Gods responsibility

[sojourner]

Your version of God has foreknowledge and will akin to a cabbage?

Don't twist words and meanings. You know full well what I meant, Penguin.

Word salad.

Theological construction. If you're going to play this game, you must play by the rules. If you're going to depart from the standard nature of God, then you've got to come up with a viable theological construction that fits your view, which does not contradict biblical parameters.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't twist words and meanings. You know full well what I meant, Penguin.

Not at all, actually.

Even if I was to think of some way that the eating of a cabbage was instrumental in a murder, the fact that the cabbage has no knowledge of its role, (and therefore no bad will or intent), and no way to avoid its role even if it knew about it means that the cabbage is not culpable fir the actions it enables.

I assumed that your analogy was relevant... IOW, that the factors that make a cabbage not culpable apply to your God. If this assumption was wrong, then I apologize for reading too much into your red herring.

Theological construction. If you're going to play this game, you must play by the rules. If you're going to depart from the standard nature of God, then you've got to come up with a viable theological construction that fits your view, which does not contradict biblical parameters.

I find it cute how you try to dress up your arbitrary preferences as "theological construction".

Edit: I disagree with the notion of a "standard theology" - there seem to me to be as many versions of God and rationalizations as there are believers - but it's very common for God to be considered respinsible for actions on Earth. This is built into the idea of giving God thanks... perhaps you've heard of this?

Anyhow, a God who can be thanked for his good actions can be blamed for his bad ones... or for his inaction in the face of evil.

 

[sojourner]

Even if I was to think of some way that the eating of a cabbage was instrumental in a murder, the fact that the cabbage has no knowledge of its role, (and therefore no bad will or intent), and no way to avoid its role even if it knew about it means that the cabbage is not culpable fir the actions it enables.

I assumed that your analogy was relevant... IOW, that the factors that make a cabbage not culpable apply to your God. If this assumption was wrong, then I apologize for reading too much into your red herring.

This is very, very simple. A cabbage isn't culpable for what we do, by virtue of our having eaten it. We can't escape blame using the excuse of "poor dietary choices." Just as God cannot be culpable for our actions by virtue of being the platform for our life. We are autonomous from God. We are responsible for our choices.

I find it cute how you try to dress up your arbitrary preferences as "theological construction

I find it cute how you try to dismiss well-formulated theology as "arbitrary preferences."

I disagree with the notion of a "standard theology" - there seem to me to be as many versions of God and rationalizations as there are believers

But they share important things in common that you would dismiss. No one who has a well-formulated theological construction, based upon a biblical and traditional standard, sees God as "just another player on the field." It's an irrational premise.

it's very common for God to be considered respinsible for actions on Earth.

No it's not. It's very common for God to be considered to be involved in our lives, but not responsible for our actions. Those who do hold such an idea don't have a very strong theological argument.

Anyhow, a God who can be thanked for his good actions can be blamed for his bad ones

We're not talking about blaming God for God's actions -- we're talking about blaming God for our actions.

or for his inaction in the face of evil.

How do you know God doesn't act in the face of evil? Or is it simply that God doesn't act in a way of your choosing? But then... you're not God, are you!

 

[Thief]

I say...
God gave Man dominion.

We should not blame God.

OR, maybe we COULD blame God for allowing low levels of intelligence to survive!
Not enough DNA for the brain....automatic fail.
Self destruct!

Oh....that's right.....we ARE self destructing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is very, very simple. A cabbage isn't culpable for what we do, by virtue of our having eaten it. We can't escape blame using the excuse of "poor dietary choices." Just as God cannot be culpable for our actions by virtue of being the platform for our life. We are autonomous from God. We are responsible for our choices.

We are each autonomous from each other, but one person can be responsible for having enabled someone else's actions. This is why we have "accessory" crimes.

I find it cute how you try to dismiss well-formulated theology as "arbitrary preferences."

But they share important things in common that you would dismiss. No one who has a well-formulated theological construction, based upon a biblical and traditional standard, sees God as "just another player on the field." It's an irrational premise.

What do you think would make it irrational?

No it's not. It's very common for God to be considered to be involved in our lives, but not responsible for our actions. Those who do hold such an idea don't have a very strong theological argument.

We're not talking about blaming God for God's actions -- we're talking about blaming God for our actions.

I find it very hard to believe that in all your exposure to the various forms of Christianity, you've never heard of believers attributing human actions to God: saying that someone was "sent by God" to help a person in need; or that when someone goes into remission after cancer treatment, it's a "miracle"; or heard religious charity described as the work of "the body of Christ"; or heard someone credit the "indwelling Holy Spirit" for their overcoming a drug addiction.

You can't swing a cat in the average church without hitting someone who claims that some human action - though always only if it's positive - was ultimately God's doing.

How do you know God doesn't act in the face of evil? Or is it simply that God doesn't act in a way of your choosing? But then... you're not God, are you!

There are two - and only two - possibilities:

- God doesn't consistently act in the face of evil.
- God does consistently act in the face of evil... which would imply that no evil exists.

Are you prepared to argue that no evil exists? Because if you want something that's inconsistent with a "biblical standard" (to the extent that such a thing exists at all), it's the idea that there's no sin in the world.

BTW: it's also rather inconsistent of you to describe your God as "the game" and then talk about his actions as if he's a player (e.g. by arguing that he does act in the face of evil). You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too: you're playing the old game of giving God the credit but refusing him the blame. Apparently, God *is* responsible... but only when it's convenient for your so-called "well-formulated theology".

 

[sojourner]

We are each autonomous from each other, but one person can be responsible for having enabled someone else's actions. This is why we have "accessory" crimes.

We're not talking about two people, though. We're talking about God. God doesn't "enable" our actions. We've been over this.

What do you think would make it irrational?

Because it's inconsistent with historic, traditional, cultural and biblical precedent. What makes you think God is "just another player on the field?" From what authoritative source do you derive that POV?

I find it very hard to believe that in all your exposure to the various forms of Christianity, you've never heard of believers attributing human actions to God: saying that someone was "sent by God" to help a person in need; or that when someone goes into remission after cancer treatment, it's a "miracle"; or heard religious charity described as the work of "the body of Christ"; or heard someone credit the "indwelling Holy Spirit" for their overcoming a drug addiction.

You can't swing a cat in the average church without hitting someone who claims that some human action - though always only if it's positive - was ultimately God's doing.

And it's weak, shaky theology with no solid basis.

- God doesn't consistently act in the face of evil.
- God does consistently act in the face of evil... which would imply that no evil exists.

Again: how do you know? Another possibility is that God does act consistently, just not in a way that you perceive or acknowledge.

BTW: it's also rather inconsistent of you to describe your God as "the game" and then talk about his actions as if he's a player (e.g. by arguing that he does act in the face of evil).

Absolutely not! Because God is both immanent and transcendent. God is both particular and universal. Those aspects have to be held in tension. I don't give God "credit" or hold God "responsible."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We're not talking about two people, though. We're talking about God. God doesn't "enable" our actions. We've been over this.

Yes, we've heard your special pleading before. It's not any more convincing this time.

Because it's inconsistent with historic, traditional, cultural and biblical precedent. What makes you think God is "just another player on the field?" From what authoritative source do you derive that POV?

I derive it from logical inferences from the claim "God exists", coupled with recognizing the reasons why arguments like divine command theory fail.

While I don't consider Christian theology to be an "authoritative source", I'm surprised you've never fully explored the implications of Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity and God incarnate, being "King of Kings and Lord of Lords". What is the "King of Kings" but just another king, only bigger than the rest?

And it's weak, shaky theology with no solid basis.

Show me a theology that isn't. At least you don't dispute that I described mainstream views.

Again: how do you know?

Elementary logic: the two alternatives form a MECE set. This means that exactly one of them must be true.

Another possibility is that God does act consistently, just not in a way that you perceive or acknowledge.

That's not another possibility; it's captured in the second option I gave.

Absolutely not! Because God is both immanent and transcendent. God is both particular and universal. Those aspects have to be held in tension. I don't give God "credit" or hold God "responsible."

YOU JUST DID EXACTLY THAT. When you talk about God "acting" - as you just did - the implicit assumption is that God is in a position to act... IOW, that God is a player in the game.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, we've heard your special pleading before. It's not any more convincing this time.

Sorry. Don't see that it's "special pleading," when it is based in both biblical perspective and traditional theological construction. We can only discuss God from mutually agreed upon parameters. It has long been the theological view that God doesn't control our actions, or specifically enable our misdeeds.

I derive it from logical inferences from the claim "God exists", coupled with recognizing the reasons why arguments like divine command theory fail.

The claim, though, is highly metaphorical. God is seen more correctly as existence, itself.

While I don't consider Christian theology to be an "authoritative source", I'm surprised you've never fully explored the implications of Jesus Christ, second person of the Trinity and God incarnate, being "King of Kings and Lord of Lords". What is the "King of Kings" but just another king, only bigger than the rest?

It's a bleeding ancient metaphor, for Pete's sake. Get over it!

Show me a theology that isn't.

Womanist theology, ecological theology, liberation theology. Take your pick. They're all solid constructions.

Elementary logic: the two alternatives form a MECE set. This means that exactly one of them must be true.

No, they don't. See below for why they don't.

That's not another possibility; it's captured in the second option I gave.

You're assuming that any action of God will, by definition, ameliorate evil. That's an assumption, though, that does not have to be the case. God can act in ways that do not eliminate either the cause or the result of some specific evil.

YOU JUST DID EXACTLY THAT. When you talk about God "acting" - as you just did - the implicit assumption is that God is in a position to act... IOW, that God is a player in the game.

God doesn't act. God is action. God doesn't exist. God is existence. God doesn't think. god is thought. God doesn't love. God is love. God doesn't live. God is life. God doesn't play the game. God is the game. Our entire existence depends upon and is caught up in ... God. We anthropomorphize God and perceive God as immanent through anthropomorphic constructions because that's the only way we can talk about God in any way that we can wrap our minds around. But those constructions do not constrain God to the limits of human understanding. If we could understand God, God wouldn't be God.

 

[psychoslice]

Free will is having the choice of being whatever you want to be, but because we all live in this world together we need so called morals, because some people are jerks with their free will.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry. Don't see that it's "special pleading," when it is based in both biblical perspective and traditional theological construction. We can only discuss God from mutually agreed upon parameters. It has long been the theological view that God doesn't control our actions, or specifically enable our misdeeds.

Heh - "THE" theological view. You keep on presenting your subjective opinion as if it's the only game in town.

People have been claiming that God is responsibile as long as there's been belief in God. Believers are constantly giving God thanks and praying for his intercession. They often attribute negative acts to the divine as well, but to Satan instead of God.

... which brings us to another problem with your argument: despite your protestations that it's not "sound theology", many Christians still attribute bad acts and suffering to a god... they just attribute it to the "bad" god (Satan) and not to the "good" god (God). Many of your co-religionists disagree with your autonomy-based argument, even if they come to a similar conclusion in a different way.

The claim, though, is highly metaphorical. God is seen more correctly as existence, itself.

Are you making the claim or aren't you? Funny - I didn't have you pegged as an atheist.

It's a bleeding ancient metaphor, for Pete's sake. Get over it!

Metaphors still have meaning. That's the whole point of metaphor, in fact: the literal meaning of the metaphor communicates something figurative about the larger subject.

I suppose all the talk of God being "the source of all things" and "the Alpha and the Omega" is all meaningless metaphor too, right? How about the idea that Christ is "the lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world"? I'm fine with Jesus not being a literal baby sheep, but I don't think you'll find many Christians who think that this passage doesn't mean that a real Jesus Christ in some form really did - or will - literally act in some form to cleanse the world of literal sin.

I have a feeling that by the time you're done hand-waving the problematic parts of Christianity away as "metaphor", there won't be much Christianity left. Personally, I think this approach is dishonest, since it disregards how countless real-life Christians believe.

Womanist theology, ecological theology, liberation theology. Take your pick. They're all solid constructions.

Sure they are.

Their internal inconsistencies aside, you yourself argue just a few paragraphs down that God is ultimately incomprehensible. This implies that any theology is ultimately built on sand, since inference from an incomprehensible source is either incomprehensible itself or invalid. Once again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

No, they don't. See below for why they don't.

Yes, they do. If you think otherwise, it's because you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

You're assuming that any action of God will, by definition, ameliorate evil.

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that every evil is either ameliorated by God or not. I don't speak to any of God's actions that don't address evil; whatever they are, they're irrelevant for this discussion. God either addresses every evil or not; there are no other options. Everything else we can say on the matter falls into one of those two broad categories: for instance, "God doesn't address evil at all because he doesn't exist" and "God allows evil because he would have to deny free will to prevent it" both fall under the umbrella of "God does not address every evil."

That's an assumption, though, that does not have to be the case. God can act in ways that do not eliminate either the cause or the result of some specific evil.

Again: I'm not assuming this. You only think I am because you haven't understood what I'm saying.

God doesn't act. God is action. God doesn't exist. God is existence. God doesn't think. god is thought. God doesn't love. God is love. God doesn't live. God is life. God doesn't play the game. God is the game. Our entire existence depends upon and is caught up in ... God.

So God is a collection of abstract concepts and not a literal thing? Fine if you believe that for yourself (though why you would call such a collection "God" is beyond me), but if you're presenting this as the mainstream belief of any major religion in the world today, then I'd say you're making a serious misrepresentation of the facts.

We anthropomorphize God and perceive God as immanent through anthropomorphic constructions because that's the only way we can talk about God in any way that we can wrap our minds around. But those constructions do not constrain God to the limits of human understanding. If we could understand God, God wouldn't be God.

The implication of this is that anything anyone has ever said about God is baseless nonsense.

 

[Thief]

How about?.....God WILL address every evil!

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you....
is a code of behavior AND fair warning.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How about?.....God WILL address every evil!

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you....
is a code of behavior AND fair warning.

"God has not addressed every evil yet, but he will in the future" is still under the umbrella of "God has not addressed every evil."

 

[Thief]

"God has not addressed every evil yet, but he will in the future" is still under the umbrella of "God has not addressed every evil."

So we could wrap this up and say?....'wait and see'

Indeed!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since I get the impression that people might be getting confused by the concept, here you go:

MECE principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question "has God addressed every evil?" has an answer of either yes or no. Even if we don't know whether the answer is "yes" or "no", we know by how the question is formulated that the answer isn't "both", "neither", or some other answer. Because of this, arguing that one particular answer is false is inherently an argument that the other answer - as well as everything that answer implies - is true.

 

[Thief]

Since I get the impression that people might be getting confused by the concept, here you go:

MECE principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The question "has God addressed every evil?" has an answer of either yes or no. Even if we don't know whether the answer is "yes" or "no", we know by how the question is formulated that the answer isn't "both", "neither", or some other answer. Because of this, arguing that one particular answer is false is inherently an argument that the other answer - as well as everything that answer implies - is true.

If it's not 'both...or....neither'.....then is MUST be something else.

As the question is offered in past tense.....the answer could be....'not yet.'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it's not 'both...or....neither'.....then is MUST be something else.

No, there are really only two options. Everything else is a sub-option below those two.

As the question is offered in past tense.....the answer could be....'not yet.'

That's the answer "no" accompanied by an explanation, not a third option in its own right.

 

[Thief]

No, there are really only two options. Everything else is a sub-option below those two.


That's the answer "no" accompanied by an explanation, not a third option in its own right.

So you're just insisting on God as irresponsible as He hasn't already done something about the evil in this world?

He gave this world to Man.
He gave Man dominion.
God's turn for response is pending.

 

[sojourner]

Heh - "THE" theological view. You keep on presenting your subjective opinion as if it's the only game in town.

I didn't say it was the "only game in town." I said it's what has been generally mutually agreed upon.
We have to have some common ground in our understanding in order to talk about God with each other.

People have been claiming that God is responsibile as long as there's been belief in God. Believers are constantly giving God thanks and praying for his intercession. They often attribute negative acts to the divine as well, but to Satan instead of God.

If you want to argue with them, fine. But I don't hold that view. What you're doing is trying to make God an absolute set of (IMO relatively unfounded) beliefs that you can then knock down. This is a straw man, and I'm calling you on it. Not everyone holds such thin descriptions of God. On top of that, you say "many people" hold this belief, which is an argument from popularity. Do you have anything real here, or don't you, Penguin?

Are you making the claim or aren't you? Funny - I didn't have you pegged as an atheist.

I'm not making the same claim you're making. God is existence. That's not an atheistic claim.

Metaphors still have meaning. That's the whole point of metaphor, in fact: the literal meaning of the metaphor communicates something figurative about the larger subject.

And you're taking something figurative and turning it into something literal. It doesn't work that way.

I suppose all the talk of God being "the source of all things" and "the Alpha and the Omega" is all meaningless metaphor too, right? How about the idea that Christ is "the lamb of God who comes to take away the sins of the world"? I'm fine with Jesus not being a literal baby sheep, but I don't think you'll find many Christians who think that this passage doesn't mean that a real Jesus Christ in some form really did - or will - literally act in some form to cleanse the world of literal sin.

I have a feeling that by the time you're done hand-waving the problematic parts of Christianity away as "metaphor", there won't be much Christianity left. Personally, I think this approach is dishonest, since it disregards how countless real-life Christians believe.

Dear God!! So, you won't allow us to establish any kind of metaphorical thinking about God??? God MUST ONLY be described in empirical terms, or it's not valid??? Get over yourself!

Sure they are.

Their internal inconsistencies aside

Solid =/= without "internal inconsistencies."

you yourself argue just a few paragraphs down that God is ultimately incomprehensible. This implies that any theology is ultimately built on sand, since inference from an incomprehensible source is either incomprehensible itself or invalid. Once again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

You're playing a game here. Again, you're trying to hold us to some empirical construction, and then you claim that, "if you can't define God, then God isn't real."

ANY talk of God contains assumptions that are established according to some standard (in this case, biblical and Traditional). If you enter this conversation, you're making assumptions, just as much as the rest of us, so don't pretend that you're the only one who takes a "logical" view. Logically, if you're going to discount theological imagination as "baseless," then you have no basis to discuss God at all.

I'm assuming that every evil is either ameliorated by God or not.

Ah! So you do make baseless assumptions after all! You forgot to mention that when you put this out there. I don't "assume" that evil is "either ameliorated by God or not" when I use the phrase "God acts in response to evil." Get your game pants on here! Why would you "assume" that that's what "God acts" refers to? And why would you "assume" that we all automatically make the same assumption?

Again: I'm not assuming this. You only think I am because you haven't understood what I'm saying.

I'm only misunderstanding because YOU DIDN'T MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR.

So God is a collection of abstract concepts and not a literal thing?

God is not "a thing," if "a thing" indicates some "part" of the created order. God is the creation, itself. And the motive behind the creation.

if you're presenting this as the mainstream belief of any major religion in the world today, then I'd say you're making a serious misrepresentation of the facts.

Boy, have you got a lot to learn about what we think.

The implication of this is that anything anyone has ever said about God is baseless nonsense.

...Aaaaand the straw man makes a curtain call. Good job!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say it was the "only game in town." I said it's what has been generally mutually agreed upon.
We have to have some common ground in our understanding in order to talk about God with each other.

Common ground with who? You've established very little common ground with me.

If you want to argue with them, fine. But I don't hold that view.

You keep representing your views as things like "common ground", "traditional", and "mutually agreed upon". From where I sit, it certainly doesn't seem like you're presenting your views as only your own.

What you're doing is trying to make God an absolute set of (IMO relatively unfounded) beliefs that you can then knock down. This is a straw man, and I'm calling you on it. Not everyone holds such thin descriptions of God.

Not everyone, but many. The views I've describe represent the vast majority of theists I've ever met.

... and I'm sure they appreciate your denigration of their deeply-held beliefs.

On top of that, you say "many people" hold this belief, which is an argument from popularity.

Consensus is defined in terms of people's beliefs. This isn't an argument from popularity.

I have a hypothesis: you're upset at the fact that I've called you out for the logical fallacies in your posts, so you've decided to respond tit-for-tat. This only works if the "fallacies" you're pointing out are actually fallacies, though.

Do you have anything real here, or don't you, Penguin?

Of course not - we're talking theology.

I'm not making the same claim you're making. God is existence. That's not an atheistic claim.

"God does not exist" is an atheist claim... and behold:

God doesn't exist.

And you're taking something figurative and turning it into something literal. It doesn't work that way.

No, I'm not. I'm only assuming that people who use metaphors are attempting to communicate something meaningful.

Dear God!! So, you won't allow us to establish any kind of metaphorical thinking about God??? God MUST ONLY be described in empirical terms, or it's not valid??? Get over yourself!

Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I'm not saying that people can't describe God with metaphor; I'm saying that for the vast majority of theists, there really are literal beliefs about God at the core of their belief system.

Solid =/= without "internal inconsistencies."

"What sojourner describes as solid" does not necessarily equal "solid".

You're playing a game here. Again, you're trying to hold us to some empirical construction, and then you claim that, "if you can't define God, then God isn't real."

No, I'm saying that if you can't say what you mean when you say "God", then when you use the word "God", you're not communicating anything meaningful.

The question of whether there's something real out there somewhere is a completely separate matter. Right now, all we're dealing with is whether the word "God" communicates meaning or is just gum-flapping... and you've undercut the argument that it communicates meaning.

It's a two-step process:

1. Does the word refer to an actual concept?
2. Does the concept correspond to reality?

We can't start addressing step 1 until we've dealt with step 2.

ANY talk of God contains assumptions that are established according to some standard (in this case, biblical and Traditional).

Wait - I thought you were

If you enter this conversation, you're making assumptions, just as much as the rest of us, so don't pretend that you're the only one who takes a "logical" view. Logically, if you're going to discount theological imagination as "baseless," then you have no basis to discuss God at all.

Baloney. If this were true, we couldn't ask whether a worldview is internally consistent.

Ah! So you do make baseless assumptions after all!

What's the assumption?

You forgot to mention that when you put this out there. I don't "assume" that evil is "either ameliorated by God or not" when I use the phrase "God acts in response to evil." Get your game pants on here! Why would you "assume" that that's what "God acts" refers to? And why would you "assume" that we all automatically make the same assumption?

I can't tell what your point is here. Can you calm down and re-phrase?

I'm only misunderstanding because YOU DIDN'T MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR.

I was plenty clear to anyone who reads carefully.

God is not "a thing," if "a thing" indicates some "part" of the created order. God is the creation, itself. And the motive behind the creation.

Don't get hung up on the word "thing". Are you arguing that God is nothing more than a collection of abstract concepts?

Boy, have you got a lot to learn about what we think.

So do you, I wager.

In any case, in the interests of learning - for both of us - I've started a poll:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-believers-these-statements-do-you-agree.html

...Aaaaand the straw man makes a curtain call. Good job!

Saying "straw man" is not an argument. Do you have one?

 

[sojourner]

Common ground with who? You've established very little common ground with me.


You keep representing your views as things like "common ground", "traditional", and "mutually agreed upon". From where I sit, it certainly doesn't seem like you're presenting your views as only your own.


Not everyone, but many. The views I've describe represent the vast majority of theists I've ever met.

... and I'm sure they appreciate your denigration of their deeply-held beliefs.




Consensus is defined in terms of people's beliefs. This isn't an argument from popularity.

I have a hypothesis: you're upset at the fact that I've called you out for the logical fallacies in your posts, so you've decided to respond tit-for-tat. This only works if the "fallacies" you're pointing out are actually fallacies, though.


Of course not - we're talking theology.


"God does not exist" is an atheist claim... and behold:




No, I'm not. I'm only assuming that people who use metaphors are attempting to communicate something meaningful.


Don't put words in my mouth, please.

I'm not saying that people can't describe God with metaphor; I'm saying that for the vast majority of theists, there really are literal beliefs about God at the core of their belief system.


"What sojourner describes as solid" does not necessarily equal "solid".


No, I'm saying that if you can't say what you mean when you say "God", then when you use the word "God", you're not communicating anything meaningful.

The question of whether there's something real out there somewhere is a completely separate matter. Right now, all we're dealing with is whether the word "God" communicates meaning or is just gum-flapping... and you've undercut the argument that it communicates meaning.

It's a two-step process:

1. Does the word refer to an actual concept?
2. Does the concept correspond to reality?

We can't start addressing step 1 until we've dealt with step 2.


Wait - I thought you were


Baloney. If this were true, we couldn't ask whether a worldview is internally consistent.


What's the assumption?


I can't tell what your point is here. Can you calm down and re-phrase?


I was plenty clear to anyone who reads carefully.


Don't get hung up on the word "thing". Are you arguing that God is nothing more than a collection of abstract concepts?


So do you, I wager.

In any case, in the interests of learning - for both of us - I've started a poll:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-believers-these-statements-do-you-agree.html


Saying "straw man" is not an argument. Do you have one?

Here's the real issue (from which you have attempted to lead us away through a piecemeal approach to my posts in a series of assumptive and misdirected responses). Let's stop the nonsense and get down to the brass tacks of the argument.

The OP wonders ultimately (through the use of an analogy) whether God can be held responsible for the evil things we do by virtue of having created us with that capacity. Your entire argument seems to stem from a "theological" position (although I doubt you'd use that particular term) that "God is simply another player in the game," and so of course God is culpable by virtue of God's being an "accomplice." It is this position of God as "simply another player in the game" that strikes me as unfounded and simply being used as a straw man to accomplish your aim of knocking down claims of non-culpability.

Since you seem to hold to this notion that God is "simply another player in the game," lay out exactly how you arrive at this theological position. From there we can proceed.

I have a hypothesis: you're upset at the fact that I've called you out for the logical fallacies in your posts, so you've decided to respond tit-for-tat.

Which is precisely what you've been doing. I've presented grounded elements of theological formation, and you refute them as "irrational." Here's the thing: If you're going to argue theology, then argue theology -- don't simply dismiss theology as "unfounded." Otherwise, it's you who have no basis for the discussion of God in any real terms, because God can only be rationally discussed through theological means.