like a physical entity” into “therefore can’t apply to god claims because I assert my god to be non-physical”. 

Apart from the bleedin’ obvious problem that would give you of any statement in any book about any supposedly non-physical god by the same reasoning also meaning that god is real, it’s not what reification means in any case:

“Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents. A similar term is "reification", where abstractions are taken to be a real thing..."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory

In rhetoric reification is simply the jump from an expressed idea to that idea also being objectively true (or "real") with no connecting logic to get you there – something you do frequently by the way.

Whether the objectively true “thing” is material or anything else is neither here nor there for the purpose of the term.     

Hope that helps.

When I asked what was the abstraction and what was the resultant physical entity you were incapable of providing. You thus chucked the fallacy of Reification as an accusation hoping you would not have to justify it.

Stop digging!

[Sebastian Toe]

John 6.37 whoever comes to me I will in no way turn away

Amongst others.

There's a failsafe guaranteed way to achieve this?

[torridon]

God is the source of all that exists ..

Therefore God is the source of all evil.  Satan was created by God and continues to be endorsed by God according to you, yet you cannot see any problem with this ?

[Outrider]

Therefore God is the source of all evil.  Satan was created by God and continues to be endorsed by God according to you, yet you cannot see any problem with this ?

Shit, you know what that means?

Given that 'love of money' is the root of all evil, and God is the root of all evil, God is the love of money. The prosperity gospel nutter win theology bingo...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ah, I see where you’ve gone wrong again there. You’re trying to finesse “like a physical entity” into “therefore can’t apply to god claims because I assert my god to be non-physical”. 

Apart from the bleedin’ obvious problem that would give you of any statement in any book about any supposedly non-physical god by the same reasoning also meaning that god is real, it’s not what reification means in any case:

“Mistaking the map for the territory is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone confuses the semantics of a term with what it represents. A similar term is "reification", where abstractions are taken to be a real thing..."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mistaking_the_map_for_the_territory

In rhetoric reification is simply the jump from an expressed idea to that idea also being objectively true (or "real") with no connecting logic to get you there – something you do frequently by the way.

Whether the objectively true “thing” is material or anything else is neither here nor there for the purpose of the term.     

Hope that helps.

Stop digging!

For goodness sake Hillside, you've claimed reification so now prove it. I've even helped you out by pointing out the two questions that need answering.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Therefore God is the source of all evil.  Satan was created by God and continues to be endorsed by God according to you, yet you cannot see any problem with this ?

Not if evil is going against the will of God.

[Gordon]

Not if evil is going against the will of God.

Surely though an omnipotent 'God' could just sort the 'evil' problem - maybe those who think they've encountered 'God' could have a quiet word with it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surely though an omnipotent 'God' could just sort the 'evil' problem - maybe those who think they've encountered 'God' could have a quiet word with it.

He has in the life of Jesus Christ. I think it's up to you to explain to yourself why you think that means is insufficient.

This would involve clueing in to Christ's ministry then examining your alternatives with a view to whether they stack up and debate can help there.

On present reckoning better alternatives involve being consequence free and the universe to be a completely different place altogether.

[Gordon]

He has in the life of Jesus Christ. I think it's up to you to explain to yourself why you think that means is insufficient.

This would involve clueing in to Christ's ministry then examining your alternatives with a view to whether they stack up and debate can help there.

On present reckoning better alternatives involve being consequence free and the universe to be a completely different place altogether.

Don't be daft: I've often asked Chrstians like yourself to confirm how you've checked that that the claims made in stories in the NT aren't mistakes or lies, but so far there are no takers. Therefore, since the claims include stuff like walking on water and not staying dead, it seems reasonable to just dismiss them as nonsense.

I'm not required to provide an alternative to patent nonsense that can easily be dismissed as being religious superstitions with roots in more credulous times, but then the burden of proof is something you've never really understood.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be daft: I've often asked Chrstians like yourself to confirm how you've checked that that the claims made in stories in the NT aren't mistakes or lies, but so far there are no takers. Therefore, since the claims include stuff like walking on water and not staying dead, it seems reasonable to just dismiss them as nonsense.

I'm not required to provide an alternative to patent nonsense that can easily be dismissed as being religious superstitions with roots in more credulous times, but then the burden of proof is something you've never really understood.

Walking on water is essentially a red herring isn't it. It doesn't add to or detract from God's outreach to humanity. To judge a ship on it's superstructure doesn't seem that reasonable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For goodness sake Hillside, you've claimed reification so now prove it. I've even helped you out by pointing out the two questions that need answering.

Have you not read the correction you were given, or did you not understand it?

There isn’t a special sub-set of reification that concerns only ideas about tangible stuff, but allows ideas about anything else to be necessarily true. Reification is simply making the jump from a subjectively expressed idea to an objective fact with no logical path from the former to the latter. This is what you did when you quoted some biblical text as if that in some way settled the matter without bothering to explain why putting a claim in that book implies that the claim is therefore true.

You do this a lot by the way whenever you run out of road. The conversation will be about why for example you think a god exists, when suddenly you’ll revert to “because god says…” etc as if you’d justified the premise that was being debated.

Here for example:

It doesn't add to or detract from God's outreach to humanity.

(Reply464220)       

What "god" would that be then? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
 

Have you not read the correction you were given, or did you not understand it?

There isn’t a special sub-set of reification that concerns only ideas about tangible stuff, but allows ideas to be necessarily true for anything else. Reification is simply making the jump from a subjectively expressed idea to an objective fact with no logical path from the former to the latter. This is what you did when you quoted some biblical text as if that in some way settled the matter without bothering to explain why putting a claim in that book implies that that claim is therefore true.

You do this a lot by the way whenever you run out of road. The conversation will be about why for example you think a god exists, when suddenly you’ll revert to “because god says…” etc as if you’d justified the premise that was being debated.

Here for example:
 (Reply )         

Still no justification for your claim of reification in this specific case. So again what is the abstraction and how is it being made physically concrete?

Are you for instance taking the Neitszche line where God is just abstract hope and wish. Is that the sort of thing you want to get over. We don't know because you haven't actually said.