The Argument for God(Or Against God) Is Never a Logical One.

[ChristineES]

Is this a statement coming from a rational mind concerning this topic?

Truly honestly answer that and you`ll see..maybe.

Ok..probably not.

44 years and no one until now has ever said I was irrational.

 

[McBell]

44 years and no one until now has ever said I was irrational.

At least not your face...

:run:

 

[ChristineES]

At least not your face...

:run:

Are you admitting you called me irrational behind my back?

 

[McBell]

Are you admitting you called me irrational behind my back?

:angel2:

 

[Magic Man]

I've never stated or claimed that ALL of God's attributes, reasonings, etc are outside of man's logic or ability to understand. This, in fact, is NOT true.

OK, then they should all be inside man's ability to understand.

Just because we can't grasp ALL facets of God's character or understand ALL of His plans or actions at present, doesn't mean that we can't understand ANY of them. In fact, we CAN understand facets of God's character, and His plan for our lives.

Actually, it would seem to indicate just that. You saying we can understand some of them, but not all is another way of saying that you like to think God is doing certain things, so you attribute what you can to him, but then when that view is not logically consistent with other situations in the world, you rationalize it by saying that in those cases we can't understand God's plan. Either you understand God's plan or you don't. When logical inconsistencies come up, you can't just blame it on not fully understanding God's plan.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I've never stated or claimed that ALL of God's attributes, reasonings, etc are outside of man's logic or ability to understand. This, in fact, is NOT true.

Just because we can't grasp ALL facets of God's character or understand ALL of His plans or actions at present, doesn't mean that we can't understand ANY of them. In fact, we CAN understand facets of God's character, and His plan for our lives.

Maybe I'm wrong, but in my exchanges with Christians who make this claim (some of God is understandable and some is not) it seems the things we cannot understand are pretty foundational. Some examples:

• How can God be good and yet sit by and do nothing while children die of cancer?
• How can we have free will when God knew every action we would ever take before we were born?

If these two issues alone (which speak to the core nature of God and the culpability of man) are unfathomable, then what is left to understand, really?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe I'm wrong, but in my exchanges with Christians who make this claim (some of God is understandable and some is not) it seems the things we cannot understand are pretty foundational. Some examples:

• How can God be good and yet sit by and do nothing while children die of cancer?
• How can we have free will when God knew every action we would ever take before we were born?

If these two issues alone (which speak to the core nature of God and the culpability of man) are unfathomable, then what is left to understand, really?

Given your initial premises, the first question has an obvious answer: when God does nothing while children die of cancer, it's because letting those children die of cancer is a good thing... even if we can't see why it would be (or could be).

This is why I think that the belief that everything unfolds according to "God's plan" is dangerous and, IMO, perverse. It literally calls evil "good" and encourages complacency in the face of suffering.

I think it's only the strong emphasis on helping others in the Gospels that stops Christianity from being monstrous, but even this is inconsistent with its wider theology, IMO.

 

[DreadFish]

I think it's only the strong emphasis on helping others in the Gospels that stops Christianity from being monstrous, but even this is inconsistent with its wider theology, IMO.

Unfortunately, not much of Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Kathryn]

This is why I think that the belief that everything unfolds according to "God's plan" is dangerous and, IMO, perverse. It literally calls evil "good" and encourages complacency in the face of suffering.

God doesn't demand or expect COMPLACENCY. Faith is not complacent in nature - it doesn't weaken, it strengthens.

When my daughter was suffering, I was not COMPLACENT about it. I still had a responsibility to do all I could for her to alleviate her suffering. Faith doesn't mean that you just sit back and become passive.

Faith gives me the strength to carry on - the certainty that regardless of what happens, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God doesn't demand or expect COMPLACENCY. Faith is not complacent in nature - it doesn't weaken, it strengthens.

How, exactly? If a person approaches everything with the attitude that whatever happens is good, where's the motivation to effect change? Why expend effort to make this outcome happen instead of that outcome if you've already decided that whatever outcome happens will be equally good?

When my daughter was suffering, I was not COMPLACENT about it. I still had a responsibility to do all I could for her to alleviate her suffering. Faith doesn't mean that you just sit back and become passive.

What responsibility, exactly? I mean, you took as given that someone who cared for your daughter and was infinitely more capable of addressing the problem than you were knew about the situation and was willing to do the right thing, whatever it was. What's left for you to worry about?

Faith gives me the strength to carry on - the certainty that regardless of what happens, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose.

But I just can't see how this sort of belief could be consistent with the idea that a person's actions are necessary at all. If you're certain that "regardless of what happens, all things work together for good", why would you be motivated to do anything?

 

[Kathryn]

How, exactly? If a person approaches everything with the attitude that whatever happens is good, where's the motivation to effect change? Why expend effort to make this outcome happen instead of that outcome if you've already decided that whatever outcome happens will be equally good?

It is a blessing to be used by God and to knowingly play a part in His plans. When we submit our will to God's, and knowingly and willingly participate in His guidance and plan for our lives, the journey and insight earned can be absolutely amazing.

When I actively submit my will to God's, and seek His wisdom and guidance through prayer and meditation, here is how it manifests in my life:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

That's all good.

What responsibility, exactly? I mean, you took as given that someone who cared for your daughter and was infinitely more capable of addressing the problem than you were knew about the situation and was willing to do the right thing, whatever it was. What's left for you to worry about?

You just succinctly stated something without realizing it, I believe. My point is that though I still have the responsibility to do all I CAN do humanly, to help my daughter, when I submit this to God, I don't WORRY about it anymore. It's an amazing peace of mind. Again - the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

I am motivated to be an instrument of His will and to allow myself to be used as such. It's an honor.

 

[839311]

when God does nothing while children die of cancer, it's because letting those children die of cancer is a good thing... even if we can't see why it would be (or could be).

Have you considered the question objectively? That is, the question of why do people suffer and why is there evil if there is an all-powerful god? Did you come up with any reasonable possibilities?

 

[Orias]

Have you considered the question objectively? That is, the question of why do people suffer and why is there evil if there is an all-powerful god? Did you come up with any reasonable possibilities?

I think the how is more important than the why.

People suffer. In some cases it is out of their hands, in most cases they just sit their and dwell in their own self pitty.

There is evil simply bceause there is an all powerful God.

But such things as these are irrelevant to existence.

Why are Christians fake?

Who knows

You can't deny it, doubt dwells within your conscience, even if you do deny.

One thing all people should learn, the best place to place faith is within yourself.

They always seem to find a way to where the fools cap.

Smite me!! All powerful smiter! And I will smite thee back!

Ye who lies within mine conscience I will have said unto you, you cannot kill me, for I am already dead! The sentence was given at birth, as my wounds are not yours! Share and spread your own ignorance, and you will die for nothing, for I too, live for something!

Enter thine own gates, and say unto thine own heart "I am mine own redeemer".-Docter Anton LaVey.

 

[Skwim]

I think the how is more important than the why.

As a practical, down to earth matter that begs resolution, of course, but when it comes to the character of god, which is the point under discussion, the "why" is the paramount issue.

People suffer. In some cases it is out of their hands, in most cases they just sit their and dwell in their own self pitty.

And, of course, that's not the issue here, is it.

There is evil simply bceause there is an all powerful God.

Restating the premise is not explaining it.

But such things as these are irrelevant to existence.

Which is why they're not at issue here.

Smite me!! All powerful smiter! And I will smite thee back!Ye who lies within mine conscience I will have said unto you, you cannot kill me, for I am already dead! The sentence was given at birth, as my wounds are not yours! Share and spread your own ignorance, and you will die for nothing, for I too, live for something!

Enter thine own gates, and say unto thine own heart "I am mine own redeemer".-Docter Anton LaVey.

Yeah, "Docter," [sic] as in establishing the criteria for the title and then assuming the title because you meet all the criteria. Just call me High Lord Skwim, if you would please.

 

[Orias]

As a practical, down to earth matter that begs resolution, of course, but when it comes to the character of god, which is the point under discussion, the "why" is the paramount issue.

Of course. But solving the how people suffer is more likely to save them from suffering, when the why can also be applied to such a tactic. But on terms of 'why' people suffer by the hands of God is completely irrelevant to saving their lives or stop their suffering. Who cares 'why' they suffer, fix it.

And, of course, that's not the issue here, is it.

What is so problematic about it? It is a statement, not an answer. As it is part of the issue sense it pertains to people expecting God to fix their wrongs and people fixing their own wrongs.

Restating the premise is not explaining it.

Oh but it does. The term 'evil' varys among those who chose to pick at one side of the coin. But the almighty God claims an evil, thus an evil is created. Therefore, there is evil because there is an almighty God. I shouldn't have to go into so much depth, most people could understand what I meant by, 'There is evil because there is an Almighty God'. People know and understand that 'God' created everything, so he created evil. Simple.

Which is why they're not at issue here.

And how exactly isn't it an issue here? As it pertains to the argument weather 'God' 'chooses' to or not to save ones life or impede upon their suffering.

Yeah, "Docter," [sic] as in establishing the criteria for the title and then assuming the title because you meet all the criteria.

Just call me High Lord Skwim, if you would please.

Ahem, Anton LaVey was a docter. Weather you choose to see it or not, your opinion will be regarded as one out of ignorance, as many philosphers do have docterate degrees!

Now how any of this is relevant for the argument of weather God exists or not beats me.

Now for one to argue that God exists because one that cannot disprove his existence is an argument made from ignorance. Literally, however logical this may seem, it is filled with holes and fallacies like Christianity.

A simple way to put it is "I deny your God, because you deny all others."

Enough said.

 

[Skwim]

Of course. But solving the how people suffer is more likely to save them from suffering, when the why can also be applied to such a tactic.

Irrelevant.

But on terms of 'why' people suffer by the hands of God is completely irrelevant to saving their lives or stop their suffering. Who cares 'why' they suffer, fix it.

Okay, so you want to change the subject of the thread. Not a nice or gracious thing to do, but we all have our ways of dealing with difficult subjects. I'll leave you to your own agenda here.

But before I go, on the subject of LaVey, I'm curious as to just what kind of doctor you think he was. Think he was a medical doctor, or perhaps got a PhD., as from a recognized institute of higher learning?

Just call me High Lord Skwim, if you would please. Thank you.

 

[Eliot Wild]

It seems to me that arguments for or against God must always be based on logic. Personally, I view logic as a fixed medium for identifying truth. Unlike the laws of nature, which I suppose an omnipotent being could bend or break, logic is a practical medium for truth, sort of an immutable, undefilable language for truth.

Einsein says we can't travel faster than the speed of light, but I suppose God could break that rule. But I don't think God can make a circular square or tell a truthful lie. These fixed truths aren't movable, nor do they in their immutability contradict God's omnipotence. They serve as markers which we use to pinpoint truth, to more clearly identify it from falsehood.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Orias]

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? It was my understanding that the topic was brought up in conversation.

Okay, so you want to change the subject of the thread. Not a nice or gracious thing to do, but we all have our ways of dealing with difficult subjects. I'll leave you to your own agenda here.

But before I go, on the subject of LaVey, I'm curious as to just what kind of doctor you think he was. Think he was a medical doctor, or perhaps got a PhD., as from a recognized institute of higher learning?

Just call me High Lord Skwim, if you would please. Thank you.

A funny misconception that docters are all medical docters. Astronomers are docters, leading philosphers are docters. It is a master of their career, not a very hard thing to understand.

The subject is difficult in no way, and nor did I change the subject of the thread.

Now how any of this is relevant for the argument of weather God exists or not beats me.

Now for one to argue that God exists because one that cannot disprove his existence is an argument made from ignorance. Literally, however logical this may seem, it is filled with holes and fallacies like Christianity.

A simple way to put it is "I deny your God, because you deny all others."

Enough said.
You must of skimmed over this last part of my last post.

Now instead of trying to attack me, why don't you try and comprehend what I am saying.

 

[Orias]

It seems to me that arguments for or against God must always be based on logic. Personally, I view logic as a fixed medium for identifying truth. Unlike the laws of nature, which I suppose an omnipotent being could bend or break, logic is a practical medium for truth, sort of an immutable, undefilable language for truth.

That is an interesting point. I can agree that making an argument for or against God could be logical, as long as you argue your point in a rational way. But for an omnipotent being, there is no possible way for him to break or bend the laws simply because he is consisting of all things. But truth in literal terms may be very hard to speak of, since a truth could be a lie in some terms, but in other terms a truth could not be.

For example, the color blue is blue. Since blue is a primary color of light along with red and green. So with that said, a mixture of blue with red creates purple. So in that truth, purple is really blue and red but it is literally purple.

I think that truth is just of perception and defined knowledge. For what is known to some people, may not be known to others and others may argue out of their ignorance, hence a personal 'truth' is created though realistically their truth may be false.

Einsein says we can't travel faster than the speed of light, but I suppose God could break that rule. But I don't think God can make a circular square or tell a truthful lie. These fixed truths aren't movable, nor do they in their immutability contradict God's omnipotence. They serve as markers which we use to pinpoint truth, to more clearly identify it from falsehood.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Another interesting point. But if God is omnipotent, then he has no need to travel beyond the speed of light, for he would already be there.

In one eye's views, God created everything, so a circular square or a truthful lie could be created, simply because he created it, though it may be very unpragmatic.

On the other hand, you could draw a circle with edges, but then it wouldn't be a circle nor a sqaure, it would just be what it is, a circle square

And as for a truthful lie, well if one lies to get what he wants, out of the others eyes they are telling the truth and believing them out of ignorance. But it is only a truth to the person believing it is a truth and not lie.

Lies are questioned (exposed) and truths are agreed with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a blessing to be used by God and to knowingly play a part in His plans. When we submit our will to God's, and knowingly and willingly participate in His guidance and plan for our lives, the journey and insight earned can be absolutely amazing.

When I actively submit my will to God's, and seek His wisdom and guidance through prayer and meditation, here is how it manifests in my life:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

That's all good.

Good or worrying. As a person who doesn't believe in God, when I hear people talk about "submitting their will to God's" and the like, what I hear is more like "attributing their desires to God".

You just succinctly stated something without realizing it, I believe. My point is that though I still have the responsibility to do all I CAN do humanly, to help my daughter, when I submit this to God, I don't WORRY about it anymore. It's an amazing peace of mind. Again - the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

But I'm still not sure why.

As an analogy, I've had to do CPR for real once in my life. I kept at it as long as I needed to, but when the paramedics arrived and said "we've got it", I stopped and moved out of the way. I knew that people more capable than me had the situation in hand, so I realized that my responsibility had ended.

Isn't God more capable than any paramedic? Than any surgeon? What can you do that God can't do all by himself?