Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would you have God do?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 2 of 104 (98201)
04-06-2004 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Primordial Egg
04-06-2004 8:42 AM


What would you have the voice do to convince you?
I would ask, "what is my name?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-06-2004 8:42 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-07-2004 4:59 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 17 of 104 (98408)
04-07-2004 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Primordial Egg
04-07-2004 4:59 AM


Test the spirits before humping a cow
Actually Primordial Egg, it's short term memory. I can read a paragragh, and immediately forget the details just read. Your right, he called my name. But this time - while he is talking about his conquests in Egypt , I'd ask (in my mind) "What's my name?". If he can read my mind I'd be impressed, but then I'd have to ask him his real name, and whatever he wanted with me would have to comply with the scripture and Christ. If he said "go hump a cow" - I would say "it is confusion". But ofcourse, if he could read my mind then I would probably vere towards thinking it was him. But to make sure, I would ask him what specific prayers he had recieved from me. But then, if he could read my mind, he could scan my brain and find out the prayers. So we have a predicament.
I guess if God did appear to you, then like Christ said "even if one rose from the dead he would not believe", well - this is a similar thing. I guess if God couldn't persuade you with parlour tricks, then he cannot persuade you at all. I guess this again might come down to faith.
P.S. Apparently, satan can appear with angels of light, but if he goes against the scripture he is not who he says he is, hence "test the spirits".
[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-07-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-07-2004 4:59 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-07-2004 10:56 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 04-07-2004 11:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 24 of 104 (98423)
04-07-2004 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
04-07-2004 11:08 AM


Re: Test the spirits before humping a cow
Lol, I see your post is similar brother Buz, I'm glad we see this in a similar fashion. Ofcourse, in relation to PE's new question, I am not sure satan would concur with the scripture. But either way - if it is satan, he is eventually going to have to go against scripture, otherwise - why would he want to deal with you to achieve scriptural or good purposes? - satan would eventually have to reveal his purpose, and I am not even sure God would allow such an event to continue, if it was that important to satan to trick you then if you have Christ in you I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit would lead you away from such things - as you rightfully said Buz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 04-07-2004 11:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 55 of 104 (103208)
04-27-2004 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
04-27-2004 6:37 PM


Conclusion = Belief --> like God said it would be
The conclusion is exactly how Christ predicted. "Even if one rose from the dead they would not believe". You see, it is similar with God - no one would even believe if he appeared. Though in all honesty - I would probably be easily convinced. I know I said I would ask my name etc. But it wouldn't take much to convince me.
So like Christ taught - it all really does come down to belief. Evidence is almost irrelevant in this topic, so we can now see that God was right when he spoke of belief.
I have heard of testimonies where people have seen Christ, and believed. I believe these testimonies may well be true. But how on earth could evidence ever be helpful? I'm amazed - it seems the athiests must also now agree it is about belief - and are now without excuse if they tout "evidence, evidence".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2004 6:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2004 2:55 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 58 of 104 (103344)
04-28-2004 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
04-28-2004 2:55 AM


I thought Christ's actions were according to his words.
God's got a lot to do and it's gonna piss me off if he wastes his time playing games with me when folks are really suffering somewhere else.
Since it is so hard to convince you Crash, I would have to bet that if the world was perfect you would still think there was no God, your previous posts confirm this - and so, I feel both these similar opinions would cancel each other out.
What I mean is; God it seems couldn't convince you by appearing to you, and he supposedly could if there was no more suffering. But if there was no suffering you would probably then say he would need to appear to you. And why wouldn't that be consistent - afterall, you are an atheist. If you say no bad things/no suffering = God, then you now have to say that all good things we experience = God. OR - You can admitt that your two opinions cancel each other out.
Aren't I a pain in the arse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 04-28-2004 2:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 12:26 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 104 (103769)
04-29-2004 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
04-29-2004 12:26 AM


I know that you think that I disbelieve in God just to be an ass, or something, but that's far from the truth. I'm amienable to the existence of God. It's just that God doesn't exist.
Lol, stop being as stubborn as me - he does exist!
I don't think you're an ass - far from it, your just an impeccable slime ridden butt slug of discontent.
If life were perfect, I imagine that the presence of God would be irrefutable - not just because things were perfect, but because God's presence would be just as substantial as my wife's,
Do you have a wife? - Or a canadian girlfriend?
I still think you dismiss the fact that if imperfection = no God then perfection, or good things = God. You say there is suffering = No Go, but there is plenty of none-suffering also, is there not. Are you going to let evil win? By letting the woes of the world rid God from your mind. It intrigues me that you once believed, what is such a huge difference between then and now? It must just be your mind set. Ho hum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 12:26 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Unseul, posted 04-29-2004 2:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 4:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 65 of 104 (103876)
04-29-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by crashfrog
04-29-2004 4:52 PM


Okay - I'll stop hounding you about this - for now, then I'll come back and preach some more.
Perfection would = God, yes. But the mere presence of some good things happening, sometimes, to good people, is not enough to establish that perfection exists.
But it does exist - it's the small town of perfection where el-blanco the graboid lives.
Ahem,....But you do say that misery and suffering = No God. By that logic I must deduce that no misery/no suffering = God. Be fair, you can't have it both ways. And this is all without mentioning satan - who has slipped the net.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2004 4:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:12 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 68 by Dr Jack, posted 04-30-2004 9:37 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 69 of 104 (104302)
04-30-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:12 AM


You say misery and suffering = My God doesn't exist.
But that is only logical if there is only misery and suffering, and also, if there is no satan mentioned in the bible, and also if disease and suffering = God - in the bible. However, Christ said he came to cast out satan. So - my God says he heals ills and satan is the cause of them. You are missing out that there is also joy and no suffering, which, if misery and suffering = no God (assumption) - the opposite must evidence God, or you can not assume that ills = no God.
So then, I can now believe because of the joy in the world = My God exists, by your logic. I myself am not miserable or suffering. You also have completely missed out the present joy and perfection of many people's lives. So, even if there is logic to your logic, it is at best far too simplistic and one-sided. If misery = no God, what does joy equal>??
The fact is, misery does not = no God. There is a complete explanation for misery in the bible. Christ himself suffered and died in misery. So misery can NOT logically mean that MY GOD doesn't exist - unless the bible doesn't say these things.
As for q's an p's you'll have to show me what they mean, I usually fail IQ tests. I cannot remember the letters without any meaning to them = bad short term memory.
This is elementary symbolic logic, but people make this mistake a lot, like you just did.)
There's no point in lying - no matter how many times I read your P's and q's I can't remember because of they are too boring or lack meaning. I don't know what your on about. But I don't think misery = no God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 5:10 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 72 of 104 (104385)
04-30-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 5:10 PM


1) It is not raining, therefore I will not take an umbrella. (the inverse0
He could take it, he hasn't said whether he would/wouldn't when there is no rain. Am I right?
2) I took an umbrella, therefore it must be raining. (the converse.)
He could have took when it was not raining, because he hasn't said if he would take it in the dry. Am I right?
3) I did not take an umbrella, therefore it is not raining.
Yes, I see the point.
But Crash, I only claimed to use your logic don't forget. You say I made a mistake - what mistake, explain please. I only presumed that joy = God because you said misery = no God. You can only conclude that a world without misery = God using your logic.
You assume that chance would have joy happen and misery = no God, But how does any misery = no God? - Logically?
Chance might allow misery and joy. God might also allow it. You must show why you assume misery alone is relevant to God's existence.
In this world we have joy and misery. If you say any misery = no God, couldn't I say any joy = God? Misery is induced as significant to God's existence by you remember. Therefore, how would misery = no God? - Please explain. Surely I can argue that any joy = God, and how does "chance" = No God? We have to allow the possibility that God would "let" things happen according to the designated laws of the universe. God could still create the universe and "watch" or "allow" the same joy and misery outcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 5:10 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 7:48 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 73 of 104 (104390)
04-30-2004 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 2:12 AM


mike the wiz writes:
By that logic I must deduce that no misery/no suffering = God.
Crashfrog writes:
Well, that's been my point all along. The existence of your God = no misery or suffering.
So - total joy = Existence of my God. Therefore you have now allowed joy to = God and misery to equal no God.
Logically, any joy will = God. By your logic which I have used. And what is to stop me from saying any joy = God, if any misery = no God?
I think - personally that joy/misery bare no logical relevance to God's existence. Do we agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 7:47 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 76 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 7:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 77 of 104 (104416)
04-30-2004 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
04-30-2004 7:48 PM


Right. You're taking the inverse of my statement, which is logically fallacious,
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2004 7:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 2:08 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 78 of 104 (104421)
04-30-2004 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by NosyNed
04-30-2004 7:47 PM


If we take logic alone
It appears, Mike, that there isn't anything that bares any logical relevance to God's existance. Everything ends up just like the joy/misery discussion. Seems to me anyway.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by NosyNed, posted 04-30-2004 7:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 104 (104548)
05-01-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 2:08 AM


You said:
Yes, because "completely joyful" is another way of saying "completely without misery."
Then said:
It's not joy we're talking about, Mike.
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 joy is joy and misery both.
Some misery is misery and joy both, there really is some misery --> yet joy.I agree joy and misery exist.
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.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 2:08 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 2:48 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 81 of 104 (104556)
05-01-2004 1:43 PM


Making my own logical assumptions
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Melchior, posted 05-01-2004 2:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 84 of 104 (104606)
05-01-2004 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
05-01-2004 2:48 PM


You can't reconcile your model of God with the presence of misery in the world.
Show me how message #81 is wrong then.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 2:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2004 6:42 PM mike the wiz 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