Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See that? To some "it matters a great deal"...for me and others it doesn't.
Like I said...we all have our unique and individual preferences.
And I will use things available at any given time to my preferences and desires. Realizing that for all the "good" they do....they do just as much "bad". Subjectively, of course.
Our transportation pollutes, it is used to mass kill others in war, it is used for crimes of all sorts....same with all other technology.
I will both like and dislike all technology.
Actually, many science & technology people say the reason so many are impoverished in this world is because we have too many people, living too long...so.
Man has been around for 6 million (our ancestors) years, "modern man" about 200,000. If man needed science and technical knowledge to survive...how did the species sustain for all the time before a few thousand years ago when we really started to advance technically?
This idea that "Science & Technology" is all so great...has not seen people that were just on the receiving end of a airstrike or gassed, had their child lured to be trafficked over the internet, or looked at the Climate Change situation.
Scientific advances have us on the verge of the planet being destroyed for decent habitation (according to most scientists)...Religion never did that.
Of course technological advances have potential harms, at the same time they may benefit. Very much a double-edged sword, and I have never said otherwise. For that matter, I have always been a "slow adopter" of new technology, if not an outright Luddite.
None of which has anything to do with the difference between "knowing" and "believing," the relative merits of each when it comes to understanding reality, or (.... getting back to the topic of thread...) whether god(s) are real.
Of course...the real deal, is that those ideas are derived from the Theological writings that are metaphorical and allegorical, and mistaken for literal by Mr. Prager and many others.
But even if it was literal...that provides for a Omnimax Powered God that knows everything and can do anyything, and has "thoughts & ways above ours"...which is why what we may not be able to figure out can be done by God.
The Bible fully explains it: "His thoughts & ways are above ours".
He knows, we don't & can't. He can do what we can't, and don't understand.
Thus, according to the literal interpretation: It's not the way you think it is...you just think so because you are assessing the Omnimax Creator of the Universe, using your puny limited mental resources.
So, there ya go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
At some point you are going to have to realize that you can never win a "Literal Bible" argument that critiques God.
A literal Bible interpretation ALWAYS includes ***The Omnimax Powered God whos thoughts and ways are above ours dunnit***
I know you do not like that...but if you are going to argue the Bible literally and accept how it says everything is and went down just how it is written...you must accept the Omnimax Powered God that functions above you, as well.
Whoa Nelly, how can that be?!!: Because God Dunnit and you don't & can't possibly understand!
It's right in the Book, over and over again...or did you forget that part?
It's the answer for everything...Adam & Eve and Creation, the Flood & Noah, all the "miracles", etc, etc, etc.
God Dunnit...done deal! Don't like that? Then don't argue The Bible literally, cuz that's what it literally says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
This is just more of a never ending offer of the ignorant and illogical "Problem of Evil/Suffering" argument.
This argument against the Abrahamic God has been put forth millions of times. And it fails every time.
1st of all...Suffering is good. The Theological writing says so.
And...if the premise of the argument provides as a given "a tri-OMNI God"...the argument that anything could be "wrong" with its creation fails by that tri-OMNI God premise.
If God is tri-OMNI...any assessment of its creation by the puny humans God created is not valid.
The tri-OMNI Gods "thoughts and ways are above ours"...the same source (The Theological writings) that informs that God is tri-OMNI, also informs that God's thoughts and ways are above ours, thus we are not to question it...and also says that longsuffering is good, and a "fruit of the Spirit". Galatians 5:22-23 KJV
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
So, all that human mental & physical level analysis is worthless, and failed from the get-go.
Bottom Line: If you claim the God you critique is tri-OMNI (and you know you aren't), then you are messed up from the jump to make any analysis of the good/bad or right/wrong of what that tri-OMNI Entity did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeelaMonster
Of course technological advances have potential harms, at the same time they may benefit. Very much a double-edged sword, and I have never said otherwise. For that matter, I have always been a "slow adopter" of new technology, if not an outright Luddite.
None of which has anything to do with the difference between "knowing" and "believing," the relative merits of each when it comes to understanding reality, or (.... getting back to the topic of thread...) whether god(s) are real.
I'd already addressed what was called the "lunacy" (just a "Problem of Evil/Suffering rehash) that supposedly "shows that God isn't real".
See above^^^.
The argument fails every time.
Of course technological advances have potential harms, at the same time they may benefit. Very much a double-edged sword, and I have never said otherwise. For that matter, I have always been a "slow adopter" of new technology, if not an outright Luddite.
None of which has anything to do with the difference between "knowing" and "believing," the relative merits of each when it comes to understanding reality, or (.... getting back to the topic of thread...) whether god(s) are real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
I'd already addressed what was called the "lunacy" (just a "Problem of Evil/Suffering rehash) that supposedly "shows that God isn't real".
See above^^^.
The argument fails every time.
Thanks (but no thanks). I sense that I may have misdirected your attention with my closing nod to the overarching topic of thread (whether God is real), so will apologize for any wasted effort in dredging up your earlier replies. I have no interest in rehashing the argument of OP.
To be perfectly honest, I have little interest in "deeper" theological arguments (such as the Problem of Evil/Suffering). Perhaps that makes me simple-minded, but I think these discussions put the cart waaaay before the horse. Yes, they can be interesting at a philosophical level, but I believe there are much more practical/fundamental questions to be addressed first. Namely, is there any reason to think there actually are gods, that cannot be immediately seen as the products of human imagination? If we can't answer that clearly and convincingly, there is no point in going further. [ETA: I do recognize that the theological arguments can be part of answering that existential question, in some eyes]
With zero evidence to support the existence of any gods, and even less to support the Abrahamic God... there is no point in discussing the characteristics, goals, emotions, thoughts, wants, needs of these imagined/speculative beings. For me, it is a sure sign that a theist hasn't thought much at all, if they explain that "God works in mysterious ways" or "the mind of God is unknowable".... and then proceed to tell us precisely how their god works, and what it thinks, wants, expects, does, says, and feels... all with explicit detail, right down to the very words spoken. Gimmee a break. I prefer to pause at the first question, since we aren't even equipped to answer that one yet.
We might as well be pondering what the inhabitants of Jupiter will feed us for lunch, when we land there sometime in the future. Both lines of questioning are equally supported by the available evidence (which is to say, not at all).
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 06-11-2021 at 08:20 PM..
Thanks (but no thanks). I sense that I may have misdirected your attention with my closing nod to the overarching topic of thread (whether God is real), so will apologize for any wasted effort in dredging up your earlier replies. I have no interest in rehashing the argument of OP.
To be perfectly honest, I have little interest in "deeper" theological arguments (such as the Problem of Evil/Suffering). Perhaps that makes me simple-minded, but I think these discussions put the cart waaaay before the horse. Yes, they can be interesting at a philosophical level, but I believe there are much more practical/fundamental questions to be addressed first. Namely, is there any reason to think there actually are gods, that cannot be immediately seen as the products of human imagination? If we can't answer that clearly and convincingly, there is no point in going further. [ETA: I do recognize that the theological arguments can be part of answering that existential question, in some eyes]
With zero evidence to support the existence of any gods, and even less to support the Abrahamic God... there is no point in discussing the characteristics, goals, emotions, thoughts, wants, needs of these imagined/speculative beings. For me, it is a sure sign that a theist hasn't thought much at all, if they explain that "God works in mysterious ways" or "the mind of God is unknowable".... and then proceed to tell us precisely how their god works, and what it thinks, wants, expects, does, says, and feels... all with explicit detail, right down to the very words spoken. Gimmee a break. I prefer to pause at the first question, since we aren't even equipped to answer that one yet.
We might as well be pondering what the inhabitants of Jupiter will feed us for lunch, when we land there sometime in the future. Both lines of questioning are equally supported by the available evidence (which is to say, not at all).
Thank you. I appreciate that you are trying to respect the thread boundaries and I, in turn, am NOT trying to lure you into sinning! Suffice to say that there are many definitions for "god"... and I suspect the interpretation on which you rely would not be recognizable to the majority of that mythical 85% (yet another reason that pointing to them for support in numbers carries little weight). But speaking of mythical, I will say that your views are more thought-provoking than those of the biblical literalists.
Thank you. I appreciate that you are trying to respect the thread boundaries and I, in turn, am NOT trying to lure you into sinning! Suffice to say that there are many definitions for "god"... and I suspect the interpretation on which you rely would not be recognizable to the majority of that mythical 85% (yet another reason that pointing to them for support in numbers carries little weight). But speaking of mythical, I will say that your views are more thought-provoking than those of the biblical literalists.
Actually, it looks if he is still up to his old tricks of smearing everything with his beliefs, now, using the method of posting links. Amounts to pretty much the same violation, IMHO.
Actually, it looks if he is still up to his old tricks of smearing everything with his beliefs, now, using the method of posting links. Amounts to pretty much the same violation, IMHO.
Maybe it's just because I had not previously wandered over to the "Thread Which Shall Not be Named"... but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt (if not the benefit of the belief).
No, it's a fine component of Natural Law. But creationism and the great flood, sure are.
Actually, the flood is mentioned in pretty much every ancient religious text you can find, and there is actual archeological evidence to suggest that the flood did indeed happen. So yeah...there's that. You don't have to be religious or believe in a creator to realize that often where there is smoke, there is fire. So when you have an event that is recorded in so many ancient texts, there just may be some truth to the story even if it wasn't an event that was a direct judgement from God against humanity.
Also, I always like to ask people who are so against "creationism" just what it is about "evolution" or the "big bang" that they find so much more believable. On one side, you have people who believe in a creator, who built heaven and earth. On the other, you have people who believe that essentially all creation was just a fluke. Chance dictated that all we know would exist. An explosion in space started it all. Also, a "theory" mind you. So yeah, just curious how one picks one fantastical idea over another and simply calls that theory "the truth". I mean, I know how creationists feel about it. They have "faith" in their God. But as for the "big bangers" out there, there's nothing to have faith in. Everything just happened dude, and when we die that's it. That's the gist of it from most non-believers. So what's your take on it all Salty? I myself don't have a damn clue. I grew up Baptist, but now I don't know what I believe. I don't believe we were all created from a super dense dust cloud though. Maybe aliens????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suffice to say that there are many definitions for "god"... and I suspect the interpretation on which you rely would not be recognizable to the majority of that mythical 85% (yet another reason that pointing to them for support in numbers carries little weight). But speaking of mythical, I will say that your views are more thought-provoking than those of the biblical literalists.
