Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
148 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 147 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,496 Year: 7,244/23,288 Month: 1,150/1,214 Week: 162/303 Day: 2/36 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Stories about prayer
Stile
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 62 of 80 (862679)
09-10-2019 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tanypteryx
09-09-2019 5:54 PM


Re: yet more examples of mistaking claims for evidence.
Tanypteryx writes:

You would think an all powerful god would provide evidence that could not be mistaken for anything else. Everyone is left guessing what this god wants.

It leads to a very big argument against God.

If *I* was all-powerful, and created tiny-beings and wanted to be involved in their life and help them:
-I would want to give them clear direction
-I would not want to confuse them or leave doubt that may possibly lead them down an incorrect path
-I would want them to have tools to correctly identify the reality I created around them
-I would NOT want to play some "tee-hee" game about keeping my existence a mystery to see who may and who may not "believe in" me. What does this even do other than feed the ego of a child-like being?

Therefore, if *I* would do things better, and this makes God out to be a child and God is supposed to be "very good" and "cares about us," then:
1. God does not exist.
or
2. God exists, but is not all powerful - He helps us as much as He can, but is not capable of getting around these seemingly-childish games.
or
3. God exists, but is not "very good" - He is child-like (or possibly malevolent) and enjoys playing with us for one reason or another.

It no longer leaves room for an "all powerful" being who "loves humans."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-09-2019 5:54 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 09-10-2019 10:32 AM Stile has responded
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 09-10-2019 1:14 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 66 of 80 (862684)
09-10-2019 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by jar
09-10-2019 10:32 AM


Re: Not really an argument against GOD but only some gods.
jar writes:

Consider the God found in Genesis 1. That God creates simply by an act of will, and creates once then moves on to the next creation. That God has no contact with any of the creation and looks on all of them equally and judges the work good.

But that God is aloof and separate. It would not care what the creation thought.

How is this not equivalent to a God that exists, but is not "very good" towards humans?
Which is possibility #3 I explained above.

I think we agree, and we're just describing the same thing differently.
My phrasing may have been unclear, but point #3 is intended to include the situation you're describing above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by jar, posted 09-10-2019 10:32 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 09-10-2019 5:13 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 77 of 80 (862721)
09-11-2019 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Phat
09-10-2019 1:14 PM


Re: It was meant to be by Faith alone
Thugpreacha writes:

The just shall live by faith...not evidence.

But many just people do live by evidence.

So is this wrong? Misleading? Only useful in very specific contexts?

If you had a rich uncle, how do you know that people were not only being nice to him because he had money?

By their actions and words - do they match or do they vary?
Those that vary - are in it for the money.
Those that match in a "being nice" way - are there for being nice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Phat, posted 09-10-2019 1:14 PM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 09-11-2019 12:42 PM Stile has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 78 of 80 (862723)
09-11-2019 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by jar
09-10-2019 5:13 PM


Re: Not really an argument against GOD but only some gods.
jar writes:

The God in Genesis 1 saw all that was created as Very Good and so saw pond scum and humans and skunks and squezalls as equally good.

I see - a God that does want "the best for human" but not at the expense at "the best" for other parts of His creation as well.

Yes, the wording of my phrasing does not seem to include such a thing.
But it was intended, as confusing as my current phrasing is.

As I said, some Gods can be eliminated but not all GODS.

Exactly, yes - I still think we're just agreeing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 09-10-2019 5:13 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3944
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 80 of 80 (862725)
09-11-2019 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
09-11-2019 12:42 PM


Re: It was meant to be by Faith alone
Faith writes:

The context of that quote is how we get saved..

Thank-you, but yes, I understand where it comes from and it's intent.

Smells fishy, to me.
Which doesn't mean it is fishy... just has an aspect to it that happens to coincide with many other fishy-things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 09-11-2019 12:42 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020