Questioning theodicy. Suffering and God. What say you?

[firedragon]

Give me a break. There was so obviously condescension and rancor in your post asking me if that was my concept of God. You trumped it up with "God like superman who rushes to save you and blows people away with his breath" - very obviously displaying that you thought that idea ridiculous. And then spaced out from the rest, you made a particular point to re-ask: "Is that your idea of God?"

Believe me - I use those same tactics in my posts. Asking things a second time for effect, using bombastic descriptions of things to trump-up their ridiculousness and make it obvious that I am displeased. The main difference between you and I is that I don't pretend otherwise when called out on it. I believe we've talked about this before, you and I. Still at it I see. Typical. Absolutely and sadly typical. Hope you get better @firedragon. So sad to hear that you're still not performing at peak levels of honesty. Sincerely.

Hmm. It is normal to see people judge others by their own standards mate.

Not relevant.

Bottomline is, your concept of God is a Superman like superhero. And that's that. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[firedragon]

Without evidence that God exists, attempting to bring evidence of any of these seems impossible.

Thats a different topic.

 

[MikeF]

Without evidence that God exists, attempting to bring evidence of any of these seems impossible.

If one starts to add conditions, if God exists and created everything, then certainly a person can point to individual events which render joy, relief, love, self-sacrifice, etc as support for a selectively benevolent God.

I have been instructed that in the thread, we are to start with the condition that God exists and created everything.

You bring up a point that has always fascinated me. Often I have observed much credit being attributed to God for good events, none more extreme that in a natural disaster situation, where God is given much credit for sparing life, saving a home, etc. I have never witnessed the reverse however. No blame is assigned to God for a lost home, for the loss of a family in an airline disaster, etc.

Is God involved and only selectively chooses to intervene? A common response to this question of negative outcomes is that the will of God is a mystery, and yet there seems to be so much assured understanding of the will of God in other respects.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Yes but still condemned by God right? I mean, that's the whole point of the original sin!
So far, the women still suffer the pain of labour because of the original sin as in Genesis. So this is your concept and this is why you say everything suffers.

Genesis is merely explaining the consequences of sin ( breaking God's law, and Eve did ) it was sinners Satan and Adam that caused the ^ above ^.
Right away in Genesis we can read the recorded 1st prophecy at Genesis 3:15
Right away God promised us a Messiah ( the seed ) to come.
If God had acted right away we would simply Not be here, we would Not have the opportunity to choose who we would like as Sovereign over us.
So, the passing of time has allowed for us to be born and to have the same opportunity that was originally offered to Adam before his downfall.
We can prove Satan a liar that No one would serve God under adverse conditions and settle the sin issue for all time to come.
Both Job and Jesus under Adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hmm. It is normal to see people judge others by their own standards mate.

Yes, I was judging you, but indicating that my standard includes honesty about what I am doing. Yours obviously do not.

Not relevant.

I tried being relevant - but then you came after me with the very stark appearance that my God concept was some issue for you - then stated that it wasn't an issue, and yet again below:

Bottomline is, your concept of God is a Superman like superhero. And that's that. Thanks for clarifying.

How is this relevant if you truly have "no problem in [me] having whatever concept of God?" What happens when my concept of God is a "Superman like superhero?" Where's the issue I am not seeing? How is this a valid rebuttal to my post that you're summing up with "Superman like superhero?" How does this comment/observation support your ideas?

Get real man. Stop lying to yourself and the rest of us. Besides this... you know darn well I hold no actual God concept. What a ridiculous notion. "God." Pff... doesn't matter what ANYONE thinks of the useless thing. That's where I truly stand.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Is God involved and only selectively chooses to intervene? A common response to this question of negative outcomes is that the will of God is a mystery, and yet there seems to be so much assured understanding of the will of God in other respects.

Interesting that you say ' selectively chooses to intervene ' because at the soon coming ' time of separation ' to take place on Earth as mentioned at Matthew 25:31-33,37 this will be a divine intervening, a divine involvement into mankind's affairs.
God's will (Golden Rule for example ) is that Earth be filled with righteous-hearted people.
Only the wicked will be: destroyed forever - Psalms 92:7; Psalms 104:35; Proverbs 2:21-22.
We all have the opportunity to ' repent ' if we don't want to ' perish ' (be destroyed) - 2 Peter 3:9

 

[firedragon]

Genesis is merely explaining the consequences of sin ( breaking God's law, and Eve did ) it was sinners Satan and Adam that caused the ^ above ^.
Right away in Genesis we can read the recorded 1st prophecy at Genesis 3:15
Right away God promised us a Messiah ( the seed ) to come.
If God had acted right away we would simply Not be here, we would Not have the opportunity to choose who we would like as Sovereign over us.
So, the passing of time has allowed for us to be born and to have the same opportunity that was originally offered to Adam before his downfall.
We can prove Satan a liar that No one would serve God under adverse conditions and settle the sin issue for all time to come.
Both Job and Jesus under Adverse conditions proved Satan a liar and so can we.

But the Genesis account says nothing about Satan mate.

I understand your position.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I was judging you, but indicating that my standard includes honesty about what I am doing. Yours obviously do not.

Thanks for engaging.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No need

Here, by "real" you mean "separate from your individual mind", right?

Yes

These are still unfounded beliefs. A mind could be all there is. Separation of mind and universe is not eminent to me.

Sure, they meet the criteria. Still not sure how you got to reality being separate from the mind though.

Simple for the bold part. What is my real life name? Now if you answer, I could lie, even if you get it right. That means there is something you can't control. In the broad sense your experiences come to you and you can't rule out that you are dreaming it all( Rene Descartes).
So the combination is that there is something you can't control and that, which you can't control, is, what gives you your experiences. Your experiences is separate from the mind in that you have no control over them in the metaphysical sense and that is objective reality. I.e. not being the mind, but the experiences in the mind.

There is logic and tautologies though, but they can't control the rest of objective reality and what you can do with logic, is also limited.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But the Genesis account says nothing about Satan mate. I understand your position.

Not Satan by name, but Revelation 12:9,12 does place that serpent as being Satan.
In speaking to Eve, Satan could have used that serpent the same way a ventriloquist uses his dummy. ( serpents do Not talk, now or back then )

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thanks for engaging.

You are absolutely welcome.

 

[firedragon]

Not Satan by name, but Revelation 12:9,12 does place that serpent as being Satan.
In speaking to Eve, Satan could have used that serpent the same way a ventriloquist uses his dummy. ( serpents do Not talk, now or back then )

Alright mate. Cheers.

 

[darkskies]

So the combination is that there is something you can't control and that, which you can't control, is, what gives you your experiences. Your experiences is separate from the mind in that you have no control over them in the metaphysical sense and that is objective reality. I.e. not being the mind, but the experiences in the mind.

I understand your point. I might go a little more speculative now, so bear with me.
The mind is quite mysterious, even from a neurological perspective. I think we can agree on that.
Your mind could be far, far deeper than just a shallow processor of "outside" experiences. Just because consciousness, memory, and all relevant parts of this mind are utilised by you to "experience" things, doesn't mean that the much larger background program can't simulate the rest to convince you it's real. Essentially, what you concieve of as your mind, would be a mere part of the actual one.

 

[darkskies]

Given our collective knowledge and understanding of how we and the cosmos function, I find it quite astonishing that one would argue that all of this is in one particular persons mind.

I am not arguing for it, only arguing for it's possibility. Also, since the person is me and the mind is mine, I can only acknowledge the possibility for myself.
And I think you undermine the mind. The proposition should still be considered given what we don't know about the mind.

 

[Heyo]

Nope. Its a demand.

Is it a demand when I they water has to freeze at 0° C?

Its a false dilemma. Either God has to stop all evil by intervening at every micro level, or there is no God.

That's your, very much over simplified, interpretation. So much over simplified that it becomes a straw man.
And it still isn't a demand.

Thus, what you said is false. Theists dont demand that God intervenes at every level of everything, it the atheists. Though many of the atheists are also trying their best to bring this thread too to their favourite topic of a teacup flying around the earth or a spaghetti monster or a "No God" argument, this is not a logical conclusion, it is a logical fallacy.

The logical fallacy I see is your straw man.

We may have very different expectations of what logic is. As I pointed out in an other thread, theists are noobs in the art of logic and frequently fail at it. We might have to come to a consensus of what is logical before we can have a fruitful debate.

 

[firedragon]

Is it a demand when I they water has to freeze at 0° C?

If you insist.

That's your, very much over simplified, interpretation. So much over simplified that it becomes a straw man.
And it still isn't a demand.

Thanks.

The logical fallacy I see is your straw man.

We may have very different expectations of what logic is. As I pointed out in an other thread, theists are noobs in the art of logic and frequently fail at it. We might have to come to a consensus of what is logical before we can have a fruitful debate.

Whats the strawman I made. Please explain?

 

[firedragon]

I can see a lot of angry atheists for some reason.

 

[darkskies]

Either God has to stop all evil by intervening at every micro level, or there is no God.

I don't think anyone said this. The point is to show that god can't have those attributes and be all-good at the same time.

 

[Heyo]

Whats the strawman I made. Please explain?

You said:

Either God has to stop all evil by intervening at every micro level, or there is no God.

That is only true if god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. (And I think all atheists said something similar to that in this thread.) If you leave that out, it is a straw man.

But that wasn't the purpose of your question, was it? You aren't ignorant about what a straw man is, are you?
You just pretend to be dumb so that you don't have to admit that you are wrong. Am I right?

 

[firedragon]

You said:


That is only true if god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. (And I think all atheists said something similar to that in this thread.) If you leave that out, it is a straw man.

But that wasn't the purpose of your question, was it? You aren't ignorant about what a straw man is, are you?
You just pretend to be dumb so that you don't have to admit that you are wrong. Am I right?

I think you are implying others maybe just like you or something. So, I have heard a few people making assumptions about other peoples dishonesty because they are dishonest themselves so they dont know how else to judge others.

So I generally leave this kind of cheap discussions to the individual himself to enjoy on his own.

Have a good one.