There is no [compassionate] God.

[djewleu]

Better stop it now.
There is no God.
Much less compassionate.
Period.
End of discussion.
Let us go home in peace.
Nobody to take to the lions.

 

[blackout]

I am gOd.

I am compassionate.

I can also be a b****.

Sometimes I am a compassionate b****.

 

[Storm]

Better stop it now.
There is no God.
Much less compassionate.
Period.
End of discussion.
Let us go home in peace.
Nobody to take to the lions.

Prove it.

 

[djewleu]

History.
Four thousand years of it and counting; and no god in sight. It is a COMMERCIAL item to help a certain parasitic elite benefit from superstitions.

 

[blackout]

History.
Four thousand years of it and counting; and no god in sight. It is a COMMERCIAL item to help a certain parasitic elite benefit from superstitions.

WOW! Have you been sighting the world for Four Thousand years?!

And from every possible perspective too.

Truly Asstounding.

 

[djewleu]

WOW! Have you been sighting the world for Four Thousand years?!

And from every possible perspective too.

Truly Asstounding.

Yes.
You said I am god, did you not?
I have been omnipresent for sometime.

 

[Katzpur]

I’ve been visiting and contributing to this site since April of this year. With hindsight I should have introduced myself, as I see there is a facility for doing just that, and it might then have addressed a few misconceptions. You say that based on my posts I don’t believe in a Supreme Being at all. Not quite. I don’t believe in a Supreme Being, but that is not to say such a being is logically impossible, depending of course on the case that is put forward. I have no religious beliefs at all and I’m interested only in the arguments. I’ve been studying the philosophy of religion over a period of thirteen years, five of which I spent arguing the case for God, as that was the most challenging (an acquaintance described me as a ‘closet theist&#8217.

Thanks for the intro. (You know, you could post this paragraph as an introduction on the "Are you new..." forum. It's not too late.)

May I say that no insult or derision is ever intended on my part and I respect your views unconditionally.

That's very nice to hear. I try to do likewise.

Surely if there is a just, wise, and all-sufficient God, who has our best interests at heart, why should we to need to make pleas and glorify him? And why would he expect it?

I feel the need to glorify God because I believe I owe my existance to Him, as well as every good thing in my life, to Him. To me, that's reason enough for worshipping Him.

Would we really want there to be suffering just so we can demonstrate our goodness? And love and affection don’t require the existence evil and suffering. A world containing evil and suffering exists not because of any logical necessity. There is no suffering in heaven; so why is there suffering on earth? The answer must be because God ordained it, and his creation was meant to suffer.

I realize there could be good without evil. I just don't think we would be able to recognize it as good. Furthermore, I believe that a life without challenges and trials would soon become very much without purpose. I won't argue with you that God ordained evil. That's not to say that we don't bring a lot of our trials upon ourselves. We make unfortunate choices and do things we know darned well have the potential to damage us. We are also the victims of other people's decisions and these decisions can bring tragedy into the lives of innocent people. As far as tsunamis, earthquakes, and other kinds of natural disasters are concerned... these can probably we attributed to God, although I don't think He sits up in His Heaven and decides that L.A. is overdue for an earthquake and that today would be as good as any to send one. My explanation (call it a desperate attempt to excuse God's behavior if you will) is that I believe that if there were a God, a being who actually was capable of having created a universe such as ours, with millions of different forms of life, each one capable of reproducing and continuing on for thousands upon thousands of years, a being who was capable of creating a species as infinitely marvelous and complex as a human being... that God would certainly have a knowledge as far superior to ours as ours is to that of an insect. While we cannot possibly recognize that there is any real purpose to the evil He appears to inflict upon us, I believe He has a purpose which, if we could understand it, would be logical and beautiful to us.

 

[blackout]

Yes.
You said I am god, did you not?
I have been omnipresent for sometime.

WOW! And you are the Composite ALL as well.

I can't contend with that.





djewleu is me!

*shudders* *shudders again* * and again*....

 

[Riverwolf]

History.
Four thousand years of it and counting; and no god in sight. It is a COMMERCIAL item to help a certain parasitic elite benefit from superstitions.

Many people (who were not under the influence of any drug) have seen God. It's all about knowing what to look for and where to look.

Specifically, everywhere.

 

[Riverwolf]

WOW! And you are the Composite ALL as well.

I can't contend with that.





djewleu is me!

*shudders* *shudders again* * and again*....

Guess we should all stop debating, since, I guess, in truth, we all know everything already, because we are all God. ^_^

 

[Willamena]

Nobody to take to the lions.

Or giraffes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Four thousand years of it and counting; and no god in sight. It is a COMMERCIAL item to help a certain parasitic elite benefit from superstitions.

But, archeologists have unearthed religious artifacts dating 10, and even 15 thousand years old, that were made from man. And few religions were started on greed. Yet again, you prove you really have nothing more than a petty grudge against religion, and no real reason to have it.

 

[Willamena]

‘The God who is all things must allow himself.’ What is that supposed to mean?

Just what it says! You allow yourself... I allow myself... It's not like "self" has a choice.

God is omnipotent and all-sufficient, and therefore wants for nothing; he has everything.

What does it mean to be "all-sufficient"? That sounds like a redundancy, as any sufficiency is inherently sufficient, and if the all-thing is sufficient it is sufficient. Same as if it's good. Or benevolent. Or evil. Or lacking. Or you. Or me.

What could it mean to want for nothing, if nothing is one of things you are?

And God is always present. I don’t know what you mean by ‘in all things.’

If "God" is always present, then he is present always (never not present in the world).

Here you are confusing identity with characteristics. Certainly all things may be said to identify God by the characteristics we attribute to him. For if he is the cause of all things then it must be correct to say his handprints are seen everywhere in the world. But God’s identity is the Absolutely Necessary Being. If the world and everything within it fell into non-existence tomorrow God’s identity wouldn’t be affected in the least.

Fortunately, I'm cooking fish today (herring: red). I don't think I'm confusing identity of the all-thing with its characteristics at all. I can only suspect you're not correctly identifying the all-thing (as all things).

How do you figure that the Absolutely Necessary Being that causes all things wouldn't fall into non-existence tomorrow as all absolutely necessarily caused being that identifies him does?

I’m sorry but that is not correct. Omnipresent means God is everywhere, always, all seeing, never absent and continually aware. It does not mean he is the physical manifestation of things, which would self-evidently contradict his identity.

So "God", as supreme being, is absent from the physical manifestation (being) of things, even though he's never absent? He's not the physical manifestation of things, even though he's literally everywhere?

What makes the phyiscal manifestation of things so special that they are excluded form the identity of the all-thing? (I'll give you three guesses...)

It makes no sense to speak of an omnipotent, necessarily existing creator who suffers, since what exists is what he created! The concept of God self-harming, needlessly, is absurd beyond words.

Too easy...

The above is not clearly expressed, but I think I know what it is you are saying. And it does make sense to say God is understood or perceived in everything, for that is the nature of belief.

Then why did you question it above? The all-thing is present in everything: every molecule, every being, every concept, every identity.

Sorry,

but don’t know what you mean by ‘an image of immanence’. And please explain the fallacy you keep referring to?

I'm tired of repeating myself.

 

[cottage]

I feel the need to glorify God because I believe I owe my existance to Him, as well as every good thing in my life, to Him. To me, that's reason enough for worshipping Him.

I understand and accept that. Put that way I guess it amounts to giving thanks, which is consistent with your beliefs, even if the object doesn't require or need them.

I realize there could be good without evil. I just don't think we would be able to recognize it as good. Furthermore, I believe that a life without challenges and trials would soon become very much without purpose. I won't argue with you that God ordained evil. That's not to say that we don't bring a lot of our trials upon ourselves. We make unfortunate choices and do things we know darned well have the potential to damage us. We are also the victims of other people's decisions and these decisions can bring tragedy into the lives of innocent people. As far as tsunamis, earthquakes, and other kinds of natural disasters are concerned... these can probably we attributed to God, although I don't think He sits up in His Heaven and decides that L.A. is overdue for an earthquake and that today would be as good as any to send one. My explanation (call it a desperate attempt to excuse God's behavior if you will) is that I believe that if there were a God, a being who actually was capable of having created a universe such as ours, with millions of different forms of life, each one capable of reproducing and continuing on for thousands upon thousands of years, a being who was capable of creating a species as infinitely marvelous and complex as a human being... that God would certainly have a knowledge as far superior to ours as ours is to that of an insect. While we cannot possibly recognize that there is any real purpose to the evil He appears to inflict upon us, I believe He has a purpose which, if we could understand it, would be logical and beautiful to us.

The problem of evil cannot be overcome because of the outright contradiction that arises from the logical and evidential arguments. There have been numerous apologetics from highly esteemed theologians such St Ireneus, St Augustine and St Thomas, and also objections by notable theist philosophers such as Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga et al. These people have all made arguments that attempt to circumvent the contradiction, while leaving it in place. In fact I even have one of my own:

What is suffering? 'Pain and suffering' can be very loose, subjective terms. At one end of an imaginary scale we might have a terrible world war, bringing about the deaths of millions, while at the other end of the same scale, at its very extreme, we might have an individual with a slight headache or an itchy foot. In between there will be people with all manner of conditions and ailments. At every point in our scale there will also be non-physical suffering, varying from minor stress to depression and the most extreme mental torture. So at one end of the scale we have incidences of discomfort and slight annoyance, and at the far end we have the most appalling horrors that man can conceive.

At what point is God's intervention desirable or warranted? And a what point does being a little uncomfortable advance to become traumatic? It would be plainly absurd to say all sensations must count as suffering. The case can be made that if God were to banish all sensation there could be no sentient beings. And if there were no sentient beings there could be no human race. Of course there doesn't have to be a human race, but that's a different matter entirely.

 

[cottage]

Just what it says! You allow yourself... I allow myself... It's not like "self" has a choice.

Sorry still don’t know what you mean. Put it in context of something, perhaps an example or two?

What does it mean to be "all-sufficient"? That sounds like a redundancy, as any sufficiency is inherently sufficient, and if the all-thing is sufficient it is sufficient. Same as if it's good. Or benevolent. Or evil. Or lacking. Or you. Or me.

‘All-sufficient’ is a theist term. It’s general meaning is strength, authority, wisdom and grace in abundance.

What could it mean to want for nothing, if nothing is one of things you are?

God is nothing?

If "God" is always present, then he is present always (never not present in the world).

Ahem! Look at my first sentence in the quote above.

Fortunately, I'm cooking fish today (herring: red). I don't think I'm confusing identity of the all-thing with its characteristics at all. I can only suspect you're not correctly identifying the all-thing (as all things).

Personal identity is a problem that has bedevilled philosophers for centuries, but no such difficulty arises when we speak of God, a being who supposedly cannot fail to exist. He is the Absolutely Necessary Being, the Creator. If he exists, then that is what he will be. No other attributes are self-evident, not omnipotence, not omnipresence and certainly not benevolence. Those are just assumed characteristics, as described by the Abrahamic religions.

How do you figure that the Absolutely Necessary Being that causes all things wouldn't fall into non-existence tomorrow as all absolutely necessarily caused being that identifies him does?

I’m sorry but that’s Russian to me. Would you put that in different words please?

So "God", as supreme being, is absent from the physical manifestation (being) of things, even though he's never absent? He's not the physical manifestation of things, even though he's literally everywhere?

What makes the phyiscal manifestation of things so special that they are excluded form the identity of the all-thing? (I'll give you three guesses...)

You misunderstand me. If God is omnipresent then he is never absent from the material world, but that doesn’t require him to be part of it. That he’s always aware of cows in a field doesn’t mean has to be a cow, or a field.

Then why did you question it above? The all-thing is present in everything: every molecule, every being, every concept, every identity.

Logically God cannot be physical or material, but I must make allowances for people’s faith, even if it is contradictory. So I respect your understanding, if not your argument.

I'm tired of repeating myself.

And I’m merely asking for a concise but intelligible explanation.

 

[Katzpur]

At what point is God's intervention desirable or warranted? And a what point does being a little uncomfortable advance to become traumatic? It would be plainly absurd to say all sensations must count as suffering. The case can be made that if God were to banish all sensation there could be no sentient beings. And if there were no sentient beings there could be no human race. Of course there doesn't have to be a human race, but that's a different matter entirely.

That's a good question, and I'm pretty sure I don't have an answer that would satisfy you. I would say that all negative sensations (physical and otherwise) can be said to constitute suffering to various degrees, so I guess I disagree with you that to say that a person suffers from an itchy foot is "plainly absurd." (The reason this hit home with me is that my mother died about six weeks ago at the age of 96. Due to poor circulation, her feet itched so badly that she could not sleep. Believe me, to her it was "suffering.")

At what point should God intervene? I wish I knew, because I asked Him to on many occasions when He didn't. At least He didn't in the way I had expected Him to. Over the period of time when she was sick (which fortunately was not long), I finally came to the conclusion that He does sometimes intercede. Of course a non-believer would insist that those occasions are really just coincidence and that the believer makes a point of remembering them and forgetting the times that He doesn't intercede. My own belief -- and I admit that's all it is -- is that there are different kinds of suffering and that God intercedes differently in different situations. I believe that He knows what we need in order to develop the strength of character He wants us to have. If He can intercede and alleviate suffering and we can still become what He wants us to become, He will. I don't think He enjoys seeing us suffer. I never enjoyed seeing my kids cry when I took them to the pediatrician as babies and allowed him to stick a long, sharp needle into their little thighs. I just knew it was something that would do them good in the long run.

By the way, thanks for the respectful dialogue. I know you disagree with me on most points, but I appreciate the fact that you have not been insulting.

 

[Humanistheart]

Anyway, there most certainly are compassionate God-concepts, and they're no more falsifiable than any other.

Such as?

 

[cottage]

That's a good question, and I'm pretty sure I don't have an answer that would satisfy you. I would say that all negative sensations (physical and otherwise) can be said to constitute suffering to various degrees, so I guess I disagree with you that to say that a person suffers from an itchy foot is "plainly absurd." (The reason this hit home with me is that my mother died about six weeks ago at the age of 96. Due to poor circulation, her feet itched so badly that she could not sleep. Believe me, to her it was "suffering.")

Ah, that is my point. For some an itchy foot might just be irritating or annoying but for others, such as your mother, it was certainly a case of suffering.

At what point should God intervene? I wish I knew, because I asked Him to on many occasions when He didn't. At least He didn't in the way I had expected Him to. Over the period of time when she was sick (which fortunately was not long), I finally came to the conclusion that He does sometimes intercede. Of course a non-believer would insist that those occasions are really just coincidence and that the believer makes a point of remembering them and forgetting the times that He doesn't intercede. My own belief -- and I admit that's all it is -- is that there are different kinds of suffering and that God intercedes differently in different situations. I believe that He knows what we need in order to develop the strength of character He wants us to have. If He can intercede and alleviate suffering and we can still become what He wants us to become, He will. I don't think He enjoys seeing us suffer. I never enjoyed seeing my kids cry when I took them to the pediatrician as babies and allowed him to stick a long, sharp needle into their little thighs. I just knew it was something that would do them good in the long run. [/quote

There is a case to be made that says unless we can say with certitude what suffering means we cannot say that suffering is evil. My view is that suffering and evil are one and the same if suffering is caused or allowed unnecessarily. The suffering your children experienced was of course necessary for their continued good health. The problem arises if it is said that God is all loving. But while it must be true that God is the cause of all things I can't for the life of me see why it must be assumed he is all-loving, when it doesn't fit with the facts. It may be as you say that he intervenes in particular situations, for reasons to which we are not privy. There is nothing illogical or contradictory about that - providing we don't insist upon fitting God with attributes that make him impossible. I don't see why God cannot be considered compassionate with a small 'c'.

By the way, thanks for the respectful dialogue. I know you disagree with me on most points, but I appreciate the fact that you have not been insulting.

Okay. :kat:

 

[Willamena]

Logically God cannot be physical or material, but I must make allowances for people’s faith, even if it is contradictory. So I respect your understanding, if not your argument.

Logic doesn't enter into your arguments. Your definition of "God" defies omnipotence, hence omnipresence and omniscience also do not enter the picture. If your image of God is not of omnipotence/omnipresent/omniscience, any argument made of the alleged Problem of Evil is tautological --"God" never was omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient in the argument to begin with. The conclusion is, indeed, self-evident.

The only absolute necessary existence in the world is "you".

And I’m merely asking for a concise but intelligible explanation.

No, you're not.

 

[cottage]

Logic doesn't enter into your arguments. Your definition of "God" defies omnipotence, hence omnipresence and omniscience also do not enter the picture. If your image of God is not of omnipotence/omnipresent/omniscience, any argument made of the alleged Problem of Evil is tautological --"God" never was omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient in the argument to begin with. The conclusion is, indeed, self-evident.[/quote]

First of all, if the creator is material then a fortiori it follows that he is not necessarily existent, and is therefore not the Christian-Judaeo or Islamic God.
Secondly, I argued that none of the characteristic attributed to God are necessary, other than his being the Absolutely Necessary Being, the Creator; however, it is not ‘my image’ of God we are discussing, but the age-old problem of evil. Quite regardless of whether the characteristics are necessary, or not, it happens that believers attribute them to God and that is what the argument is about.

No, you're not.

Er…yes...I am! <scratches head> I asked what you meant by ‘an image of immanence’?