eleven

I would ask you to elaborate, however...…..

A place where a child simply playing on the beach and having fun without a care in the world, can be crushed and swept away by trillions of gallons of water at any given moment?

That failed argument has been done before.

What is it? Beyond yawning at the deaths of children, and hundreds of thousands, trillions, of others.

that is built on a silly foundation.

Then he created all human beings. And in such a way that they will all die of old age, etc.

So God kills everyone sooner or later.

What a guy, eh?

But you don't. So I understand why you can't address it.

Can it not deal with such things. After all, did it not speak the entire universe into existence? Is it now not able to prevent such calamities? Or does it simply not care to bother?

I mean, you say that you believe in such a creator, right? What has gone wrong?

It has no characteristics of a deity such as controlling events, communicating with creatures or inspiring worship. We can know nothing about it at all. He's never claimed it had any interest or power over us or even any recognizable mind. It's sole identifiable action is providing the "spark" that set off the big bang. Since this spark was apparently a quantum fluctuation, the "Creator" must be an anthropomorphic metaphor for a pair of subatomic virtual particles.

Google the word theodicy.

My premise is that there is no evidence to suppot the existence of deities or any other supernatural entities or events. Therefore, all arguments which posit such are sophistries.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I invite you to trot it out into the show ring.

Consider the root of the word theodicy. The sophistry is clearly evident.

And theodicy is formed from theo, and dike. The justice of god.

Goodbye.

As for giving up on knowing the motivation of gods? That kind of giving up on intelligence and inquiry is one of the most fatal elements in Christianity. Though for that matter, even the religious God wants you to inquire, and get to know his nature. Not to mention what reason and science ask as well.

And so, what does rational inquiry suggest? A recent (albeit tentative and preliminary) bit of research, in the journal "Religions," suggested the fact that religion, or too much blind faith in things, cripples children; their ability to ask rational questions, and to do well in math and science.

In sum, too much religion is the equivalent of lowering your IQ a dozen or so points, we might suggest.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson

"You'll never understand anything about my creator so stop trying." -- You, basically.

“O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 39:53

"... who have transgressed against their souls!" Mercy and forgiveness are there no matter how deep into our problems we might find ourselves. I don't think anyone can really know that "Allah forgives all sins" until one has actually lived it. So this is scripture that is saying to give it a try, have faith and you can rise above any problem even if you think it impossible. My mind thinks - okay, it takes sincerity and a willingness to be absolutely honest with myself and to trust the process, approach each problem with humility and a devotion to love and truth, forgiving others who have hurt me, deceived me, took advantage of me. Not as prerequisites but natural expressions of the mercy of Allah through emulating what I myself am receiving.

Very religious language but my mind translates it into everyday words and images in my head that I find inspiring. I interpret the meaning based entirely on my own conception of God, Allah. And I believe everyone else does the same and undoubtedly there are very different reactions to the words. I find that sort of thing very interesting.

In my own view, an all knowing Creator is all forgiving as well.

How do we know it is all knowing and all forgiving? How do we know it knows anything at all?

But for those of us who have faith, many of us have faith in a merciful deity.

I thought Christians want a relationship with God. How can you have a relationship with something you can't know anything about?

we accept that the Creator started creation, and we accept that Jesus has a message for us all, we see living our lives in accordance with the message of Jesus, and at some point, being in a state of heaven.

How usual.

That's all it is.

No more or less valid than anyone else's.

Last edited Thu Feb 21, 2019, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

You would have to tell me what acts God is responsible for and then we could discuss that.

But when I look at a lot of the Muslim World, especially in the Middle East, I see some very vengeful and at times barbaric societies. And their actions are based on their reading of the Koran. Muslims in woman have a medieval view of woman as well.

that because there is an atheistic Chinese person somewhere that has a misogynistic view of women, that means it is just a human flaw and that religion has nothing to do with it and you should stop criticizing a religious text that specifically calls for women to submit to men.

Got it?

But the Chinese? That's different, see, because reasons. They're atheists, see, or things like that, you know...

Humans have done all that you describe.

and doesn't care what people do in his name?

Perhaps our mutual correspondent is a deist, really. Since that's just one step away from atheism, perhaps there's hope.

whether your creator is wrathful or merciful or whether he/she cares about what people do when they believe they are following him.

But my own view is that the Creator is forgiving and merciful.

Jesus spoke of this when He counselled His followers to forgive without limit.

when people are vengeful and wrathful in his name.
When people who genuinely think they are acting in his behalf cause dreadful harm?

And control would negate free will.

Good one.
We are suppose to have free will to choose good over evil.
But a great deal of the harm that people have done in the name of God is because they thought they were doing good.
They thought they were sering God. Yet they committed horrible acts.
So God allows people to think they have chosen good, and still do dreadful things in his name.

Free will is the weakest of arguments.

And this doesn't even get into if we actually have free will. Which is open for debate.

Kids have free will, but when their games get dangerous, we punish them on the spot, not tell them "you'll pay for that when you are dead and it's too late to fix it."

on edit: Actually some parents do say that, but they still punish their kids.

...original text:

where they didn't kill everyone and god punished them for being merciful?

...so they would have something to eat.

Skydaddy wasn't pleased.

Fun to watch people try to spin that story into something positive.

...metaphorical.

That's where it gets interesting.

See, God didn't really mean for them to kill every living thing, but when they saved the livestock, it got angry with the humans for not doing what he told them to do.

It's complicated, see. We are simply incapable of understanding, or something, so it's really all just a metaphor. And if you don't think twice, it's alright.

It seems like no matter what I'm wrong on my interpretation.

It's a metaphor you're supposed to recognize as meaning something else. I hope that helps. If not, someone will surely point it out, rather than explaining the contradiction or untruth.

A god without a stick is a god without control of his subjects. This defeats the whole point of why he was invented to begin with.

So there is no force here, no duress. You freely clicked on the post.

If, however, you are referring to those who proselytize, you can always say that you are not interested.

That opens the thread to everyone, including those who find it specious.

As does the same judgement about the merits.

Of course. We all post thread starting posts with the hope that people will click on them, read them, and comment on them. That's nothing new.

One of the features of posting original posts, though, is that some will disagree with what was posted. That should be expected. I always expect to read replies that disagree with me. What I do not do is chastise those who disagree for clicking on my post. I wrote the post to encourage people to do that.

Tu Quoque is a commonly used logical error. You have made that error here.

Thank you for it. Bookmarked.