A omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and human beings suffering

[Shad]

Haha looks like the poor Canucks have their heaters going full blast to keep their feet warm in their igloos..

PS- when I make myself a cup of tea I put just a cupfull of water in the electric kettle which boils in no time, but when I stayed with my friend and his wife I was shocked to see they always fill their kettle full every time which takes a good 10 minutes and a lot of electricity to boil!
Dumb shmucks, I'm glad they pay the bill and not me..

Either that kettle is huge or inefficient.

 

[sojourner]

You confuse the referent with the term. The referent of the term sun was in the sky before there were words. But before the term "sun" was used to refer to the big hot thing in the sky, the term "sun" was meaningless and it would have ben absurd to use it. Consider the term "jergzol." It hasn't any meaning yet.

If you're referring to the term "God," then I agree. The term -- in and of itself -- is meaningless. It's simply one word used to refer to Divinity. However, the word is not "in and of itself" here. The term has acquired emotional baggage in many cases.

Awe! Are you trying an ad hominem? That is so cute.

WTF with all the cheap condescension? I'm merely making an observation that your posts seem to reflect a lot of bitterness where God and religion are concerned. In fact, your response here seems fraught with bitterness. An observation isn't necessarily an ad hominem. In this case it isn't because I'm not using the observation to try to counter any of your points. The statement is only an ad hominem if it's used as an argument.

The "omnixxxx" powers are good comic book and religious fodder, but things just don't work that way in the real world. They are fantasy power for fantasy worlds.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no separation between "real world" and "theological world" (I substituted "theological" for "religious" because it's far more precise), because theology seeks to understand the "real world" from a particular perspective, ideally from a position that appreciates scientific understanding and does not detract from it.

Sorry but I only allow complaints about atomism IF you forego using any atoms in the process.

But be fore you get too far off in your red herring, I'm merely pointing out there are power sources all over and therefor god isn't ALL powerful.

And all those power sources have their source in one place: the Big Bang. If the universe is understood as the physical embodiment of God, all power sources are (more correctly) understood as not separate, but interrelated. IOW, the universe is an organic whole -- not a conglomerate of unrelated parts. So, the argument isn't a red herring at all.

Awe, you're second ad hominem in one post.

Again: not an ad hominem to point out your apparent ignorance with regard to science and theology. Your post simply does not demonstrate a knowledge that can support the argument at hand. But if you'd rather simply condescend out of embarrassment or entertainment, feel free; no one's going to appreciate the effort.

I am so glad you are finally over all that god stuff.

I'm glad you're glad. But your emotional state really adds nothing whatsoever to the argument at hand. Please try to focus.

Isn't it so nice that you insult me for my sake.

This is a debate forum. If you can't stand the heat, best to stay out of the kitchen.

Now that we've gotten the bowlship out of the way, perhaps you'd like to actually debate your (non) points?

Your move, Skeezix.

 

[sojourner]

The reality is, God isn't there.

Not a straw man argument. The straw man argument is theology.
God doesn't fit reality. And will never do.
God is wrong. Not us.

It is a straw man, because you're setting up a false argument. You're arguing God from a position of a particular theological understanding, and then turning around and saying that theology is a straw man. You called it -- I didn't.
God does fit reality, so long as a correct theological construction is employed.

Do that then.

Nope. Not my job. You brought up those terms as they are associated with God. It's up to you to define those terms, as they relate to the argument you're posing.

Omnibenevolence and omnipotence are not useful for theodicity because theology is useless.
The profound meaning of that statement is that God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent unless bad events occurs.

I said "generally not useful." And only because the wrong definitions for those terms are generally used when dealing with issues of theodicy.
Perhaps, once you define the terms the way you want to use them, we can tear apart your (most likely flawed) theological construction in regular fashion. Until then, we don't even know what your argument consists of.

Wonderful. You start.

Again: no. This is your argument, so you need to define the terms you're using.

You won't look for seeds if you already have seeds.

This is not cogent to the argument.

Tighten up your argument, define your terms, and a useful debate may happen. Until those things happen, however, all your argument amounts to is a poorly-constructed argument against the existence of God. As it stands right now, the only thing non-existent here is your valid argument.

 

[Sonofason]

If you are context in the way the world is yet try to help people who are not "content" you have created a contradiction. If you are helping people this means you are not content then.

Perhaps I am content because I do help others. As my life is right now, I am content. I am content helping others. I am content even when I don't. Surely, I don't help everyone. Yet I am still content.

 

[WhatGod]

If you're referring to the term "God," then I agree. The term -- in and of itself -- is meaningless.

How nice we can agree on this.

It's simply one word used to refer to Divinity.

GIGO. Hinging another term on a meaningless term just means it to is meaningless. Turtles all the way down, don't you know.

WTF with all the cheap condescension?

How should I know why you went there? Seems like you should bother to learn a bit about me first before trying to insult me. Luckily I find your indignity on being call on your cheap ploys ADORABLE. Do keep it up.

I'm merely making an observation that your posts seem to reflect a lot of bitterness where God and religion are concerned. In fact, your response here seems fraught with bitterness.

Awe! Are we twying to play the "your just bitter" ploy. That is so sweet that you are so concerned about me. Shouldn't date a while first though?

An observation isn't necessarily an ad hominem. In this case it isn't because I'm not using the observation to try to counter any of your points. The statement is only an ad hominem if it's used as an argument.

An ad hominem isn't an argument or even part of an argument. It a ploy where you attack my person, like say claiming I have no knowledge on a subject or that my arguments are just an emotional disturbance. Of course if you have a lick of education you know this and are just playing stupid to try and excuse your earlier and quite blatant personal attacks.

Its beginning to look like personal attacks make up the bulk of your position. That would be a shame since I was hoping for more. At least you are cute. Now get all huffy for me again...paweeeese?

I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no separation between "real world" and "theological world"

One is actual and the other is fantasy, but other than that they are just the same. Well except for all the make believe stuff and the whole not real bit.

And all those power sources have their source in one place: the Big Bang.

Actually you don't know that. The big bang itself is inside an event horizon and therefor outside what we can observe. Our language of time and place, of sources and objects, is useless because they require an unfolded time and space to describe.

But that was 13+ billion years ago. I'm talking about now and it's obvious that all the power is not in one spot.

If the universe is understood as the physical embodiment of God

Really? Pantheism? Won't you burn in hell for that? It is even less god than Deism. Its just a je ne sais quoi away from naturalism. Pretty much as little god as it is possible to have and still claim to be any kind of theist at all and certainly goes against a number of dogmas required to be considered a xtian.

all power sources are (more correctly) understood as not separate, but interrelated. IOW, the universe is an organic whole -- not a conglomerate of unrelated parts. So, the argument isn't a red herring at all.

Ah, then by that argument we are down to I am your god.

The only problem is that interrelated does not preclude being separate.

Again: not an ad hominem to point out your apparent ignorance with regard to science and theology.

Oh hun! You can do better than that. Pointing out "apparent" ignorance is precisely a textbook ad hominem. If there was really a mistake on my part you'd be all over it like stink on sh!7. But instead you pretend I'm ignorant and make a big deal about that to try and ignore the fact I'm spot on and you ain't got nothing.

Do you really think god will approve of these shenanigans in his name?

Or like so many xtians do you think god is dumb as a rock?

 

[WhatGod]

Perhaps I am content because I do help others. As my life is right now, I am content. I am content helping others. I am content even when I don't. Surely, I don't help everyone. Yet I am still content.

The theory is that if you were truly and wholly content, you would lack any motivation to change that state and so would not be doing anything. But no one has that level of contentment and we do things for lots of reasons and often capriciously as well.

However I strongly suspect that you help others because you are discontent with the state they find themselves in and in fact that you invoke the term "helping" them implies that you are discontent with their state and are seeking to improve it.

If you were actually content with their state you wouldn't be helping them, you would just be hanging out with them for the fun of it.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

There's so much nastiness and darkness in the world that it's FUN to redress the balance by helping people!
Jesus said to his followers- “You are the light of the world", and Christians like brightening the place up a little..

 

[sojourner]

How nice we can agree on this.

You very conveniently left out the other half of the statement. I don't agree that the term is meaningless. Of itself, the term is meaningless (and here's the important part that you left out), however, there is emotional and intellectual baggage attached to the term that renders it not meaningless.

GIGO. Hinging another term on a meaningless term just means it to is meaningless.

The term isn't hung on a "meaningless term." The term is hung on Divinity. Divinity is real and meaningful. But you digress from the real point of the argument, which is a theology that is not apropos to the issue of human suffering. If you want to discuss how the theological construct is not apropos, that's fine. Otherwise, at least for purposes of this thread, God does exist, because God is the subject of the argument, and god's existence is assumed here.

How should I know why you went there?

Don't project (again). You went there first in post #147.

Luckily I find your indignity on being call on your cheap ploys ADORABLE.

Luckily for the rest of us, Mr. Pot, you began the cheap ploys with this post:

Maybe its time you grew up then?

in (the by now infamous) post #147.

An ad hominem isn't an argument or even part of an argument. It a ploy where you attack my person, like say claiming I have no knowledge on a subject or that my arguments are just an emotional disturbance. Of course if you have a lick of education you know this and are just playing stupid to try and excuse your earlier and quite blatant personal attacks.

Its beginning to look like personal attacks make up the bulk of your position. That would be a shame since I was hoping for more. At least you are cute. Now get all huffy for me again...paweeeese?

Hmmm... refuting a point with an ad hominem? You're not going to derail the debate with this tactic. Your definition of ad hominem left out this very important detail:

...in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

the fact of your lack of ability to formulate a decent theological argument is hardly an "irrelevant fact" for purposes of this thread. An "Irrelevant fact" would be something more akin to: "You're just a silly girl." The fact that you continue to take this tack reveals much about your willingness to actually debate the topic.

Again: now that we've gotten the bowlspit out of the way, perhaps you'd like to actually argue the topic of the thread (unless, of course, you're still far too concerned about saving face which, in this case, is a lost cause)?

One is actual and the other is fantasy, but other than that they are just the same. Well except for all the make believe stuff and the whole not real bit.

Nothing fantasy about theology. It's a bona fide discipline that deals with the bona fide and very real world in which we live. Unless, of course, you're confusing theology with dogma...

I'm talking about now and it's obvious that all the power is not in one spot.

All the power is contained in one spot: the created order. That's like saying that, because all the constituent parts of an atom aren't in "one spot," they're not all part of the same atom.

Really? Pantheism? Won't you burn in hell for that? It is even less god than Deism. Its just a je ne sais quoi away from naturalism. Pretty much as little god as it is possible to have and still claim to be any kind of theist at all and certainly goes against a number of dogmas required to be considered a xtian.

Nope. Not pantheism. Try again, Skeezix. This certainly illustrates my observation that your lack of information on the subject at hand renders you unable to formulate a decent argument on the subject, eh?

Ah, then by that argument we are down to I am your god.

You're getting hotter. In a certain sense, we are God.

The only problem is that interrelated does not preclude being separate.

The only problem is that, actually, it does preclude that. Within "interrelated," there is difference, uniqueness and particularity. But nothing is truly "separate" from anything else in the universe.

But instead you pretend I'm ignorant and make a big deal about that to try and ignore the fact I'm spot on and you ain't got nothing.

Uh huh. Now who's living in a fantasy land?

Do you really think god will approve of these shenanigans in his name?

Or like so many xtians do you think god is dumb as a rock?

Who says I'm a Xtian? <sound of balloon rapidly deflating>

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Really? Pantheism? Won't you burn in hell for that? It is even less god than Deism. Its just a je ne sais quoi away from naturalism. Pretty much as little god as it is possible to have and still claim to be any kind of theist at all and certainly goes against a number of dogmas required to be considered a xtian.

Considering Pantheists doesn't generally agree with the idea of hell, then, the answer would obviously be no. Neither do Deists.

Or like so many xtians do you think god is dumb as a rock?

Where exactly did they say they were a Christian? Theism does not always equal Christianity, or even organized religion in general. I hope it doesn't get too lonely that high up on your pedestal.:sarcastic

 

[WhatGod]

Considering Pantheists doesn't generally agree with the idea of hell, then, the answer would obviously be no. Neither do Deists.

Where exactly did they say they were a Christian? Theism does not always equal Christianity, or even organized religion in general. I hope it doesn't get too lonely that high up on your pedestal.:sarcastic

Hmm, how exactly are you involved in my conversation with him again? Not that I mind if you have something to contribute, but he is already speaking for himself and doing a more than adequate job.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Hmm, how exactly are you involved in my conversation with him again? Not that I mind if you have something to contribute, but he is already speaking for himself and doing a more than adequate job.

A tad upset are we?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Hmm, how exactly are you involved in my conversation with him again? Not that I mind if you have something to contribute, but he is already speaking for himself and doing a more than adequate job.

Also... considering I am both Pantheist and Deist, which are literally the two things you brought up in this conversation, I would say my input is relevant to this discussion, wouldn't you agree?

 

[WhatGod]

You very conveniently left out the other half of the statement. I don't agree that the term is meaningless.

If you're referring to the term "God," then I agree. The term -- in and of itself -- is meaningless.

That seems like a pretty straight up statement. You weren't deliberately looking to mislead me were you?

And I did address the rest:

GIGO. Hinging another term on a meaningless term just means it too is meaningless. Turtles all the way down, don't you know.

Of itself, the term is meaningless (and here's the important part that you left out), however, there is emotional and intellectual baggage attached to the term that renders it not meaningless.

Sorry, baggage doesn't give it meaning. People get worked up about all manner of meaningless nonsense. A straightforward proper noun's meaning is really easy - it refers specifically to something. "WhatGod" refers to me and "sojourner" refers to you. Without the referent, the proper noun is meaningless like jerzal or god. Should there be disagreement you just produce the referent and voila! All the disagreement is resolved.

The term isn't hung on a "meaningless term." The term is hung on Divinity.

And divinity is hung on god and god "is meaningless" -sojourner

Or are you talking about "a fluffy, creamy candy made with stiffly beaten egg whites."

Divinity is real and meaningful.

Wanting it really badly doesn't make it so. But I'll take it back if you can produce some actual divinity for me to observe.

But you digress from the real point of the argument, which is a theology that is not apropos to the issue of human suffering. If you want to discuss how the theological construct is not apropos, that's fine. Otherwise, at least for purposes of this thread, God does exist, because God is the subject of the argument, and god's existence is assumed here.

Sorry, you might have to be less vague. Theologies run the gamut concerning human suffering, from promoting to ignoring to deep concern, and that includes non theologies as well.

As a meaningless term, god is unnecessary to the discussion and assumptions concerning "god" existence are premature.

Don't project (again). You went there first in post #147.

Luckily for the rest of us, Mr. Pot, you began the cheap ploys with this post: in (the by now infamous) post #147.

Oh? You mean the post where I respond to this adorable attack?

Maybe it'd be best for you if you got a handle on theology, and its purpose, before we proceed further.

By saying:

Oh you are so CUUUTE when you are condescending! Do it again!

You do know I can look these things back up right?

the fact of your lack of ability to formulate a decent theological argument is hardly an "irrelevant fact" for purposes of this thread.

Your inability to refute my positions seems to make them pretty decent. But don't dwell on your impotence too much. Your constant return to ad hominems makes up for the lack of anything cogent by being CaUUUTE!!!!

Nothing fantasy about theology.

Are you feeling insecure about your degree choices? There is nothing wrong with a bona fide degree in a fantasy subject.

All the power is contained in one spot: the created order.

Except there is no "created order." and all the power isn't contained in one spot. Trying to equivocate "one spot" with "the entire universe" is not very persuasive.

That's like saying that, because all the constituent parts of an atom aren't in "one spot," they're not all part of the same atom.

Actually its like saying because all the particles of an atom aren't in one spot; you can't legitimately claim that they are all in one spot.

Nope. Not pantheism.

Then don't pretend to espouse pantheism as a solution to your dilemma.

In a certain sense, we are God.

Yep, in the same sense the we are gergle. A meaningless term can be applied arbitrarily. But I didn't say "we are God," did I?

But nothing is truly "separate" from anything else in the universe.

Easy to misunderstand and make big claims about, but scratch my back and prove it.

Who says I'm a Xtian?

Any one who says "Who says I'm a Xtian?" is a xtian trying to be elusive until proven otherwise.

Actual non xtians are proud of this fact and fringe xtians are quick to distance themselves from the normative mainstream.

Not that it makes a difference. Wrong is wrong no matter the flavor.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Any one who says "Who says I'm a Xtian?" is a xtian trying to be elusive until proven otherwise.

From what bowels of the great firey inferno did you concoct this little morsel of absolute logical nonsense?

 

[sojourner]

Without the referent, the proper noun is meaningless like jerzal or god. Should there be disagreement you just produce the referent and voila! All the disagreement is resolved.

Referent is already produced. Voila! Disagreement resolved.






You're welcome.

Are you feeling insecure about your degree choices?

To what "degree do you refer?" I haven't mentioned degrees here.

Except there is no "created order."

There isn't? Nothing exists? Wow!

all the power isn't contained in one spot. Trying to equivocate "one spot" with "the entire universe" is not very persuasive.

What other "spot" could there be besides "all there is?"

Then don't pretend to espouse pantheism as a solution to your dilemma.

I didn't "espouse pantheism." That's your mistake of perception.

Any one who says "Who says I'm a Xtian?" is a xtian trying to be elusive until proven otherwise.

Actual non xtians are proud of this fact and fringe xtians are quick to distance themselves from the normative mainstream.

Weel, so much for what YOU know.

You make sooooo many assumptions; it's embarrassing.

Your posts are increasingly off-topic of the thread. you wanna talk about theodicy? Fine! Otherwise, not interested.

 

[WhatGod]

Referent is already produced. Voila!

Not really seeing any gods about...nope...Sorry. Try again?

To what "degree do you refer?" I haven't mentioned degrees here.

That's ok. It was a rhetorical question.

There isn't? Nothing exists? Wow!

Turns out created order isn't needed for anything and is just made up.

What other "spot" could there be besides "all there is?"!

What time could there be besides forever? But I be you still check the clock and I bet you still go places. You are being disingenuous.

 

[WhatGod]

From what bowels of the great firey inferno did you concoct this little morsel of absolute logical nonsense?

I told you straight up:
Actual non xtians are proud of this fact and fringe xtians (like deists for example) are quick to distance themselves from the normative mainstream.

Granted this is just a rule of thumb but I have noticed xtians get really antsy about straight out denying that they are xtians.

But they don't mind trying to imply it by saying things like "Who says I'm a Xtian?"

And I notice he has fail to deny it as well.

So, smells xtian.

 

[sojourner]

Not really seeing any gods about...nope...Sorry. Try again?



That's ok. It was a rhetorical question.



Turns out created order isn't needed for anything and is just made up.



What time could there be besides forever? But I be you still check the clock and I bet you still go places. You are being disingenuous.

When you have something substantial to add to the thread I'll reply.

 

[sojourner]

I told you straight up:
Actual non xtians are proud of this fact and fringe xtians (like deists for example) are quick to distance themselves from the normative mainstream.

Granted this is just a rule of thumb but I have noticed xtians get really antsy about straight out denying that they are xtians.

But they don't mind trying to imply it by saying things like "Who says I'm a Xtian?"

And I notice he has fail to deny it as well.

So, smells xtian.

 

[WhatGod]

A tad upset are we?

Your funny. Waiting for you to engage.