Thread: Question to Christians

OK Confucius.

So Xei, what's up we're done here or something? Because I see you posting everywhere else when you should be forming a response to my last post. If you know whats good for you.

I got bored because as per usual it turned into a futile mix of utter nonsense and prevarication. Nowhere have you dealt with the simple argument at the start, you just create layers of nonsense going nowhere. But as you actually seem keen for a specific response,

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God deemed His works and the completion of our physical universe as good. Meaning, the natural laws that govern our universe needs nothing more added nor anything taken away. To redo or redesign the fundamental laws which govern's our survival, would ultimately contradict the very nature of His work as good and complete.

This is absolute nonsense; there's no cogent logical argument here. Again, it's a refusal to accept or address the simple argument at the start, instead opting to write some unintelligible pseudo philosophy.

If God is an omniscient (1) omnipotent (2) creator (3), then he knowingly (1) and unnecessarily (2) created (3) an environment susceptible natural disasters which causes suffering and pain to innocents, and is thus not benevolent.

Your relevant response was that God couldn't have designed a functional universe without Earthquakes. To which I replied fine, but that contradicts my premise of omnipotence and is thus irrelevant to the original argument.

You then responded with the above piece of rhetorical tosh with multiple glaring issues and non sequiturs. You talk about the impossibility of 'redesigning' when the issue was the original design. You say 'God deemed his work Good' as some kind of nonsensical incontrovertible assertion when the entire point is that we are able to reason that it is not. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

I am terminating this line of discussion because it is not even necessary to the argument in the first place and thus a diversion and a waste of my time. Firstly for the aforementioned reason that omnipotence was propositioned. Secondly, because things like the smallpox virus are clearly not necessary for the universe to function consistently anyway; just don't create them. No problem.

Well let me ask you something Xei. Would it be more feasible to you if God created humans to be immune to any organisms that would cause suffering and death to species? Would a benevolent God do something like that?

Again, misdirection, utterly irrelevant and not concerned with addressing the original argument (but rather delaying it interminably). A benevolent God would not create such organisms in the first place, end of. Creating diseases and then making humans immune to them would presumably be morally neutral although a bit pointless, but of course it is irrelevant because God did not do this and we are not immune. Additionally such a scenario does not even make any coherent sense because universal immunity would preclude the survival of said diseases. Line of discussion terminated.

Everything within our being is a product of God indirectly. The ability to actually reason, process and determine an appropriate counter-action or solution to unfortunate circumstances by the use of advance complex cognitive skills is because God created his creatures to have these particular abilities. It's not because man created these abilities.

So our tendency to murder is an indirect product of God too. Anyway, this may or may not be your belief; again, it's so far an irrelevant tangent to the original point that God caused the superfluous 'unfortunate circumstances' of suffering to innocents.

To recapitulate the as yet unaddressed point,

With regards to a God who was (a) a creator with understanding of his creations, or (b) an omnipotent being who understands reality,
the observation of pointless pain and death to millions of innocents (such as children in Africa who die of dysentery due to the cholera bacterium) precludes benevolence, and shows that such a God is
(a) malevolent, intentionally causing the above, or (b) at best apathetic, intentionally allowing the above to occur.

You appear to be distraught which doesn't make a bit of sense because Christmas is right around the corner, so wtf Xei? You would think that in 2011 an Atheist and a Theist can just sit back and get a rap. You know, shoot the breeze.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

God deemed His works and the completion of our physical universe as good. Meaning, the natural laws that govern our universe needs nothing more added nor anything taken away. To redo or redesign the fundamental laws which govern's our survival, would ultimately contradict the very nature of His work as good and complete.

Originally Posted by Xei

This is absolute nonsense; there's no cogent logical argument here. Again, it's a refusal to accept or address the simple argument at the start, instead opting to write some unintelligible pseudo philosophy.

If God is an omniscient (1) omnipotent (2) creator (3), then he knowingly (1) and unnecessarily (2) created (3) an environment susceptible natural disasters which causes suffering and pain to innocents, and is thus not benevolent.

Seems as though you're making the assertion that God is surely responsible for natural phenomena like lighting. Whats funny is that you 'use' to argue that the origins of natural phenomena could be explained by science. Now here, you're saying God is responsible for it. I thought this was a primitive mode of thinking what happened to you, why the change all of a sudden?

Originally Posted by Xei

Your relevant response was that God couldn't have designed a functional universe without Earthquakes. To which I replied fine, but that contradicts my premise of omnipotence and is thus irrelevant to the original argument.

It doesn't contradict anything because you and I came to an agreement, regarding Omnipotence in reference to God remember? Omnipotence factors all things done with regards to God will that doesn't self-contradict His nature. The Universe could function without Earthquakes but there would be no advance-life chemistry, in which the existence of sentient beings was part of God's ultimate design and His will.

Originally Posted by Xei

You then responded with the above piece of rhetorical tosh with multiple glaring issues and non sequiturs. You talk about the impossibility of 'redesigning' when the issue was the original design.

Right and I already explained to you that the original laws that govern's life in the Universe are fine.

Originally Posted by Xei

You say 'God deemed his work Good' as some kind of nonsensical incontrovertible assertion when the entire point is that we are able to reason that it is not. Etcetera etcetera etcetera.

And repeating myself- It's obviously good as there are no current threats on a global scale for the mass extinction of human beings. Life goes on.

Originally Posted by Xei

I am terminating this line of discussion because it is not even necessary to the argument in the first place and thus a diversion and a waste of my time. Firstly for the aforementioned reason that omnipotence was propositioned. Secondly, because things like the smallpox virus are clearly not necessary for the universe to function consistently anyway; just don't create them. No problem.

Yea, Xei do what you do best, when things get too hot in the kitchen for you, you always take the high road. When are you going to stop running from things you don't quite understand and face your concerns like a man for once in your life?

Illnesses such as smallpox, pneumonia, influenza etc.. had no such harm to humans before the fall of man but now they are harmful to us and as a result of germ adaptation, they have adapted to a point where they became "enemies" of humans. So no, God didn't directly create these illnesses they harm us now also as one in part of the fall of man whereas before they would have posed no particular threat.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Well let me ask you something Xei. Would it be more feasible to you if God created humans to be immune to any organisms that would cause suffering and death to species? Would a benevolent God do something like that?

Originally Posted by Xei

Again, misdirection, utterly irrelevant and not concerned with addressing the original argument (but rather delaying it interminably). A benevolent God would not create such organisms in the first place, end of. Creating diseases and then making humans immune to them would presumably be morally neutral although a bit pointless, but of course it is irrelevant because God did not do this and we are not immune. Additionally such a scenario does not even make any coherent sense because universal immunity would preclude the survival of said diseases. Line of discussion terminated.

Once again God didn't create the diseases. The creation of bacteria appears to have a significant role to help moderate human functionality and even through some sort of adaption process they would have never posed a threat to our immunity like they do now.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Everything within our being is a product of God indirectly. The ability to actually reason, process and determine an appropriate counter-action or solution to unfortunate circumstances by the use of advance complex cognitive skills is because God created his creatures to have these particular abilities. It's not because man created these abilities.

Originally Posted by Xei

So our tendency to murder is an indirect product of God too.

Our tendency to know right from wrong is an indirect product of God. Killing someone is considered wrong, hence the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill".

Originally Posted by Xei

Anyway, this may or may not be your belief; again, it's so far an irrelevant tangent to the original point that God caused the superfluous 'unfortunate circumstances' of suffering to innocents

Ok so you agree that God causes lighting right?

Originally Posted by Xei

To recapitulate the as yet unaddressed point,

With regards to a God who was (a) a creator with understanding of his creations, or (b) an omnipotent being who understands reality,
the observation of pointless pain and death to millions of innocents (such as children in Africa who die of dysentery due to the cholera bacterium) precludes benevolence, and shows that such a God is
(a) malevolent, intentionally causing the above, or (b) at best apathetic, intentionally allowing the above to occur.

Xei I take it you don't have children. Let me explain something to you and I want you to hear me and hear me good because this is going to be a long spill. I have two very beautiful daughters who are my absolute world and I love them and will love them until my very last breath on this planet. But as all children normally do, they tend to get out of line and it's my responsibility as a loving father to make sure that their safety and well-being is of the utmost importance. Meaning, if I tell them not to do something and they defy me, my oldest daughter gets grounded and my youngest daughter gets put in time-out. Do I like punishing my little girls? No, but if I didn't love them I wouldn't care what they do and I'll let them do whatever.

The problems with suffering is that we as human beings tend to screw each other over all the time. Believe it or not this world is actually filled with far more good than suffering. Case in point, this thread regarding the boy who has died choosing-prayer-over-medicine get's a lot of attention, why? Because stuff like this is not a normal part of everyone's experience in life. Think about it, if things like this happened all the time we wouldn't entertain such news because it would be normal. Another case in point, Why are children in Africa who die of dysentery due to the cholera bacterium a big deal to you? Does something like this captivate your attention to the point where it concerns you (which it obviously does or else you wouldn't speak on it) because it's not a normal part of your experience in life? Suffering is minuscule on this planet and when we hear about such things we focus completely in on it because it's not normal to the "MAJORITY" of humans.

To assume that God's highest priority is the prevention of suffering through His creatures life's experience is without warrant whatsoever. God not wanting His creatures to suffer as a blanket statement is simply not true when taken by itself. God is goal specific and He has a number of goals for the creature ("God requires God's creatures to enjoy eating", "God requires God's creatures to experience conspecific interactions of give/take", "God requires the higher animals to experience community by sharing", etc...), and any attempts to prioritize a specific goal (i.e., absence of suffering) to an absolute is exceptionally difficult to defend. We know, for example, that physical pain is constructive for creatures as an 'early warning' mechanism, in the vast majority of cases, and the health of the creature is far more important (in that particular case) than the suffering associated with the pain/suffering. Anyway, I believe your definition of what constitutes as 'suffering' is different than mine.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Seems as though you're making the assertion that God is surely responsible for natural phenomena like lighting. Whats funny is that you 'use' to argue that the origins of natural phenomena could be explained by science. Now here, you're saying God is responsible for it. I thought this was a primitive mode of thinking what happened to you, why the change all of a sudden?

I read this terrible piece of trolling and didn't read any further. Please remove this and anything else like it before I read your post.

Originally Posted by Xei

I read this terrible piece of trolling and didn't read any further. Please remove this and anything else like it before I read your post.

How about I don't remove it and say that I did?