Total Posts:55|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God Summed up perfectly

OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 8:57:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can't watch it right now, but I'm gonna take a wild guess and say its offensive to Christians.

And then Atheists say their the tolerant ones.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 3:01:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"If you wanted to make a baby cry, first you give it a lolipop, then you take it away. If you never gave it a lolipop in the first place, then it would have nothing to cry about." -Chef

Lol This describes a posibility Christians seem to ignore, which I have always brought up. They say that maybe God allows evil for some greater good, but neglect the fact that it's just as plausible that he allows good for some greater evil (assuming he exists for the sake of argument).
Regardless, God "summed up perfectly" is:

"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance" - Neil deGrasse Tyson (astrophysicist)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:06:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 3:01:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Lol This describes a posibility Christians seem to ignore, which I have always brought up. They say that maybe God allows evil for some greater good, but neglect the fact that it's just as plausible that he allows good for some greater evil (assuming he exists for the sake of argument).

If that was true he wouldn't be maximally great meaning he wouldn't be God. The argument would make sense if God was defined as a maximally bad being.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:18:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:06:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 3:01:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Lol This describes a posibility Christians seem to ignore, which I have always brought up. They say that maybe God allows evil for some greater good, but neglect the fact that it's just as plausible that he allows good for some greater evil (assuming he exists for the sake of argument).

If that was true he wouldn't be maximally great meaning he wouldn't be God. The argument would make sense if God was defined as a maximally bad being.

Maybe what's evil to us is great/good to him.

Maybe he has a different concept of good and evil.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"infidels broil in hell" i love it! lol but in seriousness that's always been a gap in christian thinking i never understood if god is all powerful and all knowing and all great why would he create a defective angel? why wouldent he destroy Lucifer if he is all powerful? and why would he make a deal with this defective being of his own creation with our souls on the line? that doesn't sound very wise for an all knowing entity.
Slimy yet satisfying"
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:27:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 8:55:53 AM, Nosaj5q wrote:
I saw this and thought it was perfect (sorry this was the only clip i could find)

Amazing
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:38:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:18:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/16/2012 4:06:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 3:01:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Lol This describes a posibility Christians seem to ignore, which I have always brought up. They say that maybe God allows evil for some greater good, but neglect the fact that it's just as plausible that he allows good for some greater evil (assuming he exists for the sake of argument).

If that was true he wouldn't be maximally great meaning he wouldn't be God. The argument would make sense if God was defined as a maximally bad being.

Maybe what's evil to us is great/good to him.

Maybe he has a different concept of good and evil.

Then we still wouldn't call him maximally great.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:46:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:44:18 PM, Nosaj5q wrote:
maybe if there is a god he isn't maximally great but in fact fallible just like all things.

Then he wouldn't be God haha
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:51:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
how do we know god isn't some egotistical punk who thinks hes just so fu**ing cool? what the scripture? if it's true that the scripture is the message of god how do we know he isn't lying about being perfect because he isn't? that's like reading someones autobiography and it say's "i am perfect" well he can't be lying cuz i mean hes perfect.
Slimy yet satisfying"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 4:53:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:51:26 PM, Nosaj5q wrote:
how do we know god isn't some egotistical punk who thinks hes just so fu**ing cool? what the scripture? if it's true that the scripture is the message of god how do we know he isn't lying about being perfect because he isn't? that's like reading someones autobiography and it say's "i am perfect" well he can't be lying cuz i mean hes perfect.

If that's true then he still doesn't fit the the definition of God.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:00:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:53:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 4:51:26 PM, Nosaj5q wrote:
how do we know god isn't some egotistical punk who thinks hes just so fu**ing cool? what the scripture? if it's true that the scripture is the message of god how do we know he isn't lying about being perfect because he isn't? that's like reading someones autobiography and it say's "i am perfect" well he can't be lying cuz i mean hes perfect.

If that's true then he still doesn't fit the the definition of God.

Why does he have to?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:02:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lets say hypothetically that i buy an ant farm right? then i genetically engineer these ants to be extremely intelligent. then i made them a little ant book to read that talks about how awesome and perfect i am and how after they live there ant lives they can come live with me in eternal bliss. than the initial ants died and generations pass and the little ant named stubs says. "god is perfect because he is god" then the little ant named nosaj5q says. "well how do we know god isn't fallible" get it??? Just because god say's so doesn't necessarily make it true.
Slimy yet satisfying"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:05:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes but I'm saying we define God as someone who is maximally great. If you think there is some maximally evil being than that's fine but he would not be God and also I have not heard convincing arguments for that side.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:12:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:06:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 3:01:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Lol This describes a posibility Christians seem to ignore, which I have always brought up. They say that maybe God allows evil for some greater good, but neglect the fact that it's just as plausible that he allows good for some greater evil (assuming he exists for the sake of argument).

If that was true he wouldn't be maximally great meaning he wouldn't be God. The argument would make sense if God was defined as a maximally bad being.

There is no one definition of God, I can pull up plenty without "maximally great being" being mentioned. Regardless, if he was evil, he would want you to think he was a maximally great being. Thus, your semantic argument fails.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:12:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:38:54 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 4:18:41 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/16/2012 4:06:45 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 3:01:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Lol This describes a posibility Christians seem to ignore, which I have always brought up. They say that maybe God allows evil for some greater good, but neglect the fact that it's just as plausible that he allows good for some greater evil (assuming he exists for the sake of argument).

If that was true he wouldn't be maximally great meaning he wouldn't be God. The argument would make sense if God was defined as a maximally bad being.

Maybe what's evil to us is great/good to him.

Maybe he has a different concept of good and evil.

Then we still wouldn't call him maximally great.

Why would that matter.

I wouldn't call homosexuality, wrong or sinful or bad, either. But you're telling me that it doesn't matter what I say about homosexuality, all that matters is that god considers it evil.

So why wouldn't this apply to your comment.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:13:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:05:00 PM, stubs wrote:
Yes but I'm saying we define God as someone who is maximally great. If you think there is some maximally evil being than that's fine but he would not be God and also I have not heard convincing arguments for that side.

Also, if God exists, who said he had to match up with mere human definitions of him? This assumption on your part, is extremely fallacious.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
why cant there be a maximally in between being? your thinking is either full evil or full good take a look around you we live in shades of gray my friend the line between good an evil isn't as obvious as you might think. you also appear to be ignoring the fact that you're definition of god has the possibility of being bias since it was created by said "perfect" being please stop ignoring the fact that the guidelines of your god were set up by your god. making them likely false or at least exaggerated.
Slimy yet satisfying"
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:37:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:12:31 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/16/2012 4:06:45 PM, stubs wrote:

If that was true he wouldn't be maximally great meaning he wouldn't be God. The argument would make sense if God was defined as a maximally bad being.

There is no one definition of God, I can pull up plenty without "maximally great being" being mentioned. Regardless, if he was evil, he would want you to think he was a maximally great being. Thus, your semantic argument fails.

Sure we can define God as certain things but just using the standard that WLC uses as "maximally great" as well as a lot of theologians. If he was evil and wanted us to think he was maximally great that's fine, but we wouldn't call him God.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:38:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:12:32 PM, tkubok wrote:

Why would that matter.

I wouldn't call homosexuality, wrong or sinful or bad, either. But you're telling me that it doesn't matter what I say about homosexuality, all that matters is that god considers it evil.

So why wouldn't this apply to your comment.

I am sorry I don't understand what you are trying to say.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:39:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 4:23:02 PM, Nosaj5q wrote:
"infidels broil in hell" i love it! lol but in seriousness that's always been a gap in christian thinking i never understood if god is all powerful and all knowing and all great why would he create a defective angel? why wouldent he destroy Lucifer if he is all powerful? and why would he make a deal with this defective being of his own creation with our souls on the line? that doesn't sound very wise for an all knowing entity.

I think those is going towards the problem of evil. I just did a debate on it and I would gladly talk about the POE with you.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:41:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:13:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/16/2012 5:05:00 PM, stubs wrote:
Yes but I'm saying we define God as someone who is maximally great. If you think there is some maximally evil being than that's fine but he would not be God and also I have not heard convincing arguments for that side.

Also, if God exists, who said he had to match up with mere human definitions of him? This assumption on your part, is extremely fallacious.

Well if he didn't match up with our definition of God then we wouldn't call him God. If you thought my name was Stubs but you found out it's really Mike, you would be wrong for calling me Stubs.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:21:06 PM, Nosaj5q wrote:
why cant there be a maximally in between being? your thinking is either full evil or full good take a look around you we live in shades of gray my friend the line between good an evil isn't as obvious as you might think. you also appear to be ignoring the fact that you're definition of god has the possibility of being bias since it was created by said "perfect" being please stop ignoring the fact that the guidelines of your god were set up by your god. making them likely false or at least exaggerated.

I am not arguing that there is not a lot of gray area. But as philosophers, historians, and scientist will all tell you that we move from the clear to the unclear. We never start with the unclear. It just wouldn't make any sense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:41:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 5:13:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/16/2012 5:05:00 PM, stubs wrote:
Yes but I'm saying we define God as someone who is maximally great. If you think there is some maximally evil being than that's fine but he would not be God and also I have not heard convincing arguments for that side.

Also, if God exists, who said he had to match up with mere human definitions of him? This assumption on your part, is extremely fallacious.

Well if he didn't match up with our definition of God then we wouldn't call him God. If you thought my name was Stubs but you found out it's really Mike, you would be wrong for calling me Stubs.

You have already just shot yourself. I'll explain why:

I argued that assuming God exists, it's just a plausible that he allows good for some greater evil, as it is that he allows evil for some greater good.

You conceded that this was a good argument, but the only problem with it is, if the being allowed good for some greater evil, then it wouldn't be God. The problem for you, is you basically just admitted that it's just as likely God doesn't exist. Think about it, if it's just as plausible, but this being wouldn't be "God", then "God" wouldn't exist( because this evil being would be the creator and ruler of the cosmos instead of God).

You basically argued that it's just a plausible that God doesn't exist, so you can keep that argument, or go back to the drawing board.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:54:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/16/2012 5:41:01 PM, stubs wrote:
At 5/16/2012 5:13:41 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/16/2012 5:05:00 PM, stubs wrote:
Yes but I'm saying we define God as someone who is maximally great. If you think there is some maximally evil being than that's fine but he would not be God and also I have not heard convincing arguments for that side.

Also, if God exists, who said he had to match up with mere human definitions of him? This assumption on your part, is extremely fallacious.

Well if he didn't match up with our definition of God then we wouldn't call him God. If you thought my name was Stubs but you found out it's really Mike, you would be wrong for calling me Stubs.

You are basically arguing that if an intelligent, sentient, timeless, spaceless, and all powerful being created and ruled the universe, Atheism would be true because the being wasn't maximally great.
Nosaj5q
Posts: 175
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2012 5:57:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
but it does make sense to follow the exact word of a self proclaimed perfect being? everybody has a hidden agenda and if there is a god i think he is no different.
Slimy yet satisfying"