Bumble Bee Tuna

Aha! Found it. I didn't read the whole thread, so I didn't see it.
Of course I would. I would not think that such a God was omnipotent and omnibenevolent, but I would still choose to live here. If I wouldn't, I would have commited suicide because you describe our current world. This is assuming I would be capable of "choosing" anything while I did not yet exist. This makes no sense but I'll take it to mean "if you happened to live in such a world, would you think it was a good thing or would you wish you did not?".

Well, I can't really tell. Where am I when God is telling me these things? He's talking to me, so is it Heaven? If so why would I come here? If the problematic world that you speak of were better than wherever you have me in this hypothetical, I would say yes. If it were worse, I would not. (This seems obvious to me, I don't understand what you are getting at)

The same applies here as before. However, the one problem with your hypotheticals and reality is that in this hypothetical God is actually telling me what will happen in various situations whereas in reality your God has done nothing of the sort, unless you count the Bible which is a pretty ridiculous way of telling me. Also, observational evidence tells me that Christians are not somehow kept well-fed and happy, and people who disobey (atheists) aren't particularly poorly fed or unhappy, either. So I don't know what you're getting at.

Could you describe what you think God is like? How would you describe the current God if you were to give us a hypothetical "would you choose to live here" that directly applied to reality? If it's one of these situations you've already gone into, I don't understand how you can complain about people saying a good god wouldn't do such a thing. The Gods you describe in these scenarios seem far from perfect.

BTW, I don't see what's so hard about envisioning a world that is "rigged" better without getting rid of free will? Why not have a world where God punishes people immediately after then sin? How does that eliminate free will? People can still choose to do whatever they want; they are just punished accordingly. God already punishes people, he just does it on a different (and completely ineffective, by the way he has designed our brains to work) schedule.

-B

lpetrich

Except that your scenarios are absolute bull excrement.

I know that from my experience of being a creator of computer programs. I'm far from being either omnipotent or omniscient, and I NEVER act in the fashion of your contrived scenarios.

And yes, I'm an intelligent designer.

Cipher Girl

Rad You said
How is my argument simplistic? Perhaps I should have explicitly stated that I was assuming your deity is omninipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient instead of simply implying that such were my assumptions. Since you only stated vaguely in this thread any attributes of this deity of yours, I simply made a few assumptions based on your statements for the sake of argument.

After assuming a few attributes of this hypothetical deity, I simply used proof by contradiction to show that a deity having all three of these attributes cannot exist logically. If you are not familiar with the concept and for those lurkers who are not familiar with proof by contradiction, I will explain (Algebra 101 or Logic 101).

A successful argument is one which is coherent with no logic flaws. Demonstrating a contradiction arising from a set of assumptions (postulates) shows that the argument is incorrect. The easiest way to demonstrate a contradiction is simply to show an example which induces a contradiction, therefore the assumption is proved false. Therefore this deity cannot be omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient all at the same time.

I stated this argument in the most simple manner I could, so that there would be no misunderstanding. It is far easier to hide weak arguments in flowery and complicated language.

Rad, what are these 20 questions you are so anxious to ask me?

Radorth

Well I suppose we part company here.

As I see it, he has long spoken to us in the voice of conscience, and through the beauty of his earth besides through the Bible. (There is absolutely no rational or evolutionary reason why a tree should be beautiful, and no indication they were ever anything but). He gave us commandments both verbal and written, which we diobeyed, good parents to show us the right way in many cases, some rather noisy prophets, a thousand examples to follow, and finally Christ and his apostles.

And you say "Yeah, but he didn't come down and talk to me personally."

Well fine. Maybe if you were more humble (in an importune sort of way) he would. I haven't the slightest doubt he spoke to me personally. But as I say, it might have helped my faith, but it did nothing for my character. I had already decided to TRY to put my faith in God, to confess my sins and grow up spiritually, and that if their was a God, he would have to show me help me all the way. There was, by the way no fear involved. That came later and was more awe than fear.

And in any case I hardly see what difference it makes when all my scenarios are not only believable but are true in fact according to skeptics themselves. The point of them is that in actual fact, most skeptics would still live here and not complain- yet they whine incessantly about what a lousy God would make anybody who could sin, and allow people to die in earthquakes.

Just saying that "Well if God talked to me himself, it would make all the difference in how I judged him." Well it might, but it is totally irrational conversion then, or the whining is hypocritical, since it shows most skeptics don't give a rat's butt about people dying in tornadoes or whether God is completely omniscient or not. That's just another excuse not to face their own baggage, sin and hypocrisy and I have proven it.

Your fellow hypocrite,

Rad

Radorth

Blah blah. I got them from some atheists' own assertions. And yes you are simply avoiding the issues.

Who cares? These are just assumptions made with undefined terms.

All that matters is whether God is good, and he does no have to be any of those things to be good. Thus your whole argument comes apart at the seams. Go argue with a "fundy" dumb enough to let you make the rules and determine the assumptions. I'm neither a fundy nor dumb and people who treat me so will find themselves wasting their time and mine.

Rad

Bumble Bee Tuna

Have you ever seen a naked mole rat? Also there is a valid reason for why trees grow the way they do. Nevertheless the "look at our universe" argument only applies to Deism and ID, not Christianity. Also he have us hundreds of other religions and no way to determine which one we should listen to. He gave us Mohammed and his followers. So his prophets are completely useless.
And my "voice of conscience" certainly says I should do things that Yahweh wouldn't approve of. It's definitely more evidence against him than for him.

Your scenarios are believable? How? They involve a deity, not a very believable thing. I said I would live here vs. not live- But that doesn't mean I won't have criticism if the job could have been done better. We wouldn't be calling such a God "lousy"- we'd be calling him imperfect. And since he claims to be perfect, that's a big deal. If he didn't claim to be perfect, then maybe people wouldn't complain so much.

I care about people dying in tornadoes, and I fail to see what that has to do with my wanting God to give me some rational reason to believe in him instead of providing me with the capability for logic and then expect me not to use it. The great underlying reason for people's lack of belief is the lack of evidence for God. Arguments about problems with the actual concept are merely secondary and for trying to convince those who aren't rational enough to care about pesky things like evidence. It's not a matter of "If God talked to me" it's a matter of "If God provided any sort of evidence for his existence to me".

Please, show me where I'm being hypocritical. I'm well aware of where you are one occasionally but don't act like I do the same.

-B

Cipher Girl

Rad you said
Huh?
omnipotent = all powerful
omnibenevolent = all good
omniscient = all knowing

How are these terms undefined? For any argument some starting assumptions must be made clear. What then, are the attributes your deity has? Once these have been established, then a meaningful conversation can take place. Otherwise everyone is simply talking past one another.

So, you have stated that your deity is good. What other attributes does it have? Or is this deity only good, kind of like a weak bumbling kind hearted simpleton? I guess that wuold explain evil in the world. But if the deity is so weak and powerless, why assume one exists at all?

How does my argument come apart at the seams? If you don't explicitly state what the assumptions are in an argument, how am I to know what you are talking about? I can't read your mind, and some of your written work is rather convoluted and not clear at all.

As for the rules, they are standard rules in any sort of discussion or debating. Illogical arguments are incorrect, no matter the flowery language they are couched in. Perhaps I'm being rather presumptous here, but you might find a logic or debate class a lot of fun. It would teach you how to debate without getting personal about it. As you see me simply ignoring the rather obvious insults that were aimed at me earlier.

Where did I say you were dumb or a fundy? BTW the christians I have debated with before were both liberal and fundy. I didn't assume you were either. I don't know you at all, so why should I assume one or the other?

But when you made the condesending post towards me earlier, I simply responded in a more formal tone instead of whining about how "simple" you thought me. Actually, a simpler argument is often much more difficult to write than an overly complicated one.

Cthulhu

Well, you're half right, Rad.

You know, if Jesus and Yahweh actually exist, I think you are right to fear them, Radorth. Your piss-poor debate skills and nonsensical gibberings have not only failed to convert a single individual on this board to your faith, but have probably driven a few fence-sitting theists to atheism.

But don't worry, I'll save a seat for you in Hell.

Radorth

I see so if he isn't "all powerful" he must be a "bumbling kind-hearted simpleton."

Very typical of the nonresponsive posts here I'm afraid. This is precisely the simplistic thinking I am talking about and refuse to debate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH! That was a good one. Let's see, so far on atheist websites I've been called dickhead, asshole, moron, "green shit,"and been personally attacked with entire posts full of invectives, been accused of pulling all kinds of pshychological tricks, of having the most evil motives imaginable with not the slightest evidence, and told "no Christian has ever done anything good" on this very thread, all by "logical" people.

Atheists "personally" get back from me what they "personally" put out. Oh that's right. I called BBT a "fellow hypocrite." Terrible thing.

Re BBT:

Really? Name a few.

I was referring of course to the scenario of a God whose conduct is claimed to be unacceptable, but as it turns out nobody would be complaining if it was actually so.

OK now I think you avoiding the questions with what amounts to rhetoric. I was obviously using hypotheticals to make a point and onece the point starts hitting home, atheists resort to the old standby "well he doesn't exist so who cares."

Fine.

Rad

Jack the Bodiless

What exactly is the "point" that you think you're making, Radorth?

I have addressed your scenarios as well as I could, given your rather sketchy details of this hypothetical god's abilities and motives.

The title of this thread is "the fear of God". Yes, I'd fear God if he existed and had both the power and the inclination to do unpleasant things to me.

As for "worshipping" God: I'd be at least sympathetic towards him if he existed and was a well-meaning sort doing the best job he could manage, to the best of his limited (non-omnimax) ability.

Given the lack of evidence for God's existence, AND the statement that it's the Biblical God being discussed (hence, both omnipotent and nasty): I would fear, but not worship, this God (unless I bend the knee out of fear: I hope I would have more backbone than that, but I can't be sure).

Why do you imagine these answers are insufficient? What do they "prove" to you?

Enlighten us, O Radorth!

...And respond in kind. What will YOU do if confronted by the reality of the Hindu gods? What will YOU say when Kali the Destroyer asks why you rejected Hinduism?

Will you fear her? Will you bow the knee and worship her? Will you REPENT?

I await your response!