Roland98

No, I assume, as a "mere mortal" who can see the idiocy of the system, that an all-knowing, all-powerful God could have, and indeed would have, come up with a better way.

Magus55

And how do you know there was a better way? Do you know all criteria that have to be met for the system? Or do you only know the criteria that you want met?

Roland98

How do you know there isn't a better way? Please--eternal punishment for not believing in your sky-daddy, while mass murderers can be "born again" on their deathbed and spend eternity frolicing amongst the flowers in eternal paradise.

Let's not forget that God invented "the system," and since he's all-powerful, he can adjust it any way he wants. Or are you suggesting that God operates under constraints?

Mageth

You can't see the whole system in depth from beginning to end, you can only see whats on the outside.

Well then, neither can you, so your claims of it being the "best way" are equally as unfounded.

You assume, just because you don't like the system thats in place, that it isn't the best way.

How do you know what anyone assumes? Really, Magus, it doesn't take much of an imagination to think of better ways to run a universe than those described by your religion.

I love how atheists, seem to always know better than a perfect divine god, as though they are just the smartest people on earth.

A "perfect divine god" has not been demonstrated to exist, so it's not that big of a feat to "know better" than it.

Humans still can't figure out alot of things about the universe and life. Scientists still have no positive claims towards how the universe or life started - only guesses, ...

Guesses? How about theories based on actual evidence? In any case, all of which are far closer to reality than the myth you believe in.

...yet you automatically assume its impossible for a god, who is infinitely more complex than any material concept science could dream up, to exist.

That statement kinda speaks for itself. BTW, I for one didn't "automatically assume" your God's non-existence; my disbelief came through years of thought, study, tears, and travail.

The arrogance and pride on this board is definately well established.

An unfounded assertion. Where has the "arrogance and pride" you speak of been established on this thread?

Magus55

Yes, God operates under the constraints of His own nature. If it contradicts His nature, He can't do it because it creates a paradox, by which not even omnipotence can work around.

Mageth

So God's "nature" is greater than God? Interesting.

Where did God get this Nature?

Magus55

But God can see the whole thing, and and gave us insight into the system. Just because you don't agree with the insight He gave us being valid, doesn't mean it isnt.


Oh really? So you know the universal, absolute requirements of divine justice like the back of your hand? And you can create a system better than the perfect ruler of the universe? Please, enlighten us on your "better" method, and it has to follow the rules of God's nature ( i.e holiness, eternal justice, righteousness, absolute requirement to punish sin etc.).


Hypothetically speaking if God does exist. Since we are discussing a system He created, obviously we are making the assumption that He does exist, or we wouldn't be questioning it.

How do you know they are far closer to reality? Do you have all knowledge of the universe? Do you know every intricate detail of how every universal law works, and has worked since the beginning of time, in every applicable setting imaginable? This is an illogical conclusion. Until you become omniscient, you can never make the claim that you are absolutely right.

My belief came through years of thought, study and tears. What makes your disbelief more valid than my belief? It can't be proven as fact, or disproven as fact either way - so why claim its a myth, when you really don't know? The more acceptable and logical conclusion would be that you don't believe its real, but its perfectly acceptable for others to believe its real if thats where life lead them.


Hmm, I don't know - being a human that possesses probably one trillionth of the knowledge in the entire universe ( if not astronomically less), yet claiming to know better then God (again, assuming He exists) who has 100% of all knowledge of the universe past, present and future. You claim God is less moral, less fair, unloving, sadistic etc. compared to you, but you base that on an understanding with no depth. You see God judge people in the Bible and conclude, what a jerk - i would have never done that! Yet, you weren't there, you aren't perfect, you aren't omniscient, and you aren't the sovereign ruler of the universe - so your assertions that God is worse than you have no value or purpose since there is nothing in the universe by which God's standards can be compared to - because His will always be infinitely above ours.

Magus55

God's nature is part of God. Describe some examples of human nature that applies to all humans for me.

Roland98

You've already created a paradox--if his omnipotence "can't work around" it, then by definition, it's not omnipotence.

Biff the unclean

Hypothetically speaking if God does exist. Since we are discussing a system He created, obviously we are making the assumption that He does exist, or we wouldn't be questioning it.
We are discussing a story of a system. By comparing the claims made in the story with reality and with itself we are able the judge if the story is likely to be real or not. We are not assuming any gods exist.
The system you describe would only be put into effect by a psychopath, some mad Middle Eastern potentate. Any sane six year old child could work out a more just system before they had breakfast.
Comparing the story with itself we find that "the system" contradicts the stated nature of the god. You can't have a god with the attributes you ascribe him creating the system you describe. Rather than admit that your story has mutually exclusive elements you attack human's ability to think; which is in turn self-contradictory.
Comparing the story with reality we fine zero evidence of the story being fact.