James Cameron is a better God than Yahweh!

[RitalinO.D.]

It says more about your poor attitude than it does about the mind of God.

Having a more creative mind than you imagine God could have means having a bad attitude? Hows that work?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It says God did a pretty lousy job.

If our imaginations can imagine something better than what God has currently created then their is room for improvement. Like Poly said about diseases, why did God create diseases or viruses?

This is why.....

[youtube]s6AdEDm2mLQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Atheist Comedy - Intelijunt Dezine

 

[sojourner]

Having a more creative mind than you imagine God could have means having a bad attitude? Hows that work?

If one is going to assume God -- even just for reasons of discussion -- one should assume God as God is universally posited: omnipotent. To say, then, that one's imagination is greater than God's imagination is to show a poor attitude toward the constraints of the discussion, wherein God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then God's imagination would be greater than a human's.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't think our imaginations can do better, unless they can bring the imagined to reality.

No, our imaginations can do better. We just lack the further ability to actually create what our imaginations come up with.

 

[Magic Man]

That's your opinion. Others don't happen to share it.

That's a cop out. It's my opinion based on the available facts. I'm sure others don't share, and what I'm saying is that they're wrong.

Once again, if you don't like it here, you're welcome to go somewhere you do enjoy.

Actually, I don't remember you saying that before. But anyway, no, I'm not welcome to go somewhere else. I have no other options. I either live on Earth or I die.

Your tactic in this debate seems to be "Well, that's not real, this is, and if you don't like it, tough". That's hardly a good way to debate, especially when you're not even addressing the issue. The argument is that given the power to create a world that's a good place for humans to live, we could come up with better ones than Earth. You have yet to even address that.

 

[Magic Man]

If one is going to assume God -- even just for reasons of discussion -- one should assume God as God is universally posited: omnipotent. To say, then, that one's imagination is greater than God's imagination is to show a poor attitude toward the constraints of the discussion, wherein God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, then God's imagination would be greater than a human's.

Exactly. So, the fact that we can come up with a better place to live kind of shoots down the idea of an omnipotent, all-good god, doesn't it?

 

[sojourner]

No, our imaginations can do better. We just lack the further ability to actually create what our imaginations come up with.

Not if God is God -- which isn't the topic of discussion. We're assuming God is God here.

 

[sojourner]

That's a cop out. It's my opinion based on the available facts. I'm sure others don't share, and what I'm saying is that they're wrong.

'K. Prove they're wrong.

I'm not welcome to go somewhere else. I have no other options. I either live on Earth or I die.

Guess it must be a pretty good place for you to be, then!

Your tactic in this debate seems to be "Well, that's not real, this is, and if you don't like it, tough". That's hardly a good way to debate, especially when you're not even addressing the issue.

It is when the debate is posited on an asinine basis such as, "a fantasy world is better than the real world."

The argument is that given the power to create a world that's a good place for humans to live, we could come up with better ones than Earth.

It's a non-issue, and not worth discussing, because we don't have that power. You don't know that you could, because you're not all-knowing. Assuming that you do know is nothing more than naive hubris.

Exactly. So, the fact that we can come up with a better place to live kind of shoots down the idea of an omnipotent, all-good god, doesn't it?

Nope, because it hasn't been (indeed, cannot be) established that you can do that. What you have is a fantasy. What God has is reality. Since you atheists always scream, "empirical evidence!!!" the premise of this thread should be shameful to you.

 

[PolyHedral]

Guess it must be a pretty good place for you to be, then!

That sounds very like the logic Stalin used when sending people to the gulag. "It works, so it's good!"

 

[sojourner]

That sounds very like the logic Stalin used when sending people to the gulag. "It works, so it's good!"

Nope. Not the same. More like "the grass is always greener..."

 

[PolyHedral]

It's a non-issue, and not worth discussing, because we don't have that power.

Come back to me in 143 years' time. And yes, we don't have that kind of power, but that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting or potentially useful thing to discuss. That is, after all, (one method of) how we decide what new technologies/science to research: we discuss them, and work out which would be the best investment of time.

What you have is a fantasy. What God has is reality.

No he doesn't. What God has is every conceivable reality. It's the general suggestion of Christianity that He took every possible reality and created the one that's best from our perspective. (Willamena, shh! ) Do you agree with that?

Nope. Not the same. More like "the grass is always greener..."

The premise of an omnipotent, loving God suggests that this particular grass is the greenest imaginable. I think that's wrong. More than that, I think it's obvious that it's wrong, to the point where it's ridiculous I have to point it out.

 

[Magic Man]

'K. Prove they're wrong.

That's the whole point of this thread. We can imagine much better places to live. James Cameron offers one, according to the OP.

Guess it must be a pretty good place for you to be, then!

Not really. Being better than dying somewhere else doesn't make this a good place. A car with uncomfortable seats and bad suspension that makes for a rough ride isn't a great vehicle for a person, but it sure beats walking 25 miles to work.

It is when the debate is posited on an asinine basis such as, "a fantasy world is better than the real world."

The idea isn't asinine; it proves a point. What is asinine is the response you think is acceptable.

It's a non-issue, and not worth discussing, because we don't have that power. You don't know that you could, because you're not all-knowing. Assuming that you do know is nothing more than naive hubris.

This is a very simple concept. We can imagine places better suited for humans. An all-loving, all-good, omnipotent god should not only be able to imagine them, but also create them. He should also want to create them for us, since he's all-loving and all-good. Since we don't have a world that is very good for humans to live in, it points in the direction of such a god not existing.

Nope, because it hasn't been (indeed, cannot be) established that you can do that. What you have is a fantasy. What God has is reality. Since you atheists always scream, "empirical evidence!!!" the premise of this thread should be shameful to you.

Actually it has been established. Maybe that's the disconnect. It is firmly established that we can come up with better worlds to live on than this one.

You should really try a real argument, rather than "That's fantasy; this is reality; you're wrong!!!". You're not convincing anyone but yourself.

 

[sojourner]

Do you agree with that?

No. This is reality. "Possible realities" aren't reality. Only reality is reality. It does no good to discuss "if I ran the circus," because we don't and we never shall.

The premise of an omnipotent, loving God suggests that this particular grass is the greenest imaginable. I think that's wrong. More than that, I think it's obvious that it's wrong, to the point where it's ridiculous I have to point it out.

Please note that imagination is only as useful as its ability to become reality. Of course we can imaging greener grass. But if reality dictates that this is as green as green really gets, what good is it to discuss? It's a moot point. (Or is it a moo point?) God gave us what God determined to be best for us in all available circumstances.

That's the whole point of this thread. We can imagine much better places to live. James Cameron offers one, according to the OP.

I don't think so, since human beings cannot possibly see or determine all the permutations possible in such an imagined world. What is seen or imagined might well be better, but what is not seen or imagined might just as well be much, much worse. In the end, we cannot know for sure, so we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our imagination is better than God's reality.

Not really. Being better than dying somewhere else doesn't make this a good place. A car with uncomfortable seats and bad suspension that makes for a rough ride isn't a great vehicle for a person, but it sure beats walking 25 miles to work.

You just want to find something to complain about, so that you don't have to acknowledge that God might just know what God is doing. So sad.

The idea isn't asinine; it proves a point.

What's asinine is that it doesn't prove anything at all -- other than that those of you on the side of the OP are too stubborn to realize how irrational your argument is.

This is a very simple concept. We can imagine places better suited for humans. An all-loving, all-good, omnipotent god should not only be able to imagine them, but also create them. He should also want to create them for us, since he's all-loving and all-good. Since we don't have a world that is very good for humans to live in, it points in the direction of such a god not existing.

"Not very good" and "better for humans" is an unquantifiable opinion of some. Since neither is a universal given, I don't see how you can base your argument upon it. God did the best that could be done. The rest is smoke-filled, coffee house crap.

Actually it has been established. Maybe that's the disconnect. It is firmly established that we can come up with better worlds to live on than this one.

'K. Show me. I dare you. No matter what you can come up with, I can come up with something that makes that place equally worse. That's why it doesn't do any good to argue fantasy. Because when all the shouting's over, we're still right back here in reality.

 

[Blackdog22]

Sojourner it seems like your completely missing the entire point of this thread. I can't tell if your serious or not. Its this simple, take one aspect say disease and imagine a world without disease that kills our bodies and destroys us. Is that a better place to be yes or no? If dying from a disease is fun then go get cancer and come back to me, in the meantime take other peoples word that dying from a disease isn't fun. If I can imagine a world with no diseases then I have already proven that I can "imagine" a better world than God has created. This doesn't mean I can create worlds, it simply means I have a mind capable of imagining a more perfect place than earth and so do you if your a Christian. Unless your the kind of Christian that thinks Heaven doesn't exist.

We aren't here trying to provide evidence of such a place actually existing, so your argument that we should be ashamed for putting forth an idea that doesn't have evidence, doesn't even make sense with what were discussing. Were talking pure imagination. Unless your imagination is dead then surely you can also think of better ways for us to exist? Like imagine if air gave us all of our nutrients. No need for people dying of thirst, from hunger, or from deficiencies in vitamins. Half the worlds problems have just been solved and I imagined it. I'm not saying I am God or I am capable of making this real, you surely can understand that. I am only saying that I can imagine a better place than God or you have to admit God is limited in such a way that he is uncapable of creating a perfect world. In which case you still face the dilemma of admitting that Heaven can't exist.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

God did the best that could be done. The rest is smoke-filled, coffee house crap.

If this is indeed the case, then he is not omnipotent. If he couldn't create a world without natural disasters, children dying from crippling disease, flesh eating bacteria, etc. then he is indeed not omnipotent.

If he could do these things, and chose not to, then he is far from All loving.

If he lacked the foresight to imagine these things happening in a world he created, then he is not omniscient.

For him to be all three, as people claim, then none of this would exist.

To say otherwise contradicts what those qualities mean.

 

[Magic Man]

Please note that imagination is only as useful as its ability to become reality. Of course we can imaging greener grass. But if reality dictates that this is as green as green really gets, what good is it to discuss? It's a moot point. (Or is it a moo point?) God gave us what God determined to be best for us in all available circumstances.

So, what you're saying is that reality dictates what God can do? In other words, God is not omnipotent? I'm glad you admit that we can imagine "greener grass". That's the first step. Now, since there is a better option than the one we have, that is one of the limitless possibilities an omnipotent god would have (since he wouldn't be constrained by the current reality). If he wanted what was best for us, he'd have given us that better option.

I don't think so, since human beings cannot possibly see or determine all the permutations possible in such an imagined world. What is seen or imagined might well be better, but what is not seen or imagined might just as well be much, much worse. In the end, we cannot know for sure, so we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our imagination is better than God's reality.

We're talking about a being with limitless power. He can do whatever he wants. If what he wants is to give us, his children, the best possible environment to live in, he failed.

You just want to find something to complain about, so that you don't have to acknowledge that God might just know what God is doing. So sad.

I seem to remember you being much more mature with much better arguments in the past. I wonder if I'm remembering wrong, or whether something has changed. As it is, this response from you is not worth the space it's taking up on my computer screen.

What's asinine is that it doesn't prove anything at all -- other than that those of you on the side of the OP are too stubborn to realize how irrational your argument is.

Clearly we're not the stubborn ones here.

"Not very good" and "better for humans" is an unquantifiable opinion of some. Since neither is a universal given, I don't see how you can base your argument upon it. God did the best that could be done. The rest is smoke-filled, coffee house crap.

God did not do the best that could be done. That's the point. We can think of many ways to improve our conditions.

'K. Show me. I dare you. No matter what you can come up with, I can come up with something that makes that place equally worse. That's why it doesn't do any good to argue fantasy. Because when all the shouting's over, we're still right back here in reality.

I get it that it takes this kind of stubborn refusal to even attempt to understand something that argues against your theology to continue to believe the nonsense you do, but it sure doesn't make for a good debate. You should try coming up with a real argument next time, rather than "Nuh uh, this is reality, you're wrong! Your argument is dumb!".

 

[sojourner]

Once again:

We can imagine all sorts of things, true. But what we can't do is imagine every single aspect of our imaginary world, such that that world could be part of reality. I'm not going to argue the whole dumb "well, if God was omnipotent, then God could have created thus-and-such." Clearly, you're right. James Cameron is a much better God than God ever thought of being. Why don't you write and tell him so, and see if he agrees with you?

God does not operate outside the reality that is God. Even if you think God should. "Omnipotence" does not include "making reality without suffering and evil." Whether you think it should, or not.

Long story short, if you don't believe God, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE??? Leading me to surmise that all the bull crap is nothing more than a God-bashing session perpetrated by frustrated atheists.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Once again:

We can imagine all sorts of things, true. But what we can't do is imagine every single aspect of our imaginary world, such that that world could be part of reality. I'm not going to argue the whole dumb "well, if God was omnipotent, then God could have created thus-and-such." Clearly, you're right. James Cameron is a much better God than God ever thought of being. Why don't you write and tell him so, and see if he agrees with you?

God does not operate outside the reality that is God. Even if you think God should. "Omnipotence" does not include "making reality without suffering and evil." Whether you think it should, or not.

Long story short, if you don't believe God, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE??? Leading me to surmise that all the bull crap is nothing more than a God-bashing session perpetrated by frustrated atheists.

It has less to do with bashing God as it is pointing out the obvious flaws in calling this God ominpotent, omniscient and all loving.

And how do you feel that it's the atheists that are frustrated here? It appears to me it's the theists that are struggling to explain why they feel this God carries the aformentioned properties.

 

[Penumbra]

Once again:

We can imagine all sorts of things, true. But what we can't do is imagine every single aspect of our imaginary world, such that that world could be part of reality. I'm not going to argue the whole dumb "well, if God was omnipotent, then God could have created thus-and-such." Clearly, you're right. James Cameron is a much better God than God ever thought of being. Why don't you write and tell him so, and see if he agrees with you?

God does not operate outside the reality that is God. Even if you think God should. "Omnipotence" does not include "making reality without suffering and evil." Whether you think it should, or not.

If God is bound by a set of limited tools, then it may be powerful, but not omnipotent or anywhere close. Omnipotence is the power to do anything, or at least to have the ability to actualize any logically possible state of affairs.

For instance, if god has to utilize trade-offs that it would prefer not to, such as necessarily including things like natural disasters, childhood cancer, brain tumors, or flesh eating bacteria in order to make something else work right, then it is not omnipotent. If, on the other hand, god is omnipotent and could create otherwise, but for whatever reason chose to include these things, then it is its benevolence rather than power that is called into question.

Long story short, if you don't believe God, WHY SHOULD YOU CARE??? Leading me to surmise that all the bull crap is nothing more than a God-bashing session perpetrated by frustrated atheists.

I care for the sake of discussion to critique ideas.

Asking people at a religious forum why they are discussing religion is a rather odd question, imo.

 

[sojourner]

James Cameron is a crappy God, because when he created Titanic, he got the sequence of events that led to the shipwreck patently WRONG. If a guy can't even get a shipwreck right from less than a century ago, what hope is there that he could create a world better than the one we've got now? Hah?!