Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 191 of 364 (381545)
01-31-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Malachi-II
01-31-2007 5:41 AM


Malachi-II writes:
The 'problem' is with people who cannot, or do wish, to recognize that nit-picking is intentional fault finding.
What's wrong with intentional fault-finding? This is a debate board, isn't it?
Maybe you should join one one of those Christian forums where every thread starts out, "Isn't God great?", followed by three hundred versions of "Good answer! Good answer!"
If you want to play with the big kids, get used to your faults being found.
Fault-finding is particularly important in this thread. If we are going to determine which god is real, we have to nitpick at their stories. The real God will be clear and consistent.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Malachi-II, posted 01-31-2007 5:41 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Malachi-II, posted 01-31-2007 5:00 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 197 of 364 (381568)
01-31-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Malachi-II
01-31-2007 5:00 PM


Malachi-II writes:
I have admitted many personal faults without them being pointed out.
This isn't about personal faults, only the faults in your posts.
As I said, "Fault-finding is particularly important in this thread." We are trying to determine who the true God is. We can only do that by examining all of their claims and falsifying all that we can. Any candidate who makes false claims is not the true God. Any candidate who can not defend his position is not the true God.
Who the hell are you, or we, to determine which God is real?
We are the members of this committe. Determining which God is real is our only reason for existence. If you don't feel qualified, feel free to resign.
The real God will be clear and consistent.
HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW THAT!!
See, there's another flawed argument. If you think the real God will be unclear or inconsistent, please feel free to explain why. Don't just stand on your Shift key.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Malachi-II, posted 01-31-2007 5:00 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Malachi-II, posted 02-01-2007 3:37 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 205 of 364 (381695)
02-01-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Malachi-II
02-01-2007 3:37 PM


Malachi-II writes:
My response was referred to in my little excerpt "The Weeping Redwood Tree" in which God denies he is perfect, according to our understanding of the word.
I'm the first to agree that God is not "perfect" any more than He is "big" or "old" or "Portuguese". If there is a God, our human words (and the concepts they represent) can not begin to "describe" Him.
That's part of the problem with this topic: We can only discuss the "nature of God" in human terms.
I was implying that perhaps our collective understanding of the real God is unclear and inconsistent.
The premise of this topic is that God is sitting right here among us. I think it's reasonable to assume that He would have powers of communication to present His case in a clear and consistent fashion.
So far, none of the candidates has succeeded in doing that.
So we're left with the dilemna: Do we need to "hire" one of the candidates at all? If none of the candidiates can convince us that he is indispensible to the requirements of our organization, why not cut costs and leave the position vacant?
Edited by Ringo, : Spelling.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Malachi-II, posted 02-01-2007 3:37 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 6:29 AM ringo has replied
 Message 219 by Malachi-II, posted 02-03-2007 4:49 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 212 of 364 (381909)
02-02-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 6:29 AM


Deleted double post.
Edited by Ringo, : Got an "Internal Server Error" on the first try, but apparently it submited after all.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 6:29 AM Malachi-II has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 213 of 364 (381915)
02-02-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 6:29 AM


Malachi-II writes:
God’s dilemma would be: how can he appear to be recognized by one person occupying a chair at the table - in accordance with that person’s preconceived notions - and risk not being recognized by others at the table or causing even greater confusion and disruption.
The real God could easily present Himself to each and every member of the committee (and even the whole human race) simultaneously exactly as each person expected Him to be. Their reactions might be, "I expected you to be taller," or "I didn't picture you clean-shaven," but nobody would question that He was Who He said He was.
Let us assume that God has never been silent, unclear or inconsistent on any issue. What then?
No. Let's not assume that.
An omnipotent God could make Himself heard even by those who don't listen. Even a deaf person can "hear" an explosion.
An omnipotent God could explain Himself clearly so that anybody and everybody would understand. I was once told, If you can't explain it to an eight-year-old, you don't understand it."
And an omnipotent God could provide tailor-made messages to every human being so that there were no internal inconsistencies. A Muslim could compare their explanation-from-the-mouth-of-God with a Christian and a Wiccan and they would find nothing to disagree on.
God might say, “Once Life began it was instantly beyond my control. I could not withdraw freewill when it was abused....
So your God isn't even close to being omnipotent?
Creative Love cannot be controlled or controlling, otherwise it could not be eternal.
Sorry, I have no idea what that word-salad is supposed to mean.
He knows perfectly well that we now possess the power to destroy our mother Earth, yet He cannot interfere if we used our powers of destruction.
Well, according to the Bible He has interfered before, by flooding the earth, scattering the Babblers, etc. Are you completely ruling out the Biblical God?
I suggest that the simple self-bootstrapping crane is none other than a simple act of Divine Creative Love.
More word salad (and me an omnivore). Your spooky notion of "Divine Creative Love" probably needs a topic of its own.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 6:29 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 3:08 PM ringo has replied
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 02-07-2018 4:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 217 of 364 (381939)
02-02-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Malachi-II
02-02-2007 3:08 PM


Malachi-II writes:
God would not need to pander to human expectations.
I didn't say He would "need" to. I said He could. We are discussing the nature of God - i.e. whether or not He would.
Are you saying God has to deceive in order to be recognized?
There's nothing deceptive about giving everybody their own personalized message. What is deceptive is lurking in the background, letting people come up with their own looney ideas about Him.
(Disclaimer: The above statement is in no way intended to be a shot at the lurkers of EvC. )
Most of what is being said here are assumptions on a grand scale!
Even so, we can't have a discussion unless we agree on what assumptions we are making.
The assumption I objected to was:
quote:
Let us assume that God has never been silent, unclear or inconsistent on any issue. What then?
I object to that assumption because it denies the whole purpose of the thread. If God had been forthcoming with His message in clear and consistent terms, then there would be no basis for discussion of His nature.
So your God isn't even close to being omnipotent?
It sounds like you're beginning to understand my messages.
Allow me to refer you to the OP:
quote:
There are four God candidates present. each one seeks to be recognized as God, Omnipotant Creator of all things.
Omnipotence is a given in this discussion. The non-omnipotent need not apply.
If you find the notion of God's creative love 'spooky', then I would not wish to frighten you or anyone else more than you already have been.
Once again, I didn't say "frightening". I said "spooky", as in "ghostly", "intangible", etc.
The term "God's creative love" has no meaning and contributes nothing to this discussion.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Malachi-II, posted 02-02-2007 3:08 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 10:17 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 220 of 364 (382113)
02-03-2007 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Malachi-II
02-03-2007 4:49 AM


Re: A Matter of Courtesy
Malachi-II writes:
If one member of this Forum apologizes to another....
If it's a "direct question", please be direct about who you're addressing.
Recap: Earlier in the thread, you made an indirect complaint about "somebody" questioning your sincerity. Then you made insulting comments directly to me, for which you were chastised by AdminQuetzal. Then you made an indirect apology "to all concerned".
Even now you don't have the good grace to say who the @#$% you're talking about.
As far as I'm concerned, such back-handed, back-door "apologetic" behaviour doesn't warrant a direct acceptance.
... do you think the recipient of the apology deserves the respect of other members?
I doubt that the respect of the members hangs on the matter.
So, do you have anything to add to the topic?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Malachi-II, posted 02-03-2007 4:49 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 5:26 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 225 of 364 (382314)
02-04-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Malachi-II
02-04-2007 10:17 AM


Malachi-II writes:
Since I joined this 'discussion' about the nature of God, I haven't come across any of your loony ideas about him.
That's because this discussion isn't about my ideas. It's about the nature of God (unless you're nominating me ).
This is a committee action. It seems to me we're looking for a consensus. (Unfortunately, as with many committee actions, we seem to spend a lot of time discussing what we should be discussing.)
QUESTION: Do you believe in any of the four candidates and, if so, which one? And Why?
Irrelevant. We need to look at this case objectively, not with judgement clouded by personal beliefs.
It might reduce confusion if we choose words more carefully.
It might, but in your case I doubt it.
The term "God's creative love" has no meaning and contributes nothing to this discussion.
Perhaps not for you, but there may be many people who clearly understand the meaning of creative love in human and divine terms.
Then roll some of them out and have them explain what it means, because it is meaningless to this committe until somebody explains what it means.
Please present some evidence or testimony that's pertinent to the case.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 10:17 AM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 12:18 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 228 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 4:30 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 227 of 364 (382356)
02-04-2007 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Phat
02-04-2007 8:18 AM


Re: Apologies accepted...now move along
Phat writes:
One contention was that the candidate had to possess something called The Holy Spirit. We have not yet arrived at a consensus as to what this is and whether it is necessary. Any comments?
Somebody who advocates the "Holy Spirit" will have to tell us why that is a necessary part of the nature of God. Then the other candidates can tell us if they agree or disagree and whether or not they possess (or are possessed by) the "Holy Spirit".

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 02-04-2007 8:18 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 229 of 364 (382431)
02-04-2007 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Malachi-II
02-04-2007 4:30 PM


Re: Message for Ringo
Malachi-II writes:
This pretender wholeheartedly and unreservedly nominates Ringo as the most egotistical prig (a person who is smugly self-righteous and narrow-minded)....
You'll need a different thread for that.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Malachi-II, posted 02-04-2007 4:30 PM Malachi-II has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Malachi-II, posted 02-05-2007 5:46 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 239 of 364 (828043)
02-08-2018 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Phat
02-07-2018 4:10 PM


Re: Committee Still In Session Eleven Years Later
Phat writes:
Most critics claim that the communication breaks down on Gods end---
The onus is on the sender to send an unequivocal message. Garbage in, garbage out. The receiver can not be expected to decipher garbage.
Phat writes:
Phat is the one who brought the committee out of retirement to finish the meeting, and it has ringo perturbed, as he *just* concluded another meeting with the local education board to bar the use of the word *miracle* in science class.
That's a lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Phat, posted 02-07-2018 4:10 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Phat, posted 02-08-2018 11:56 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 241 of 364 (828045)
02-08-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Phat
02-08-2018 11:56 AM


Re: Committee Still In Session Eleven Years Later
Phat writes:
keep in mind that this is a play---a made-up story. There are no lies in stories.
If I made up a story about you molesting children, would that be okay? If you explained that you didn't molest anybody but I persisted in spreading the falsehood, would that be okay?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Phat, posted 02-08-2018 11:56 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Phat, posted 02-09-2018 12:42 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 243 of 364 (828109)
02-10-2018 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Phat
02-09-2018 12:42 PM


Re: Committee Still In Session Eleven Years Later
Phat writes:
Keep in mind, however, that we are looking for a Deity with no evidence.
What's the point of looking if you've already decided that there's nothing to see?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Phat, posted 02-09-2018 12:42 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Phat, posted 02-10-2018 11:39 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 245 of 364 (828111)
02-10-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Phat
02-10-2018 11:39 AM


Re: Committee Still In Session Eleven Years Later
Phat writes:
there is just no evidence that any of them are our Deity.
Why not?
It's lame enough to claim that your own preferred deity is hiding from us because "he wants us to have faith" - but it's extra-super-mega-lame to claim that every potential deity would have the same silly policy.
Phat writes:
I maintain that evidence is not the only standard to be applied.
Then explain your standard.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Phat, posted 02-10-2018 11:39 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Phat, posted 03-05-2018 10:42 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 265 of 364 (829348)
03-06-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Phat
03-05-2018 10:42 AM


Re: Committee Still In Session Eleven Years Later
Phat writes:
I'm not convinced that my Deity is hiding from us. More likely, we are incapable of quantifying/defining Her.
Then why is She incapable of communicating Her presence to us? And quantifying/defining Herself to us? Why not at least show Herself in a long white robe and a long white beard, sitting on a long white cloud?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Phat, posted 03-05-2018 10:42 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 03-06-2018 11:49 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024