What would you have God do?

Not in the least. Misery cannot exist in the universe where your God dwells. In this universe, there is misery. Therefore there is no God here.I just don't understand why you think the presence of joy refutes that. The presence of joy doesn't mean that misery doesn't exist. If misery exists, there is no God. Joy has nothing to do with that.

No, you yourself said that a completely joyful world would = God.So all I am doing, is taking that logical (assumption) and recognising that little joy would also = God.You see, any misery or full misery would = no God to you.Therefore, surely full joy or any joy would = God. You however, insist that because any misery = no God, then any joy cannot mean God. But I could also say any joy = God. It is you that "assumes" any misery = no God remember. That in itself is not logic, it's just an assumption.That means I could also "assume" anything. Any cake means no God.You say misery is inconsistent with an all - powerful God. You have to entirely therefore, ignore the bible completely to assume such a thing. God himself suffered misery. Where is the inconsistency?You think "a none-perfect world = no God."
But logically that is based on an assumption only. If we say: "A perfect/none - perfect world = God/no God"The blue statement is infact more logical than assuming the first one in yellow. With the blue statement, we take all of the availabilities and assume nothing. Even I would like to say another statement is true. For example: "A none-perfect world = God"But, I infact have now totally denied having a personal feeling or opinion, because a couple of people said my logic was in error. Even though I would like to assume the red statement, logically and neutrally the only correct stance to take is the blue one.Don't forget Crash, you are atheist and I am christian(hopefully).

Well, we could say nothing bares relevance to God, and everything does. In this example though, we can not deduce anything from misery/joy. As strange as that may sound, I would have to point to the idea of an impersonal God as one possibility (but not in my own mind - yet I am irrelevant to logic). I myself would not assume such a thing, but if I completely use logic ONLY then I would have to say that misery/joy may well be part of the human condition and not be applicable to God, or he may not even care for such things. I may sound like a machine but I am now trying to give way for logic.Ofcourse, me being christian - I cannot take this position. My stance is that humans brought sin and suffering into their existence. Also, Christ himself suffered. A biblical outlook is my own position, but I cannot say that my own view or stance is entirely logical/illogical.And so obviously, the believer (me) will assume everything is relevant to God on some level. And the unbeliever will assume nothing is relevant to God or shows him. This is somewhat of a philosophical thing, looking into what may or may not be of God. Scientifically - surely the conclusion must be the neutral zone.

Yes, because "completely joyful" is another way of saying "completely without misery."It's not joy we're talking about, Mike. It's misery. The presence of joy doesn't prove God exists. But the presence of misery proves that God doesn't exist. Joy has nothing at all to do with it. Again, no. You're taking the inverse of my statement, which is fallacious. Why do you keep doing that? Moreover, full joy and some joy are totally different things. Full joy implies the absence of misery. Some joy is joy and misery both.The presence of some joy doesn't mean misery doesn't exist, and as long as misery exists, God doesn't. That's the consequence of assuming that God is benevolent and all-powerful. Mike, don't make me repeat myself. You can do better than this.It's not an assumption. It's the logical consequence of the purported nature of God: benevolent and all-powerful. It's not me who says God is these things; it's you. The Bible, having been authored by men and not by God, is irrelevant. The blue statement is a tautology, and therefore tells us nothing. It's unfalsifiable; there's no condition under which it could be false.

You said: Then said: But you have just admitted that joy is another way of saying "no-misery".So I could say: "God = joy, no joy = no God". Is that the contra-positive?You see, that then means that no joy = no God. YET, there is joy present. Some misery is misery and joy both, there really is some misery --> yet joy.I agree joy and misery exist. Benevolence does not mean there is automatically no possibility for misery. All-powerful does not automatically mean there is no possibility for misery. The connection is again an assumption.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 05-01-2004]

In the bible, my God makes it clear that no God would equal misery.No God(a) = misery(b)God = no misery - no a = no b - incorrect (inverse)
misery = no God - b=a = incorrect (converse)
No misery = God - no b= no a - correct (contra-positive)By my own logical assumption I can make it so that misery does not mean there's no God, because it would be the converse.Yet I need an assumption first. My assumption is biblically based.

Are you trying to argue for or against your own point there?It all boils down to how you define the benevolent qualities of God. And it's not totally clear cut.God could be actively absolutely benevolent, and do everything in his power to prevent misery. This would imply that if God exists, misery can't.God could be passively benevolent, in that people who direct pray/ask for misery to be removed will entice God to remove it, but misery will still remain in other places.God could also have a different look on what it means to be benevolent, or what misery means, than we do.The first definition is, by definition, incompatible with our current universe.

Of course they do. The existence of misery is anathema to a benevolent God. If he's all-powerful, then he either does something about it, or he's not truly benevolent.If a man is dying on the sidewalk, and you walk on by and do nothing, you're not benevolent. That's called a sin of ommission if you're Catholic.If God is all-powerful, then everytime something bad happens he's guilty of a sin of ommission. If God is guilty of sins then he isn't benevolent by nature.You can't reconcile your model of God with the presence of misery in the world.

Show me how message #81 is wrong then. Luckily for God - he isn't a catholic.This reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld, where Jerry and his friends are taken to court for being innocent bystanders who didn't help someone who was being mugged.God also didn't stop Christ from suffering on the cross, what exactly is your point?"The suffering of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory that shall be revealed in us" (similar words). So it seems my model of God, or my belief in him, can reconcile misery by his actions and the words of the bible which are inspired by him.Adding to this, many people have claimed to be healed by a benevolent God. The bible also says something else though, which makes logic of none-effect if you are still saying "misery proves your God doesn't exist" - Don't forget, my God is the God of the bible which contains another factor to consider:Christ came to cast out satan. Christ healed all those with misery and illness, he said something very similar to; "If I am of satan, and I am not of God, then why would satan cast out satan, that would be a Kingdom divided against itself".Therefore, My God (God of the bible), says that evil and misery is from satan. So then, logically, according to my God - satan is responsible for misery and not "No God". So God = "no misery" and satan = "misery". "No misery" could mean "no satan". - Contra-positive.So it seems there are many logical possibilities, and your one is one of many.PS> Melchior, read again message #81. Just because No God = misery doesn't mean misery = No God, that is the converse. (Incorrect logic). The only thing we can know is the contra-positive, which says "No misery = God". So even if no misery = God that doesn't mean misery = No God. We can only deduce No God = misery again.I will now show you another example:Take this as truth: If there is an earth there is a sun.If there is a sun there is an earth - incorrect.(converse)If there is no earth there is no sun - Incorrect.(inverse)If there is no sun there is no earth. - Correct. (Contra-positive)So the contra-positive in message #81, is "No misery = God". You cannot know anything else for sure, or it is an illogical outcome.

You're just assuming that the presence of joy means that God exists. That's not a proof. That's a tautology.According to the definition of God, God is benevolent and all-powerful. Do you dispute this? Because I'm basing the definition of God based on what you believe about God. If you don't believe that God is benevolent or all-powerful, then obviously my proof means nothing.Is God benevolent and all-powerful? Yes or no. You might want to ask the Catholics about that. What it should be reminding you is of the parable of the Good Samaritan, and how the other passers-by are condemned by Jesus for inaction. Do you believe that Satan is more powerful than God? Because if he's not, God could eliminate the Satan problem any time he chose to.The existence of Satan doesn't help you in the least - if Satan can resist God then God is not all-powerful. If Satan can't resist God, then he continues to exist because God lets it happen.Either way, God can be benevolent or all-powerful, but not both. If you believe that the God that exists is both, you're wrong - there's no way that God can have both those qualities, exist, and the universe turn out the way it does.

I'd like to refute you but I feel you will just come back again. You are satisfied that you are right, and I am satisfied I am right. I t took a while to do those last two messages I done and I felt they were in vain. I think it is best that we agree to disagree now as I think it's headed nowhere. I respect your belief that there is misery and so for you there is no God, or more accurately - I respect and like you and this means we will only end up name calling if we carry on. So if it is okay with you I would like to call it a day with this one, Unless you really really wanted an answer to your post I must refrain now.
Regards, Mike.

That's cool. I'm not keen to get into a shouting match either, and I guess I'm just not smart enough to explain how I think your logic is faulty.Anyway, we're cool.

Cheers Crash'. I too must be even less smart, as the whole logic thing gave me a pain in the right front area of the brain. Thanks for the links I will try and remember what you taught me about contra-positives.

No prob. If you learn only one thing from me, basic symbolic logic doesn't hurt.

quote:

---

You can't reconcile your model of God with the presence of misery in the world.

---

you can't reconcile your model of misery with the presence of God in the world......the absolute truth is God is the ultimate nihilist so we can't ascribe our flawed constructs of truth, reality, logic, reason, values, ethics or morality on something that is beyond our ability to understand or elucidate upon