Questions for God

[blü 2]

I think the context shows the correct translation is a virgin. Or why would you think a woman becoming pregnant would otherwise be any sign? It happens all the time.

The point is that if there's a foretelling in Isaiah 7:14, everything 'foretold' has already come to pass by the end of Isaiah 8.

By now I shouldn't be, but I'm still surprised at how such a large percentage of Christians never read their own book to find out what it actually says. .

The point is to show that Jesus was born to the David's family.

Except that the Jesus of Mark, first written of the gospels by a decade or so, was an ordinary Jewish male who was adopted by God (on the model of God adopting David as [his] son Psalm 2:7) as soon as he was baptized ─ the ritual washing off of his sins ─ by JtB. He also said that you don't have to be descended from David at all.

Nor Paul, nor the authors of Matthew, Luke or John, agreed with him, but the virgin births in Matthew and Luke are fairy tales, unhistorical and absurd not simply on the face of the record but accompanied by those fictitious and irreconcilable 'genealogies' to show Joseph, categorically NOT Jesus' father, was descended from David. And Paul and the author of John are silent on the point, which would be an extraordinary omission if the tale was generally believed to be true.

 

[blü 2]

What if you are wrong and there is a God who does/is doing things for the long term/ eternal benefit of those He created and cares about?

What, cares about individuals, or just the species?

 

[F1fan]

By what the Bible tells, everything was corrupt, violent and evil.

And why was it that way? It's how God created it.

If God didn't want a corrupt world he wouldn't have made it that way.

Who of the evil beings survived?

Do you want their names and addresses? Who cares, we all know evil prevails.

Of course the Bible stories make no sense when you try to interpret them literally. It's better to study world history, and then understand why ancient people would write stories like that.

 

[1213]

And why was it that way? It's how God created it.

By what Bible tells, everything was good when God created. After it some rejected God and chose evil. And I think it was good that God gave freedom, even if some then choose evil.

Do you want their names and addresses? Who cares, we all know evil prevails.

But not the ones who drowned.

 

[F1fan]

By what Bible tells, everything was good when God created.

Sure, but if God wanted it to stay that way he would ahve created it to stay that way. He didn't because the world fell into corruption.

Do you really think if God wanted it to stay good hyis plan would fail? Are you saing God is incompetent?

After it some rejected God and chose evil.

An option God created. And people he knew would chose that way. Or was God caught off guard because he didn't know what he was doing?

And I think it was good that God gave freedom, even if some then choose evil.

Then the Fall was his plan after all. Killing Jesus was planned from the start.

But not the ones who drowned.

Again, by the way you frame it, the innocent who were killed were collateral damage, and all part of the plan. Deliberate murder. And just so Christians can feel better about their lives and death. I'm not sure how you feel good about your salvation being built in the corpses of the innocent.

I could do better.

 

[setarcos]

I don't understand. My argument for what exactly?

Your argument showing that I do not and/or cannot know enough about reality to formulate an informed opinion as concerns the op's questions.

Your post repeatedly and relentlessly focuses on God. In the first dozen sentences you make "God" the focus 9 times. And when you finally get to the point you just mentioned, it is not whether or not or not a being or any conceivable can be omniscient. It is about whether or not God specifically can be omniscient.

Relentlessly? My post focuses on God because the op's questions concerns God and omniscience. My argument was an attempt to show that it is not logically inconsistent to have a being (God) that has omniscience. In other words if we are talking about the attributes specifically of the Christian God, it is logically coherent that that God can have omniscience. That is the argument and the argument necessarily involves a mention of that Gods relationship to its attributes as defined. Not whether or not that God exists.

God cannot be omniscient unless God exists. Existence is a necessary condition to having omniscience. Or to having any state. Without existence God is disqualified.

This seems to be a variation on Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. There are flaws to his argument. Again...we are not discussing a proof of Gods existence. We are discussion a potential proof of logical inconsistencies which would make such a God logically impossible or at least unlikely pending further logical clarification of those perceived inconsistencies.
Lets take a search for a new subatomic particle as an example.
A new particle is proposed that has certain properties which according to some persons calculations may exist which in turn may pose a solution to certain other questions in physics.
Now, this proposed new particle hasn't been proven/found to actually exist in reality as yet but this does not preclude a study and discussion of whether or not such a persons calculations are logically consistent/correct for such a particle to even be possible to exist in reality.
Since the particle hasn't been proven not to be possible as yet, a logical/reasonable discussion can be had about the particles potential existence.
That is perfectly consistent with logic/reason and the scientific method.
IF omniscience in such a defined being is logically impossible then such a being's existence as defined would also be logically impossible.
IF omniscience in such a defined being is logically possible the such a being's existence as defined would also be logically possible.
In the former you would prove such a being's logical non-existence. In the latter you would only prove the former to not be a proof of such a beings logical non-existence but you wouldn't be proving its existence. That isn't the arguments purpose.

your discussion of God's omniscience is explicitly dependent upon the state of God's existence.

I think you've got it backwards. God's potential existence as defined is explicitly dependent upon the logical/reasonable state of a proposed God as defined with certain attributes.

Do you want to ditch God completely and just discuss whether omniscience is possible?

A discussion of omniscience would be meaningless without consideration of a sentient being whose attributes include such a thing. That is explicitly implied in the word omniscience itself. What is it to know if there is nothing doing the knowing?
You don't like the term "God". Then use whatever term you feel comfortable with to represent a sentient being. Just make sure to clarify with whomever your debating so that whatever your terms refer to is mutually understood.

There are three ways I can read that using standard uses of 'to know':

Lets break it down in reference to what I've said..."It is not hypothetical to state that if there is something to know then there must be something capable of being known."
1st

If there [is a phenomenon that can be understood by X] then [the mechanisms of that phenomenon must be comprehensible by X].

Understanding informs Comprehension. That which is incomprehensible is not understood. That which is understood is comprehended.
A better phrase [ If there is a phenomena known to exist by X then the mechanisms by which that phenomenon exists must be comprehensible by X]. This is not a true statement.
However, it is not logically inconsistent for any being who has created a particular phenomena (the creator God) to know and comprehend the mechanisms of such a creation. But my phrase above concerns not the sentient being but the intrinsic qualities of knowing a thing.
2nd

If there [is a phenomenon that exist] then there must be something capable of [being aware of its existence].

This is not a correct interpretation of my phrase.
For a phenomenon to exist in reality it must inform reality in some manner. It must have qualities and contain information. It must be a "informable" thing. That is it must be capable of informing the reality it resides in in some way of its existence.
It must be capable of being known in some fashion. My phrase says nothing about something doing the knowing- whether it exists or has particular knowledge of what can be known. The phrase was meant to establish the inherent qualities that a thing that exists in reality must have.
In other words...nothing can exist in reality which has the quality of presenting no information about its existence in reality.
The 3rd

If there [is a phenomenon that exist] then there must be something able to [comprehend the mechanisms of that phenomenon].

This is not a true statement and not what my phrase says.
Phenomena may very well exist while no sentient being exists that is capable of comprehending the mechanisms of that phenomena.
It isn't logically consistent though so say that if a phenomena exists then no being capable of comprehending that phenomena can exist.

Well, it may need to be rephased for you to apprehend it.

I hadn't meant to offend you. Sometimes we all make mistakes. Myself included. Perhaps I'm wrong here. Let me break it down for you so you can see why I think your phrase wasn't logical.
You said...
"Possibility in reality is qualified by empirical demonstration that the components of a given proposed phenomenon exist and can interact in a way so as to produce said phenomenon."

Possibility in reality is qualified by empirical demonstration

Empirical demonstration is the act of informing sentience. It is not the act of informing possibility. It does not qualify what is possible. What is possible qualifies what can be empirically demonstrated however it is not logical to assume that everything that is possible can be empirically demonstrated given our inherent limitations. Nor is it logical to assume that only those things that can be empirically demonstrated can be possible in reality let alone possible only when demonstrated empirically.
For instance it is possible that I could have been standing in a field in Texas yesterday at a particular time but it is not empirically demonstrable that I was. What's more, its not empirically demonstrable that it would be impossible. But given what I know, I know that it is impossible in reality that I was.

that the components of a given proposed phenomenon exist and can interact in a way so as to produce said phenomenon.

Empirical demonstration can only tell us that the components of a given phenomena can exist not whether or not they do exist and have interacted in such a way as to produce said phenomenon.
It cannot inform us of what is actually possible only of what is possible at a particular moment in time at a particular place in time and given specific qualifications and only after the fact.
It cannot even demonstrate specifically whether or not it would even have been possible for me to be standing in a field in Texas at a specific time and date since it may never have been informationally possible in this reality. Something that cannot be empirically demonstrated.

Nope. You have incorrectly inferred some statement of impossibility from my words, where impossibility was neither stated, nor implicit.

A word is automatically implicit in a conversation when mentioning its opposite. Mention "possibility", "impossibility" is implicit in comparison for the sake of having a discussion and proposing counterpoints.

I suspect that you are simply conflating the actual state of things with your assessment of the state of things.

Well I guess that's why we have discussions. So we can clarify what was meant with each other.

I won't pretend to know your internal thoughts, but I do hope you can overcome it.

Oh brother, your one of those kind Tit for tat right? You feel insulted so you have to insinuate insult.
Please do me and yourself a favor and just don't. Its a waste of typing.

 

[ppp]

@setarcos Could you tighten it up please.

Your argument showing that I do not and/or cannot know enough about reality to formulate an informed opinion as concerns the op's questions.

Relentlessly? My post focuses on God because the op's questions concerns God and omniscience. My argument was an attempt to show that it is not logically inconsistent to have a being (God) that has omniscience. In other words if we are talking about the attributes specifically of the Christian God, it is logically coherent that that God can have omniscience. That is the argument and the argument necessarily involves a mention of that Gods relationship to its attributes as defined. Not whether or not that God exists.

This seems to be a variation on Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. There are flaws to his argument. Again...we are not discussing a proof of Gods existence. We are discussion a potential proof of logical inconsistencies which would make such a God logically impossible or at least unlikely pending further logical clarification of those perceived inconsistencies.
Lets take a search for a new subatomic particle as an example.
A new particle is proposed that has certain properties which according to some persons calculations may exist which in turn may pose a solution to certain other questions in physics.
Now, this proposed new particle hasn't been proven/found to actually exist in reality as yet but this does not preclude a study and discussion of whether or not such a persons calculations are logically consistent/correct for such a particle to even be possible to exist in reality.
Since the particle hasn't been proven not to be possible as yet, a logical/reasonable discussion can be had about the particles potential existence.
That is perfectly consistent with logic/reason and the scientific method.
IF omniscience in such a defined being is logically impossible then such a being's existence as defined would also be logically impossible.
IF omniscience in such a defined being is logically possible the such a being's existence as defined would also be logically possible.
In the former you would prove such a being's logical non-existence. In the latter you would only prove the former to not be a proof of such a beings logical non-existence but you wouldn't be proving its existence. That isn't the arguments purpose.

I think you've got it backwards. God's potential existence as defined is explicitly dependent upon the logical/reasonable state of a proposed God as defined with certain attributes.

A discussion of omniscience would be meaningless without consideration of a sentient being whose attributes include such a thing. That is explicitly implied in the word omniscience itself. What is it to know if there is nothing doing the knowing?
You don't like the term "God". Then use whatever term you feel comfortable with to represent a sentient being. Just make sure to clarify with whomever your debating so that whatever your terms refer to is mutually understood.

Lets break it down in reference to what I've said..."It is not hypothetical to state that if there is something to know then there must be something capable of being known."
1st

Understanding informs Comprehension. That which is incomprehensible is not understood. That which is understood is comprehended.
A better phrase [ If there is a phenomena known to exist by X then the mechanisms by which that phenomenon exists must be comprehensible by X]. This is not a true statement.
However, it is not logically inconsistent for any being who has created a particular phenomena (the creator God) to know and comprehend the mechanisms of such a creation. But my phrase above concerns not the sentient being but the intrinsic qualities of knowing a thing.
2nd

This is not a correct interpretation of my phrase.
For a phenomenon to exist in reality it must inform reality in some manner. It must have qualities and contain information. It must be a "informable" thing. That is it must be capable of informing the reality it resides in in some way of its existence.
It must be capable of being known in some fashion. My phrase says nothing about something doing the knowing- whether it exists or has particular knowledge of what can be known. The phrase was meant to establish the inherent qualities that a thing that exists in reality must have.
In other words...nothing can exist in reality which has the quality of presenting no information about its existence in reality.
The 3rd

This is not a true statement and not what my phrase says.
Phenomena may very well exist while no sentient being exists that is capable of comprehending the mechanisms of that phenomena.
It isn't logically consistent though so say that if a phenomena exists then no being capable of comprehending that phenomena can exist.

I hadn't meant to offend you. Sometimes we all make mistakes. Myself included. Perhaps I'm wrong here. Let me break it down for you so you can see why I think your phrase wasn't logical.
You said...
"Possibility in reality is qualified by empirical demonstration that the components of a given proposed phenomenon exist and can interact in a way so as to produce said phenomenon."


Empirical demonstration is the act of informing sentience. It is not the act of informing possibility. It does not qualify what is possible. What is possible qualifies what can be empirically demonstrated however it is not logical to assume that everything that is possible can be empirically demonstrated given our inherent limitations. Nor is it logical to assume that only those things that can be empirically demonstrated can be possible in reality let alone possible only when demonstrated empirically.
For instance it is possible that I could have been standing in a field in Texas yesterday at a particular time but it is not empirically demonstrable that I was. What's more, its not empirically demonstrable that it would be impossible. But given what I know, I know that it is impossible in reality that I was.

Empirical demonstration can only tell us that the components of a given phenomena can exist not whether or not they do exist and have interacted in such a way as to produce said phenomenon.
It cannot inform us of what is actually possible only of what is possible at a particular moment in time at a particular place in time and given specific qualifications and only after the fact.
It cannot even demonstrate specifically whether or not it would even have been possible for me to be standing in a field in Texas at a specific time and date since it may never have been informationally possible in this reality. Something that cannot be empirically demonstrated.

A word is automatically implicit in a conversation when mentioning its opposite. Mention "possibility", "impossibility" is implicit in comparison for the sake of having a discussion and proposing counterpoints.

Well I guess that's why we have discussions. So we can clarify what was meant with each other.

Oh brother, your one of those kind Tit for tat right? You feel insulted so you have to insinuate insult.
Please do me and yourself a favor and just don't. Its a waste of typing.

Perhaps I am just not smart enough or patient enough to follow you, but this was too rambling and stream of consciousness for me to find focus or a through line. Have you ever written a thesis paragraph? There is something to be said for succinct composition.

 

[1213]

Sure, but if God wanted it to stay that way he would have created it to stay that way.

Unless He thought freedom is good, unlike most world leaders.

Are you saying God is incompetent?

No.

Again, by the way you frame it, the innocent who were killed were collateral damage, and all part of the plan.

No evidence that there were innocent people killed. Only innocent person who has been murdered was Jesus. And God raised him from death. So, if there would have been some innocent that died, I believe also he will be raised from death. Therefore I don't see death of a body the end.

I could do better.

Clearly you would not.

 

[F1fan]

Unless He thought freedom is good, unlike most world leaders.

Many of you literalists equate freedom with stupid humans. It never occurs to you that God could have created wise humansy if he wanted creation to remain stable.

No.

Then God is a sociopath, because any smart thinker could do better than the Creator of Genesis. y

No evidence that there were innocent people killed. Only innocent person who has been murdered was Jesus. And God raised him from death. So, if there would have been some innocent that died, I believe also he will be raised from death. Therefore I don't see death of a body the end.

Now you are making excuses for an incompetent and/or criminal God. This is why your type of interpretation exposes the flawed character of literalists. I assert literalists have flawed morals, and is a reason why they opt for this bad interpretation.

Clearly you would not.

See what I mean? Now you are getting mean. My criticism of literalist interpretation of Genesis is based on a better alternative, one that is moral and considerate. It's easy to write a better creation myth.

 

[setarcos]

So you need to make up your mind here - are you talking about things that are "possible in reality" or that actually exist in reality? Because there are uncountably many "things" that are possible in reality but may never actually come to pass - aren't there?

I hadn't realized I was of two minds here?
Reality comprises that which exists interactively both figuratively and literally with other realistic things AND those things which only exist figuratively as a possibility within reality.

Well that depends what you mean by "object"

What I mean by "object of knowledge" is something that is a possible component of reality either figuratively or literally. Potentially or actually.

presumably for an omniscient deity my knowledge (or lack thereof) could be an "object" of the deity's knowledge couldn't it?

Your knowledge and ignorance would both be known by an omniscient deity.

For example if I had no knowledge of the existence of a particular object, my knowledge of that object is non-existent and yet an omniscient deity would, by definition (as defenders of God's omnipotence are fond of repeating), know that. Yes? No?

Since knowledge is predicated by an known object and no knowledge is predicated by your state of existence, an omniscient being would both know what knowledge you have of existent objects -whether figurative or literal and it would have knowledge of your state of existence which gives rise to your lack of knowledge of things which may literally or figuratively exist.

Also, an "object" in sense you seem to be using it here, must surely include "things" like concepts, ideas, emotions...etc

Yes, I consider those things figurative or imaginary for lack of a better word.

For example, if I have the idea that an invisible creature called a moncupator lives in the corner of my fridge occupying the exact same space as my lettuce and cucumber...an omniscient deity must know that as an idea (because it exists as an idea) and yet there is no way it could possibly ever actually exist in reality.

Depends on how we, as finite creatures, interpret reality. For instance, are you merely describing a realistic creature the knowledge of which you do not know the mechanisms by which you gained. Or for instance, how do we define space? Can two objects intermingle in the same space and yet remain somehow distinct from each other?
It is not contradictory to have a figurative idea which cannot exist literally in reality without creating contradiction. A sentence/idea defining or describing contradiction can exist without itself causing contradiction in reality.
Yes God would know that as an idea within your perception. God may also know that as a reality beyond your awareness pending eliminating contradiction and whether or not it actually is coincidentally a part of reality your not aware of as being literally existent.

there is an infinity of ridiculous ideas that are impossible as actual entities but are possible in reality as ideas that nobody has had yet and perhaps nobody ever will - indeed, if infinity is actually possible, and there are sentient beings in reality, then there IS an infinity of ridiculous ideas that are possible as ideas but that no sentient being will ever actually have. Does God know all of that?

Omniscience allows that God would know all of that. That's what omniscience means. Absolute knowledge of what is literally possible and what is merely possible as figurative in reality. And what is merely meaningless descriptions of contradiction. Any concept, idea, or imagining that ever will or can be and its associative sentient origin is known by God and whose existence in reality is sustained by God.

That is absolutely wrong! The OP made no assumption about either the existence of God or any of God's attributes.

I said, for the sake of argument. Consider the following...

1. How does God know

The op literally asks a question concerning the state of Gods existence without consideration of a proof of Gods existence or non-existence to begin with.
What is the point of starting out with questions like the ones posed if the simple answer to all of them is God doesn't exist making it pointless to ask questions like these in the first place? Since God has yet to be proven not to exist these questions are not pointless in that regard.
The point is....if one can't disprove the logical possibility of Gods existence one can attempt to prove the antithetical, that is Gods existence as defined is illogical. In order to do that, one first poses an axiom for the sake of the argument - God exists. Then one argues to a logical or an illogical conclusion. An attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
Does that clarify why I said what I said?

Of course there cannot be any actual evidence for the non-existent knowledge of a non-existent deity and a finite being could not be expected to be capable of providing proof positive of the knowledge of an infinite being.

Sure there can. If one can prove an existent deity absurd or illogical as defined then one can prove its non existence in reality as a literal being. If that can be proven then it is a matter of self evident proof that being can have no literal knowledge of anything.
You are right though about finite beings. Even if such an infinite being should exist a finite being could never prove the actual state of its existence simply because of the finite beings inherent limitations. That proof would have to be self evidence delivered by the infinite being directly and even that would be inherently faith based since finite beings are always subject to some amount of ignorance.

So we're left with only logic. And the task for defenders of God's omniscience is to show that their claims about God's omniscience are not logically inconsistent.

Isn't this what I've been saying. And isn't this the point of the ops questions?

if it can be shown that the claim of God's omniscience involves a logical inconsistency then God's omniscience doesn't exist - except as a logical contradiction. Correct?

Seems logical to me.

 

[setarcos]

..I have already shown that there is a logical contradiction in the claim of God's omniscience...to wit - if God knows everything then he knows what it is like for me not to know something...if he really knows what it is really like not to know something then he is not omniscient.

There seems to be an endemic misconception in these discussions about how Gods attributes are defined. They are defined by possibility in reality.
It has already been stated over and over that God cannot create contradiction. Omniscience cannot create contradiction in God though omniscience allows for awareness of the meaninglessness of contradiction like we are aware of the null set which carries no informational elements. Many people try to equivocate the term to fit the needs of their proof.
Again....we must keep in mind - omniscience is defined as knowing what it is possible to know in reality without creating contradiction.
Contradiction cannot literally exist in reality except as a description of meaninglessness. Meaninglessness means no informational content. It is a null set. Empty. There is nothing to know. Nothing to experience. Nothing to be aware of.

That being said I'll take a stab at hashing your above assertion out when it comes to God.

Knowing what it is like for another being to not know something does not in itself equate to the being doing the knowing actually not knowing what has been implied is not known.
That being is both aware of the finite beings limitations and its own limitlessness in what is possible to know.
It is not illogical for God to have knowledge of a finite beings limitations and perceptions of those limitations while itself superseding them in my opinion but in order to understand this I think we have to analyze what it means to have a feeling and perception of reality as finite beings since you seem to be implying that a being cannot know what the state of perception of another being is like without itself being limited by that state.

If we take our feelings and perceptions of them as reactive measurements of reality, for instance anger is a reaction induced by a measured response to what is realistically possible to produce what we call anger in reality given certain circumstances.
The larger the inducement of what is possible to produce anger within us in reality the larger the measured reactive responsive change in our state of being...blood pressure increases, heart rate increases, adrenaline increases etc. and our awareness of these physical changes narrows focally.
Likewise, feelings of elation, depression, fear etc. and their respective reactive changes to our state of being.
Now, might we say that it isn't illogical that an omniscient being would be capable of knowing what its like to be in those states of perception since being aware of such things would entail an increase in the knowledge of reality not a decrease and is in keeping with omniscience?

Even if so, we have to ask, what about perceiving something that seems to entail a decrease in knowledge about reality contradicting omniscience? Like "knowing what its like to not know"?
Lets examine what might be meant by "knowing what it is like".
I think we can agree that knowing is having awareness of. So what are we saying when we say that we "know that we don't know everything"?
How is it we can be aware of our own ignorance? What do we mean by this? Might we say that our awareness and subsequent reactive response to that awareness is a reactive measurement of what is possible in reality? For instance it is not possible for a finite being to have infinite knowledge. That would be a contradiction in reality and so our awareness reflects that.
Now, do we equate our limited perception of reality with that which has induced that perception? Do we equate our anger with what made us angry? Our happiness with what makes us happy? Our depression with what made us depressed? Of course not.
How do you "feel" about being aware that you are limited in your knowledge? Doesn't that feeling carry information about your state of being? That is, your awareness of limitation? So far there is knowledge to be gained not lost here in keeping with what I've said above about perceiving a beings state of awareness. Aware of is knowledge of.
Your "feeling" is the perception of being aware that there is more to know. However that feeling carries information about your present state of perceptive being in reality but not specific information about what it is your being currently has or lacks in knowledge about reality.
You can certainly know what it felt like to not know calculus even after you learned calculus can't you? Why? Because your perception of "feeling" ignorant has not changed but your reactive measurement of your perception of that ignorance has.
That is possible because your perception of feeling ignorant is not equated to the actual measure of your knowledge.

In the same manner God can certainly know what you feel like to be aware of your own limitations while at the same time having none itself.
That is possible because your awareness of your limitations -which carries information- does not equate to the measure of your perceptive knowledge of reality which carries different information. They are not synonymous with each other and both carry information.
In any case information about reality only increases it doesn't decrease and is in keeping with the logical possibility of omniscience.

God cannot know what it is like to not be God by not being God. That is a contradiction and not possible.
Again...omniscience is defined as having knowledge of all that it is possible to have knowledge of without creating a contradiction.
If it can be known then God knows it even if what is known is your feeling of ignorance because that feeling is a measure of your awareness of limitation not a measure of how limited you actually are. The two are not epistemologically equivalent.

That IS a logical contradiction that, as you claim, "points to nothing existent" (the "nothing" here being God's omniscience because that is certainly what is being "pointed at").

Perhaps, pending your counterpoints.

 

[blü 2]

The op literally asks a question concerning the state of Gods existence without consideration of a proof of Gods existence or non-existence to begin with.

Perhaps it would have been clearer if I'd prefixed the OP with "Given a real God of the bible" ('real' meaning having objective existence, not purely conceptual or imaginary).

What is the point of starting out with questions like the ones posed if the simple answer to all of them is God doesn't exist

The answer to that is, in this case, "If there is no coherent manner that the real God of the bible can know that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know then the real God of the bible is not omniscient."

making it pointless to ask questions like these in the first place? Since God has yet to be proven not to exist these questions are not pointless in that regard.

Whether the concept of God is coherent in itself, whether God exists in any manner other than as a concept or thing imagined, are questions for another thread.

if one can't disprove the logical possibility of Gods existence one can attempt to prove the antithetical, that is Gods existence as defined is illogical.

Again, that's a question for another thread.

 

[1213]

Many of you literalists equate freedom with stupid humans. It never occurs to you that God could have created wise humansy if he wanted creation to remain stable.

I don't think people are not wise enough to live peacefully.

Then God is a sociopath, because any smart thinker could do better than the Creator of Genesis.

I disagree with that.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think people are not wise enough to live peacefully.

Many humans are. Extremists tend not to be. That includes religious extremists. Good people make good theists, bad people make bad theists, but religion doesn't make bad people good.

I disagree with that.

I notice you offer no reason why you disagree. Maybe you don't know why. Have you ever wondered why hour God doesn't save kids with deadly diseases?

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you ever wondered why hour God doesn't save kids with deadly diseases?

Why just the kids?
Have you ever wondered why God hasn't saved everyone from everything you don't like?

 

[InChrist]

One can't love (or have a personal relationship with) a fictional character or somebody he's never met. And I only recognize one form of love in the literal sense, although there are degrees of commitment to objects of love, meaning that what varies is the intensity and not the nature of the love. Thus, I love my dogs, but I love my wife more. In each case, I'm interested in their well-being, and I am willing to protect them all and share scarce resources on their behalves, but not to the same degree.

I love them all but worship none of them or anything or anybody else. Worship is just not part of my life.

I don’t think that is accurate. Everyone worships/loves and/or gives priority to someone or something in their life, even if it is themselves. I believe God created humanity with the innate desire to worship. We are created to be in a loving relationship with our Creator and worship Him. When that is not the case…a person worships elsewhere.

 

[F1fan]

Why just the kids?

Because children are the “right to lifers” preferred category (of course they don’t care about them either). Most everyone has a natural impulse to protect and safeguard children, so the most sympathetic category.

Have you ever wondered why God hasn't saved everyone from everything you don't like?

Everything I don’t like? Forgive me for not acknowledging the fans of cancer.

And don’t ask me about the absurdities of Abrahamic religions and their many conceptions of Yahweh, I use whatever a believer claims to frame my criticisms and questions. I am fully aware that most believers have religious beliefs that can’t be reconciled with their texts and reality.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because children are the “right to lifers” preferred category

So children have more of a right to life than adults?

Everything I don’t like? Forgive me for not acknowledging the fans of cancer.

I am no fan of cancer. My husband died of it.
But God is not responsible for cancer nor is it God's job to eradicate it.

And don’t ask me about the absurdities of Abrahamic religions and their many conceptions of Yahweh, I use whatever a believer claims to frame my criticisms and questions. I am fully aware that most believers have religious beliefs that can’t be reconciled with their texts and reality.

Baha'is are not responsible for the absurdities of the older Abrahamic religions and their many conceptions of God.
We share the same conception of God since Baha'u'llah was clear on the matter.

 

[F1fan]

So children have more of a right to life than adults?

Well, more accurately fetuses have more right to life than any born person, according to the full actions of the so called “right to lifers”. That they don’t support guaranteed healthcare only shows their fraud and hypocrisy.

I am no fan of cancer. My husband died of it.
But God is not responsible for cancer nor is it God's job to eradicate it.

Sorry, the God of Abraham created everything. And if God is supposedly interventionist and loving, well it isn’t apparent. None of what believers claim about the God of Abraham is consistent with observations and reality.

Baha'is are not responsible for the absurdities of the older Abrahamic religions and their many conceptions of God.

Sorry, but your religion is built on their foundations. You have to accept any of it being applied to you if you decide to be Baha’i. That is especially true for the anti-gay bigotry that was likely adopted from Islam.

We share the same conception of God since Baha'u'llah was clear on the matter.

Yet your conception of God is vastly different than the others, which just makes it alll that much more absurd.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Everyone worships/loves and/or gives priority to someone or something in their life

Disagree. I love and have priorities, but I don't worship. Worshiping is a state of mind, one of self-abnegation (groveling) not found in love.

I believe God created humanity with the innate desire to worship. We are created to be in a loving relationship with our Creator and worship Him. When that is not the case…a person worships elsewhere.

I don't have that desire, nor to millions of other people who have no gods in their lives. I would suggest that you wouldn't, either, had you been left to your own devices. It's not a natural state of mind in my opinion. It has to be taught and learned.