Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gizmo · 10-01-2004, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZooMom

If you, in your limited human compassion cannot fathom sentencing someone (even a genocidal maniac like Hitler) to an eternity (which is relative BTW, as the concept of time only exists on our plane) of torment, how much greater is God's mercy and compassion?

Sorry, I don't follow...if someone commits a crime, and judge is sentenced to a couple of years in prison, so that they might after a suitable period, return to there family is non-compassionate and God judging the same crime sentences to eternal hell, God is the compassionate one?

A couple of definitions of compassion:

1.the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something about it

2.The mind that cannot bear the suffering of others and wishes them to be free from it.

An eternity of punishment immediately eliminates the concept of compassion as the key has been thrown away; there is no longer any desire for them to be free from it.

Giz.

Gizmo · 10-01-2004, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

And Hitler was wrong, God can't be. Big difference.

When I first mafe the comment to ZooMom, I was being a little trite - now I ask you seriouslt Magus - what does this say about God's omnipotence?

Giz.

Gizmo · 10-01-2004, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

...couldn't that same part detect the resolution of 22/7?

if it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist...

So you are happy that you can identify with his goodness but that it is not even possible to consider his badness? That's like saying I can tell when it's light but not when it's dark - one makes no sense without the other.

Neither by the way has the slightest thing to do with 22/7.

Giz.

jdlongmire · 10-02-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizmo

Your arguments are invalid because your presupposition is that God does exist and this presupposition causes you to deify God, since that is the only frame of reference you allow yourself.

Actually, I do have an "theopomorphised" example of God - Jesus Christ. That is why my presuppositions are more valid - my presuppositional basis is valid - in other words when I test the hypothesis "Is God bad?", I look to a human representation of God.

Quote:

The arguement is just as silly when I say it as when you do!

Yeah, well I will put up with your silliness, if you put up with mine.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with presenting a hypothesis and then exploring it. However, for me, this is not what is happening. For me the existence of God was due to my upbringing the default conclusion, the non-existence of God is a conclusion that I have then reached through evaluating the evidence, not a premise or presupposition.

Evaluating the evidence from a presuppositional stance: "If God exists, there will be irrefutable evidence for me to make my decision."

Quote:

Are you saying that I am not allowed to do this? So much for free will. Giz.

I think you are a very smart person. I think very smart people tend to believe they can constrain reality by hypothesizing with other smart people to come to a common thesis. I think that there is more to reality than what can be tested by the "evidence" and try to offer a different perspective.

Free will is a subjective concept.

Gizmo · 10-02-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Evaluating the evidence from a presuppositional stance: "If God exists, there will be irrefutable evidence for me to make my decision."

Again, not what happened. These are the steps of my deconversion:

I believe.
I questioned so as to learn more about my belief.
The answers caused disillusionment.
I fought against the disillusionment because belief is comforting.
I finally stopped believing.

My presupposition throughout all of this was the existence of God and in that regard, my arguements are no weaker than yours.

Quote:

I think you are a very smart person.

I have my doubts but the wife seems to agree with you - she calls me a smart arse all the time. :Cheeky:

Quote:

I think very smart people tend to believe they can constrain reality by hypothesizing with other smart people to come to a common thesis. I think that there is more to reality than what can be tested by the "evidence" and try to offer a different perspective.

On the other hand...

I think they might try to describe reality through testing hypotheses but certainly don't try to constrain it. And I agree that there is bound to be more to reality than can be tested by the evidence that is available to us, however, that doesn't mean we can just make it up - if the evidence is there it isn't there and conclusions cannot be drawn only further hypotheses made.

Giz.

jdlongmire · 10-02-2004, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdlongmire

Evaluating the evidence from a presuppositional stance: "If God exists, there will be irrefutable evidence for me to make my decision."

Again, not what happened. These are the steps of my deconversion:

I believe.
I questioned so as to learn more about my belief.
The answers caused disillusionment.
I fought against the disillusionment because belief is comforting.
I finally stopped believing.

My presupposition throughout all of this was the existence of God and in that regard, my arguements are no weaker than yours.

So, you stopped believing even though you found no irrefutable evidence?

Magus55 · 10-02-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ten to the eleventh

Why would God desire justice? Why would a perfect, complete, and loving being want to witness the suffering of billions? To satisfy some bloodlust? What theological end could be served by the suffering of non-believers? We don't even torture dogs that maul and kill children. We just give them the funky blue juice, and watch them go to sleep forever.

God desires justice because He is righteous and Just.

Magus55 · 10-02-2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gizmo

When I first mafe the comment to ZooMom, I was being a little trite - now I ask you seriouslt Magus - what does this say about God's omnipotence?

Giz.

What do you mean? Care to clarify?

Gizmo · 10-02-2004, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdlongmire

So, you stopped believing even though you found no irrefutable evidence?

Yes. Lack of belief does not require evidence but rather a lack of it in the thing to be believed.

Giz.

Gizmo · 10-02-2004, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

What do you mean? Care to clarify?

Sure. Christians in my experience believe that God is omnipotent i.e. he can do anything. Then seem to have no problem saying he can do no wrong, perform no evil some even go so far as to say he did not create evil. Just looking for your views.

Giz.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.