What is your god like? (9 Viewers)

[Raz]

What it boils down to is that if there is a God, then he is one cruel bastard. Sending floods and tornadoes towards innocent villages, wielding his electrical stick trying to zap people randomly as He storms across the land in squall lines, and sending his murderous minions into schools to destroy the life that He created.

It's such a joke. Wish it could be funny.

If he would be real, i think the description you just mentioned would suit him.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

Thats the thing, your theory is based on imaginary thing "supernatural". Did you know that Poseidon, god of the sea is supernatural too? And yet you all involve this argument when there is no evidence of it only wishful thinking. But when atheist says something you ask 100% concrete evidence to back it up. double standarts?

Supernatural is not imaginary, you just think it is imaginary. To millions of people around the world, the supernatural cannot be any more real.

Only if you don't care about suffering. Which mostly people do actually care about, their own for starters.

Oh, I do care about suffering. Your questions seem a little silly though to be quite honest. Natural beauty and natural disasters don't work like a chemical equation, there doesn't have to be complete balance.

I will not be arrogant to claim that I know the mind of God, I am just postulating possible explanations, ones that seem viable and rational.

 

[Bjerknes]

So wait, God allows natural disasters for us to behold the beauty that He created?

Isn't that like false flag terror attacks?

God is a terrorist.

 

[Bjerknes]

If he would be real, i think the description you just mentioned would suit him.

That's what he does according to some people.

 

[Raz]

Supernatural is not imaginary, you just think it is imaginary. To millions of people around the world, the supernatural cannot be any more real.

To schizofrenic all his imaginary friends look real too. Dont remember who said it but i think he was right. When one people is deluded he is insane/schizofrenic, when millions it is called religion.

 

[Martin]

Oh, I do care about suffering. Your questions seem a little silly though to be quite honest. Natural beauty and natural disasters don't work like a chemical equation, there doesn't have to be complete balance.

But now you contradict yourself. You just said without suffering no happiness. So that means there is an equation.

there doesn't have to be complete balance.

And in fact you just said you know how the equation works. Tell us more, please.

I will not be arrogant to claim that I know the mind of God, I am just postulating possible explanations, ones that seem viable and rational.

Don't worry, he won't care. He's prolly out creating other worlds.

 

[Bjerknes]

Don't worry, he won't care. He's prolly out creating other worlds.

Nah, he's busy planning his next natural disaster.

 

[Martin]

Nah, he's busy planning his next natural disaster.

Or lighting the fire under the Israel conflict.

 

[Bjerknes]

Or lighting the fire under the Israel conflict.

Or giving 1,000 people cancer per day.

 

[rounder]

I'm glad you said that. Because it means that God, who is not natural, cannot cause anything.

Not quite. When we postulate what caused the universe to begin, this is still within the realms of the causality principle and the most plausible explanation is that a supernatural force that is timeless, endless, and infinite caused the universe to begin.

When I say God does not follow the principle of causality, this means he doesn't have to have a cause, but that does not revoke his power to able to cause either necessarily or unnecassarily.

The casaulity principle states that everything within nature that comes to being must necessarily have a cause. We apple this principle to the beggining of the universe, now infering that God caused this beggining is not the same as infering that God necassarily abides by the causality principle, but rather it is the universe that abides by this principle.

 

[Martin]

Not quite. When we postulate what caused the universe to begin, this is still within the realms of the causality principle and the most plausible explanation is that a supernatural force that is timeless, endless, and infinite caused the universe to begin.

When I say God does not follow the principle of causality, this means he doesn't have to have a cause, but that does not revoke his power to able to cause either necessarily or unnecassarily.

Of course it does. You said it yourself, causality follows natural law. If you're not natural, you can't participate in causality. Which is logical. What you want is to be natural and not natural both at the same time. Cause things but never be the cause of anything. That's not logical in the least.

 

[rounder]

But now you contradict yourself. You just said without suffering no happiness. So that means there is an equation.

And in fact you just said you know how the equation works. Tell us more, please.

Don't worry, he won't care. He's prolly out creating other worlds.

No. I never said anything about an equation, you must have misunderstood me then.

I said sadness and happiness complement each other, that is very far from stating it is a balanced equation. I stated that to appreciate happiness, you must experience sadness which I maintain to be reasonably true.

 

[rounder]

Of course it does. You said it yourself, causality follows natural law. If you're not natural, you can't participate in causality. Which is logical. What you want is to be natural and not natural both at the same time. Cause things but never be the cause of anything. That's not logical in the least.

You missed the point of my post. I will try again.

1) Everything natural follows the principle of causality,

2) God is supernatural.

from 1 and 2, God does not have to follow the principle of causility.

3) the universe is natural.

from 1 and 3. The universe had a cause.

Since God is not necessarily involved in the causality principle, that does not exclude the possibility of Him being able to participate in it. Now, God is supernatural thus does not have to be part of the causality necessarily. Unlike the universe that does have to partake in the principle of causality.[/B]


To sum it up, God unnecessarily cause the universe, which necessarily must have had a cause, to come into being.

I hope my point got through.

 

[Martin]

No. I never said anything about an equation, you must have understood me then.

I said sadness and happiness complement each other, that is very far from stating it is a balanced equation. I stated that to appreciate happiness, you must experience sadness which I maintain to be reasonably true.

You didn't say the word "equation", but that's what you implied. "There is a balance". "No one without the other." An equation is simply a precise way of saying the same thing. You also said the two things don't have to be balanced. Yet more knowledge you have of this equation.

If you say "there is no water without hydrogen" (which happens to be true) we can write than as an equation:

1*Water = 2*Hydrogen

So from what you have said we have:

x*Good = y*Evil

Now we just need to know what x and y are.

 

[Bjerknes]

I wonder how much thought God put into choosing 9.8 m/s^2 for the Earth's gravity, or if He just picked it randomly.

 

[Martin]

You missed the point of my post. I will try again.

1) Everything natural follows the principle of causality,

2) God is supernatural.

from 1 and 2, God does not have to follow the principle of causility.

3) the universe is natural.

from 1 and 3. The universe had a cause.

A cause other than God, yes. That follows from your axioms.

Since God is not necessarily involved in the causality principle, that does not exclude the possibility of Him being able to participate in it. Now, God is supernatural thus does not have to be part of the causality necessarily. Unlike the universe that does have to be part of nature necessarily.

You have to explain what you mean by "involved". Is he bound by causality or isn't he? We've already established that causality is based on the natural world. I know you like logic, so please be logical.

 

[rounder]

To schizofrenic all his imaginary friends look real too. Dont remember who said it but i think he was right. When one people is deluded he is insane/schizofrenic, when millions it is called religion.

Who the hell are you to deny profound human experiences with God? Because you have not experienced it, that gives you no right to say others who have claimed to have experienced it are deluded.

 

[Martin]

Who the hell are you to deny profound human experiences with God? Because you have not experienced it, that gives you no right to say others who have claimed to have experienced it are deluded.

I'm sure that's what schizophrenics say to their doctors.

 

[rounder]

A cause other than God, yes. That follows from your axioms.



You have to explain what you mean by "involved". Is he bound by causality or isn't he? We've already established that causality is based on the natural world. I know you like logic, so please be logical.

a supernatural cause is necessary, call it what you will.


He is not bound by causality. The universe is, however, and since the universe is bound by causality it is necessary that a supernatural force created it. There is no conflict with the statement," God is unbounded by causality". He could have created the universe unbounded by causality. The logic here is unfallable.

 

[rounder]

I'm sure that's what schizophrenics say to their doctors.

I'm sure that's a rather obnoxious statement. Surprising coming from you.