Ant, do you know of a human that possess any of those 3 "powers?"

Oh, you mean these words were created by humans. Ah, good point.

an·thro·po·mor·phic
ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/Submit
adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
having human characteristics.

Chris wrote:Oh, you mean these words were created by humans. Ah, good point.

Oh gosh!

The definitions given are exclusive(by virtue of how they are infinitely inclusive). Meaning, you don't need to know anything more than the components. Either your definitions are wrong or logic is wrong. There is no way around this. There is no appeal that changes this. Appealing to our ifinitesimally puny human intelligence and understanding does not change this.

That's brutal (above)

Language is a self referential system. it can only prove its definitions by referencing other definitions created by the same system. in short, the system proves itself because it has no other means of validity. It's circular reasoning.

Our logic is a human construct. Which means it is the logic of "ifinitesimally puny human intelligence and understanding"
To universalize the logic of "puny human intelligence" with the expectation of it acting as a True interpreter of Reality, is, um.., not logical.

It's your choice which you decide to appeal too.

Now what were we talking about..,
Oh yeah, the Mind of a God and what it should be doing.

Please continue.

Interbane wrote:an·thro·po·mor·phic
ˌanTHrəpəˈmôrfik/Submit
adjective
relating to or characterized by anthropomorphism.
having human characteristics.

Chris wrote:Oh, you mean these words were created by humans. Ah, good point.

Oh gosh!

No, they actually were created from lifeless matter.

Ant, I don't know what you're talking about. It must suck to not be comfortable being honest about your beliefs. I see how you're forced to continuously answer questions with word salad. And all to avoid having your position analyzed and possibly critiqued. You've developed this method of being vague and indirect apparently to preserve your belief system, whatever that may be.

ant wrote:Language is a self referential system. it can only prove its definitions by referencing other definitions created by the same system. in short, the system proves itself because it has no other means of validity. It's circular reasoning.

I think your philosophy of language is a bit off. The definitions words we use to refer to things aren’t so much proven as they are agreed upon. When two cavemen first met and grunted the word for “tree”, they agreed on a word. That word was a reference to something external, objective, and very much real. The truth of a proposition does not rest only on internal references to language. It also relies upon how closely the proposition matches up to reality, using the words whose definitions we agree upon.

If we agree upon the definitions of the words “omnipotent”, “omniscient”, and “omnibenevolent”, then we can form conclusive propositions.

ant wrote:Our logic is a human construct. Which means it is the logic of "ifinitesimally puny human intelligence and understanding"

To universalize the logic of "puny human intelligence" with the expectation of it acting as a True interpreter of Reality, is, um.., not logical.

It's your choice which you decide to appeal too.

It’s my choice what I decide to appeal to? What are the options in this choice? We have logic, which we’ve established doesn’t work. And what else? What alternative is there that you’re proposing is more effective at arriving at the truth than logic? What am I choosing between, where I mistakenly choose logic?

The idea that logic acts as the TRUE interpreter of REALITY is a straw man. Nothing is certain or absolutely objectively true. Where you miss the fine print here is that logic is the best we can do. We have no better tool. It need not be absolute in order for it to be the best tool in the bag.

What’s most telling about your response is that whether you realize it or not, you just stepped foot into Stahrwe’s camp. By implying that logic is insufficient to measure the concept of god, you’re holding that concept to be above logic. When the choice is required between logic and your treasured concept, you choose your concept. Which necessarily means you think logic is faulty. History has shown time and again what wins between logic and mankind's treasured concepts. But hey, here's to rolling the dice.

Flann wrote:But if you were God how would you prevent such events as the holocaust?

isn't your God all powerful all knowing all wise all etc etc ...all good.

he obviously isn't very imaginative if he can't figure out a way to stop the holocaust. (no disrespect intended)

it's so easy, send an Angel of Death (they're in the bible you know) and take the nazi bastards out. He took out Uzzah for just touching the ark so the Fuehrer shouldn't be a problem.

Flann wrote: Create automata rather than humans?

or how about create humans that can do a little better en masse, should be easy, he's god, or is he just a dud concept. Couldn't he simply flash an alternative life into the minds of all major sinners to show them how much better it would be if they hadn't made so many wrong choices. How about hitting them with His cosmic uber love so they just can't stomach evil any more.

Flann wrote:Disease,death and Tsunamis are another matter.

not really, is he god or is he not, you are missing the point, because if you didn't miss the point you would have to have a change of mind.

the christian has too much, wayyyyyy too much of their sense of self invested in this concept of God so they have no choice but to miss the point.

better to be honest and admit you need to refine your concept of god than sacrifice truth and reason in the name of a poor metaphor for the transcendant.

Flann wrote:No doubt atheists think the fall...

here we go... excuses excuses... oh we are fallen. What!?!?!? god is so impotent he sits there for thousands of years before sending the jesus of orthodoxy and till then his murdering bunch of thugs rampage across the land committing genocide!

don't you get it? your concept of god is found insufficient to reason.

it's a bad interpretation of an old mythology.

fall or no fall, if we are fallen it shows he was not up to the task of creating a race that could outwit a talking snake, assuming the orthodox folly style of interpretation.

perhaps in another thread you can explain the fall to us all.

Flann wrote:....and Christian explanation of death and suffering and the creation itself being fallen as a result of human rebellion and sin is inadequate and no justification for the suffering.

damn right it's inadequate and no justification for the suffering, human rebellion?!?! mate the church has been telling people they are sinners so long most of 'em believe it and start to act accordingly, the doctrine of eternal damnation means that if you torture 'em you are simply warming them up for god, that is the implication.

human rebellion!?!?!? oh we are all rebels, all those little babies have sin in 'em the little rebels.... or do they do just fine till somebody sells 'em a lie?

Flann wrote:If you were God would you prevent God from murdering his own son? makes no sense to me

that's not it, the question is If you were God would you prevent The crucifixion/murder of your own son, Jesus Christ

this gets to the heart of orthodoxy, this ridiculous doctrine that beating jesus to death for our sins is a good strategy, bullshit, it's barbaric! It's scapegoat on steroids.

if you are omnipotent you can come up with a better way easily... you are omnipotent and omnipresent you can simply speak directly into the mind of all and promise them that if they move one inch closer to that sin they are contemplating you will cause their food to taste like shit (literally) and sex to be excruciatingly painful, and breathing air will smell like beer farts. voila sin levels way down, then after the humans realise they like not sinning better than sinning you simply forgive them.

Jesus can have the day off for turning water into wine, no good deed deserves to go unrewarded

i think a lot of the twisted psychology behind evil behaviour can be traced to bad monotheistic literalism. People dont just get up one morning and think damn it i'm going to be evil, often they get loaded up with lies until they break. Lies like "you are a sinner" "you deserve hell" "sex is bad" etc etc

Flann wrote:But how would you prevent the holocaust?

your god for christ's sake, the same god that said this...

15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.


jesus, if you can kill infants why not nazi's you are god after all

Flann wrote:The biblical God commands his creatures not to murder

but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.


that's the biblical god Flann, it's not from an atheist manifesto it's from the bible first samuel chapter fifteen.

Flann wrote:...and threatens future judgement and retribution to those who do.

promises promises, what has he done for us lately...

he is not omnipotent, he is impotent because he is simply a dud concept arrived at by literalising mythology.

trade the douche in for a better concept.

Flann wrote:Sam Harris comes mighty close in his writings to absolving humans of moral responsibility.
A serial killer is no more worthy of moral outrage than a hungry bear in his view. So why his moral outrage against Islamic terrorists or Christian ethics?
In the great evolutionary lottery we just got the 'God gene' and he got the 'atheist gene'
It's really a job for the scientists to sort out by future gene manipulation probably. Get rid of those 'bad' genes.
John Lennox debated Michael Shermer on the nature of evil and suffering in relation to God. I don't think Lennox or anyone else has all the answers but it may provide some perspectives at least.

here we go.... now we've talked long enough we can leave the unpleasant implication of the poll behind and switch to something more comfortable... something to ease the dissonance

because comfort is more important than truth.

look Flann, i like you i really do so i wrote this out to try to get you to see there is no way out, your orthodox conception of god is unworkable, try to break through the pain barrier, you are not your ideas and conceptions, you can have a weak childish conception of god and then challenge it and refine it drop it altogether whatever but you cant get around this...

the orthodox conception of god is unworkable.

you know why christians have this thing called apologetics...

because the concept they peddle is so full of holes that someone has to apologise for it and the christian orthodox perception is so impotent he can't apologise for himself, the problems all come because mythology isn't meant to be taken literally.

i love the bible, i love it as literature and metaphor, not as a fascist god's truth and history. The good bits i can profit from, the pathetic bits i am free to reject entirely and orthodoxy can kiss my ass.

the truth is supposed to set you free not lock you up in mind forged manacles.

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

lot's of edits, trying to make more sense.

i was going to respond to ant's dodging ducking and weaving but Chris and Interbane have it totally covered, which is great because he'd probably just call me a simpleton troll....... again

i found a bit of John Figdor that seems entirely relevant to this thread.

The occasion was a discussion on the problem of evil—or why bad things happen to good people. As it happens, I was studying the Holocaust at the same time in my social studies class at school. During the discussion, my faintly Christian beliefs were utterly unable to explain why a benevolent God would allow the radical evil of the Holocaust to happen. Worse, I discovered apologists arguing all sorts of insane things, such as:

Jews deserved the Holocaust for being insufficiently holy.
The Bible’s answer was in the Book of Job, which suggests that human beings cannot question God’s morality because God’s infinite ways are so far beyond our human comprehension.

I was appalled. The absence of intellectual rigor in the arguments, the transparent lack of real compassion for the victims of the Holocaust, and the inability of the apologists even to consider the possibility of God’s culpability in the world’s horrors opened my eyes to the lack of serious answers to this critical problem. The deeper I dug, the worse it became. Not only did I discover a foundational problem with Christian theology (the assertion that God is omnibenevolent, or “perfectly good”) but, worse, I found myself turned off by a church that seemed more interested in preserving the dignity and moral purity of God than concerned for the systematic murder of millions.

Youkrst, did you get my email? We can present this question (or a variation of it) to the authors in our email interview.