anonymite

Wouldn't the parenting equivalent to the biblical flood be to destroy every functional part of the baby except for that absolutely necessary for reproduction? It's like steel retrofitting a crib in anticipation of future abuse. What parent has that in mind?

Javaman

Really? How 'bout, "I read this book and it makes no sense so and can't believe it's true." That's fairly logical. ...but I think what you'll find more of here is... "Given that this being is supposed to be 'infinite' & 'all-knowing and all-powerful', His actions don't make sense."

I could never accept these two things (plus many others):

1) God knew there would be sin in Eden but created Adam and Eve anyway.

2) God knew Satan would rebel and not only created him but allowed him to prosper and rule over a kingdom.

Oolon Colluphid

You need to watch your speed, and use your mirrors.
Uh-huh. And what do you make of those who think that there is no damned evidence for a Big Sky Fairy, and so simply ignore the idea?
And accepting as true something for which there is no evidence does?
What being?
Cobblers. What precludes approaching some vague understanding of it? Faced with something this alleged god had done, we should be at least able to go ‘bloody hell, that was clever!’ Instead we’re often forced to think ‘what sort of dork would do that? And your defence is that we can’t understand it.

What you’ve got there is the very definition of an irrefutable hypothesis. Nothing could possibly refute it: some aspect is either wonderfully clever, or if it apparently isn’t, then it’s cos we don’t understand it.

You do realise that irrefutable hypotheses are completely useless as explanations, since we cannot ever know if they’re right, yeah?
What’s with this ‘believing’ crap? There’s either a god or there isn’t. If there is, there should be some evidence for it. One only requires belief in the absence of evidence. Believe away, old chum, but don’t expect the rest of us to think your beliefs bear any resemblance to the real world.
But didn’t you just say “How can you expect to even come close to understanding a being that is infinite?” Well gosh, so you did! Therefore, by your own argument, this means “that God is not all-knowing and all-powerful after all, and thus not worth believing in anyway”. If you say so.

Having wrecked your own argument, you then resort to the logic we were using, that our ideas of what’s sensible can be related to god...

It might be an idea at this point for you to define this god of yours, don’t you think?
Sleepless nights, constantly at its beck and call, no idea what it’s screaming about because it can’t communicate...
Why would something infinite, omnipotent and omniscient want for anything? And as per your original reasoning, how can you possibly think that your wants might relate to such a being?
100-metre cross-carrying?
Mirrors are easier. Again, why would such a being -- one that by definition wants for nothing, want such a thing? Just a tad anthropomorphic, no?
Human children, sure. But if you’re making it from scratch to your own specification, that shouldn’t be necessary, especially if you’re as clever as god is supposed to be. And anyway, get with the practical parenting programme: far better results are achieved by rewarding good behaviour rather than punishing the bad. (Easier said than done for humans... but not for god of course.) “When you die, you’ll go somewhere nice.” What kind of moronic encouragement is that?! But it’s the only one on offer.
Really? Apart from that being bizarre, I suggest you get counselling before embarking on parenthood.

And we aren’t talking about a single child, but every individual human. If you’re refering to the flood, your god didn’t punish him or her, they apologised and all was well: he killed every living thing except a handful. We aren’t his children, were his playthings. And god’s motto is don’t repair the broken toy, throw it away.
Because you’re still lucky enough to be alive. All the ones punished properly by your god aren’t.
Yes thanks.
Because such a being by definition shouldn’t need them. Because that is anthropomorphic. And because of the total lack of evidence for such a being in the first place.

Demonstrate there is a god, then we can discuss its attributes and intentions. And crucially, define it first, so we know whether we may ascertain anything about it or not.

TTFN, DT

lpetrich

XChamp:
I run into so many people that refuse to/don't believe in God because they do not understand or comprehend why he would do certain things. This view does not make any sense.

Why not also make yourself believe in all the religions that you reject? Your rejection of them must be due to your failure to understand their truth, right?

How can you expect to even come close to understanding a being that is infinite?

Except that infinite numbers are reasonably well understood.

Although no one can hope to understand God, I believe we can come close, in certain cases, with analogies.

A warning bell ought to go off every time one sees an attempt to demonstrate some point with an analogy. Because it's easy to slip in a specious analogy.

God bringing humanity into existence is very much like having a child. ...

Exactly what I was concerned about: a specious analogy.

Parents do NOT have complete control over every detail of their children. An omnipotent being would.

Oxymoron

[sarcasm]Ah, "punish" as in 'slaughter the lot of them'. Yes, that's very indicative of a loving parent.[/sarcasm]

Most parents have children knowing they might have to punish them. They do not know what for ahead of time. If they did know, they might take actions to avoid it, and then they wouldn't have to punish them, would they? Parents who take no action when they know their children are going to do wrong and then punish them are (IMHO) neglectful and abusive parents

Albion

Parents, as a rule, don't punish their children by obliteraing every child on the face of the planet (along with nearly all the plants and animals around as well). Most parents punish children to encourage better behaviour in future, which isn't much of an option when the child in question has been killed. If a parent killed a disobedient child in order to make way for, hopefully, a more congenial replacement, and in the process had built a very sturdy nursery and filled it with the most durable furniture and toys because the parent knew that it might take several attempts before he got the nice obedient kid he really wanted, so the nursery might have to last a few decades, he'd be considered to be the very worst sort of monster. But when God does it, it's the definition of his great love? This does not compute.

Coragyps

Shaky start for your analogy there, too: Up until the last hundred years or so, and even now in much of the world, parents bring children into the world because they enjoy screwing.