by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
As in, a new baby does not replace a dead one?
Indeed.
I have a prediction that Flamegrilled will go AWOL for a while, and then come back and ignore everything that has been said and repeat the same old canard like he is saying it for the first time.
-1x-1=1
Viviane said- Actually, not even in simple algebra. 1*-1 = -1. He tried to do a mathematical proof and blew up on the simplest thing of all.
Uh, in algebra, a negative number times a negative number gives a positive number...
From a site called, "Math is fun":
http://www.mathsisfun.com/multiplying-negatives.html
But in the immortal words of PeeWee Herman, you meant to do to that, right?
Adam
You can't have the loving god of christian theism who passively observed the tsunami; that is a contradiction. Cofty
I passively watched someone "hurt" my cat. I love my cat. There was no contradiction.
Now you want to play the card of God's supposed omnipotence to counter that. If I was powerful enough to find a different way to avoid the suffering of my cat I would have done it. Sure.
But just as you are saying it's different because of the omnipotence factor, I am saying it's difference because of the omniscinece factor.
We are not omniscient. God (if he exists) is omniscient. Therefore by definition we would be lacking information since our knowledge is only a subset of all knowledge.
Once that is combined with my reasons for being a theist in the first place (we can go there if you want), I am prepared to humbly accept the reality of not having the full information.
You can insist that an intelligent person MUST make a decision with limited information all you like. But as long as there remains doubt as to whether we have the full information then your OP is flawed. And logically that doubt must exist.
So then we can move to probablility. But that is a different conversation as I think you and others have acknowledged.
To me the primary weakness of your argument is that you insist we must make a decision against theism based upon very specific criteria that you have determined must become the sole evidence to be presented. First of all I simply don't accept that. Secondly, I am perfectly aware that a being of lower sentience can misinterpret actions and inactions of a being of higher sentience. This is not theoretical. You dislike analogies, but the simple fact is that we can demonstrate the reality of that. And not a single person disagreed with that reality. It was only the application that you didn't like, because you feel so certain as to where humans are on the sentience scale. It's shear misleading hubris as far as I'm concerned.
you feel so certain as to where humans are on the sentience scale.
No I feel so certain that I understand what love is. I also understand what Jesus said love was.
It did not include drowning people.
I passively watched someone "hurt" my cat. I love my cat. There was no contradiction.
And the missing piece of information is that the trivial pain was necessary to help your cat in some way.
Have you any suggestion, however remote or tentative, what the missing information might be that would make god's obstensibly evil act into one of pefect love?
It seems as though we really are not getting a good quality Theist on here either.
I think "quality theist" is an oxymoron like "Military intelligence". I've yet to hear a theist who can keep to an argument and not dance around, flip flop and generally refuse to discuss things in a proper manner.
BTW, I can't figure out where all the "true theists" went? You don't suppose few were willing to play a rigged game where the house is pre-destined to win?
Really? Are you actually accusing me of moderating this site in a biased way? Of not allowing theists to have a say?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
No I feel so certain that I understand what love is.
I'm not feeling it. :)
And the missing piece of information is that the trivial pain was necessary to help your cat in some way.
It's not missing. It's the central point.
Have you any suggestion, however remote or tentative, what the missing information might be ... ?
The mere fact that you ask the question acknowledges that such a thing might be possible. If not, you couldn't not pose the question. The answer is therefore irrelevant to the fact that your OP cannot be substantiated.
The mere fact that you ask the question acknowledges that such a thing might be possible. - Flamegrilled
Absolutely not. I can ask what a married batchelor is called or what a 5 sided triangle looks like, that doesn't mean they are possible.
Nothing can turn the drowning of a quarter of a million people into an act of love.
I am merely inviting you to demonstrate that you are not entirely vacuous. It turns out that you are.
We are not omniscient. God (if he exists) is omniscient. Therefore by definition we would be lacking information since our knowledge is only a subset of all knowledge.
Why is god omniscient if he exists? That is a rather large assumption. In fact, I would suggest that notions such as omniscient and omnipotent are really impossible and nothing but hyperbole. You can have neither an unstoppable force nor an immovable object.
But still, where do you get that god is omniscient? Has he guessed a long secret number you had in your head? Is there a verified, recorded incidence of him demonstrating what could only be the result of omniscience?
I think you probably meant the jewish god yahweh is omniscient according to the stories that describe him ... even though the stories were adaptations of earlier stories.
You see this is the problem I have - you want to believe in a god where the only 'evidence' you have is some old story book ... but we do have evidence that those stories were simply copies and adaptations of other stories which describe different gods.
Here's one for you:
"I'm awesome, super kind, generous, I know everything, I can do anything. Anything I do is good, even if you think it's crappy - you just don't understand."
Now, using only that description can you prove or disprove ANYTHING about me? (discounting anything else I say - for this illustration I never say anything else). Oh, and no one has ever met me or met anyone who met anyone who met me. And no one has ever heard me, or seen me do anything ... in fact, it's an anonymous internet account that posted the message.
Trying to base anything on that would be pointless. That is how stupid theism is because at the end of the day, all it's adherents have is a book of plagiarised crap.
It's not missing. It's the central point.
So central you completely missed it:
I passively watched someone "hurt" my cat. I love my cat. There was no contradiction.
Again, you present a weak analogy to make your ignoring of the real issue more convenient.
A more accurate analogy would be:
I passively watch someone torture my cat even though I only have to press a button, right under my finger, to stop it's agony. I love my cat and am the greatest yardstick ever for how people should love cats. I never lie.
No one would believe that doesn't contain a contradiction.
Why is god omniscient if he exists?
Just working within Cofty's rules. He wants us to talk about the Christian God of love. He is omniscient if he exists.
