The Greatest Conceivable being???

Originally posted by Doward
earthquakes: geologist's have deduced that many earthquakes are a result of the moons effects on our planet. each year the moon moves approx 1/4 inch from the planet. At one time it was extremely close, The extreme closeness of the moon caused actual "tides" of molten lava. Its presence is in large part at fault for the movement of our tectonic plates (thoug ...[text shortened]... me examples, or you can admit that my premis is universal and save yourself the embarrassment

earthquakes: geologist's have deduced that many earthquakes are a result of the moons effects on our planet. each year the moon moves approx 1/4 inch from the planet. At one time it was extremely close, The extreme closeness of the moon caused actual "tides" of molten lava. Its presence is in large part at fault for the movement of our tectonic plates (though not entirely). Without the moon however, life on the planet would not exist...period
Also on earthquakes: we know where the fault lines are yet we still build cities right on top of them...go figure🙄

Take that paragraph and revisit it with respect to any period of time (back in history) were scientific understanding was insufficient to understand the phenomnenon; and in particular, when it was not known places were houses are built lay on faultlines. What could those humans have done to prevent the loss of life due to earthquakes your god didn't???

Influenza: no one need die of influenza, economics (read greed) keeps the inoculations out of the hands of the poor...our fault
Simple minded response; influenza mutates and originates not solely from within humans, and so a catch-all influenza innoculation is not possible; by this I mean that there will always be at least one unlucky sod who catches a new strain and possibly dies from it before people try to figure out how to combat this new strain. I have more to say but you'll misinterpret it; what I've said here is sufficient.


aids: our fault, clealry our fault. For godsakes where a condom, or better yet lets not screw monkeys then eachother...clearly our fault as a species
You talk about humans as a collective - again! I'm referring to a case by case basis where a human can contract aids not just by sexual intercourse but, for example, by contaminated blood; and yes though you'll say that's the doctor's fault -- how is it the patient's fault to justify your god's inaction???


homicidal maniacs: our fault again. economics (read greed again) keeps us from spending the necessary capital to hospitlaize or institutionalize and treat mental disorders, we simply attach a stigma, wait until they commit a criome and then throw them in prison...our fault again
Psychopaths have to demonstrate they have such tendencies to kill people before they should be considered for 'treatment' Unless you'd have everyone be institutionalised *just in case*!


I can go on busting you up all day, just keep feeding me examples, or you can admit that my premis is universal and save yourself the embarrassment
You've busted nothing.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]earthquakes: geologist's have deduced that many earthquakes are a result of the moons effects on our planet. each year the moon moves approx 1/4 inch from the planet. At one time it was extremely close, The extreme closeness of the moon caused actual "tides" of molten lava. Its presence is in large part at fault for the movement of our tectonic plates (tho mis is universal and save yourself the embarrassment
You've busted nothing.[/b]

You talk about humans as a collective - again

of course I do, we are a collective

Psychopaths have to demonstrate they have such tendencies to kill people before they should be considered for 'treatment' Unless you'd have everyone be institutionalised *just in case*!


they do show tendancies...often very early (in childhood). society ignores those tendancies until it's too late.

Simple minded response; influenza mutates and originates not solely from within humans, and so a catch-all influenza innoculation is not possible; by this I mean that there will always be at least one unlucky sod who catches a new strain and possibly dies from it before people try to figure out how to combat this new strain. I have more to say but you'll misinterpret it; what I've said here is sufficient.

We are more than scientifically adavnced enough to eliminate deaths by influenza, we lack the will...fact.


as for your response to the earthquake part...doesn't really deserve a response.

Originally posted by Doward
[b]You talk about humans as a collective - again

of course I do, we are a collective

Psychopaths have to demonstrate they have such tendencies to kill people before they should be considered for 'treatment' Unless you'd have everyone be institutionalised *just in case*!


they do show tendancies...often very early (in childhood). society ct.


as for your response to the earthquake part...doesn't really deserve a response.[/b]

doward, you're too reluctant to actually engage in the complexities of this issue; preferring instead for simplistic responses, poorly substantiated claims, evading questions, and wild over generalisation. If I try and zoom in on particular details (which are important with respect to my OP) you insist on zooming out again. I'm interested in the actions that individuals (or targetted groups) can perform independently of the entire human race at particular times where we can confidently say that individual person (or group) is not equipped to deal with a problem by themselves and cannot draw upon the support of other humans.
I'm intrigued you don't have the capacity to answer my refinement of the earthquake question when I cast it in terms of civilisations that are not so scientifically advanced (despite the fact the omnibenevolence of your god should hold true for all time periods).

If your terse response to the psychopath scenario is valid then you should back up the implicit claim that *all* psychopaths exhibit tendencies that can *always* be detected by humans *before* they go and murder someone. As for your ill-substantiated response to influenza (et al), again cast this question 300 years back, say. Could those humans have dealt with influenza??? (if not, what was your omni-benevolent god doing about it?)

We think too differently to communicate effectively - if I was to ask you what were the ingredients of rice pudding (brand X), your response might as well be food! and these sorts of response have practically zero merit.

Originally posted by josephw
"Given that you "don't have all the answers" I'm not so sure I trust your first paragraph. But anyway let's go slowly..."

If I had said I did have all the answers would you believe me? Never mind that. lol

"Is a worldwhere Hitler didn't get struck by lightning before his rise to power better than a world where millions of jews were not tortu is a reason for suffering other than the idea of the survival of the fittest.

No. I read somewhere once that 36 billion people have lived since creation. They are all dead. Would it have been better had they never been born? I am as horrified as you are by the ugliness that is going on around us everyday. We'll never know the extent of it.
I have nothing to respond to here

Why do you think you associate suffering with the existence of God? Assuming there is no God, does that alleviate suffering? But if there is a Creator/God, is He then the cause of suffering?
I associate suffering, in this thread, with the claim your god is maximally benevolent - nothing more. I do not assert it is the cause (at least directly, for it can be argued your god is the cause of it's continuation given he could terminate such suffering immediately).

God is the diamond in the shattered glass.
I have no reason to believe that.

If I read you correctly, this is your issue; That it is claimed that there is a "GOD" who is the most supreme being imaginable. That the existence of such a being is inconsistent with the fact of the existence of unspeakable suffering.
Yes, you read correctly here.

Is it? Do you really think you have an open mind? You'll have to invert your thinking. The fact is that the existence of what is plainly visible, the pain and horror and suffering, is the evidence for the existence of the being you claim doesn't exist.
I partly anticipate that the lines you're going along here are that the lord works in mysterious ways - it'll all turn out for the best in the end. Let us consider this in more detail. Consider, for example:

an atheist (who is, from your perspective, not saved) being stabbed to death by some hoodlum. Will he have some reason (which he'll never know whilst he lives) to appreciate your god's inaction as he's burning for eternity in a fiery hell (that's what you believe happens to the unsaved yes?)??? - If he isn't in your view going to burn forever, then assuming this atheist isn't going to some heaven then they just experience the horror and agony with respect to how they were murdered then cease to exist. How is this is better for them than god just putting them out of their misery, say, without the suffering???

How is the existence of suffering evidence of an omni-benevolent god btw?

You think that's crazy? Well then, why don't we blame it on evolution? We live in a vast universe of universes of space, matter, and time where there is only organic matter intent on its' own destruction.
Subtracting away the notion of a god I'm ok (in that it makes sense) with the notion life can be a bitch for some people.

Or maybe there is a reason for suffering other than the idea of the survival of the fittest.
I know what direction you wish to take this but I'll humor you any way...what are such reasons?

Originally posted by Agerg
doward, you're too reluctant to actually engage in the complexities of this issue; preferring instead for simplistic responses, poorly substantiated claims, evading questions, and wild over generalisation. If I try and zoom in on particular details (which are important with respect to my OP) you insist on zooming out again. I'm interested in the actions that i ponse might as well be food! and these sorts of response have practically zero merit.

all of my answers are consisitent with my point of view. A world that provides no challanges also provides no opportunity for achievement. I zoom out because I take the broader view, yours is a narrow point of view, and so must be resisted at every turn

Originally posted by Doward
all of my answers are consisitent with my point of view. A world that provides no challanges also provides no opportunity for achievement. I zoom out because I take the broader view, yours is a narrow point of view, and so must be resisted at every turn

No, I interchange between a number of different detailed views and the broad view as each case necessitates - this case, being a universal claim about some god needs to hold true in some pretty fine detail. You do not so much take the broad view as you take the stand from far away and squint view.

In short I think you're too scared to actually engage properly on this issue.

Originally posted by Agerg
No, I interchange between a number of different detailed views and the broad view as each case necessitates - this case, being a universal claim about some god needs to hold true in some pretty fine detail. You do not so much take the broad view as you take the stand from far away and squint view.

In short I think you're too scared to actually engage properly on this issue.

I have engaged, you refuse to listen

Originally posted by Doward
I have engaged, you refuse to listen

Actually I have "listened" I have seen your responses to selected questions where you recast them in some vague fuzzy sense that serves to answer nothing whilst avoiding anything specific. If your god is omnibenevolent "now" then given it's supposed timeless property it should have been omni-benevolent back in times when humans were not so scientifically enlightened, 300 years back for example - you dodge this issue.
In the present it should be omni-benevolent with respect to each individual; so if an "unsaved" atheist is being brutally murdered, your god's inaction for this poor chapReveal Hidden Contenthas to be evaluated as more (or just as) benevolent than (as) sparing him from the suffering he experiences before dying (and supposedly proceeeding then to his doom, to some other barbaric realm of existence (or non-existence of course)). You are reluctant to consider such scenarios.

Originally posted by Agerg
Actually I have "listened" I have seen your responses to selected questions where you recast them in some vague fuzzy sense that serves to answer nothing whilst avoiding anything specific. If your god is omnibenevolent "now" then given it's supposed timeless property it should have been omni-benevolent back in times when humans were not so scientificall ...[text shortened]... existence (or non-existence of course)). You are reluctant to consider such scenarios.

I once again reject the premis of your question, you have not safely established that God only cares about people who are "saved". This is typical of all your hypotheticals, and why we come to logger heads. You assume that your argument/hypothesis is perfectly rational and the answer to said question will reveal some great universal truth yadda yadda yadda. In fact your hypotheses are so ill thought out that a trained monkey like myself has no problem whatsoever disrupting the entire line of reasoning...time for you to go back to the drawing board.

Originally posted by Agerg
Actually I have "listened" I have seen your responses to selected questions where you recast them in some vague fuzzy sense that serves to answer nothing whilst avoiding anything specific. If your god is omnibenevolent "now" then given it's supposed timeless property it should have been omni-benevolent back in times when humans were not so scientificall ...[text shortened]... existence (or non-existence of course)). You are reluctant to consider such scenarios.

If your god is omnibenevolent "now" then given it's supposed timeless property it should have been omni-benevolent back in times when humans were not so scientifically enlightened, 300 years back for example -


300 years? why not 10,000 years, why not 50,000 years? seems arbitrary to me. yet another example of your inability to ofer a well thought and reasoned question. If you doubt the benevolence of God (one must assume first that there is a god) then you must first present evidence of moral superiority to said god, you have done no such thing.

Originally posted by Doward
If your god is omnibenevolent "now" then given it's supposed timeless property it should have been omni-benevolent back in times when humans were not so scientifically enlightened, 300 years back for example -


300 years? why not 10,000 years, why not 50,000 years? seems arbitrary to me. yet another example of your inability to ofer a well thought and re ...[text shortened]... ou must first present evidence of moral superiority to said god, you have done no such thing.

I assume you missed the "for example" part then. You forget I need only search for counter examples to the claim your god is omni-benevolent - I'm free to choose any example from any period of time.
As for moral superiority; I need only show I am morally superior to your formulation of this god - i.e. an entity you try to approximate via an attribution of many absurd characteristics - since if you haven't noticed, I'm contesting what you (and others) say about this supernatural thing, not what this thing (supposing it exists) actually is; to this end I claim I am morally superior (to your notion of it). Moreover, with respect to the OP, I need offer no such substantiation! I need only find examples where your god can be more benevolent and I'm done.

Originally posted by Doward
I once again reject the premis of your question, you have not safely established that God only cares about people who are "saved". This is typical of all your hypotheticals, and why we come to logger heads. You assume that your argument/hypothesis is perfectly rational and the answer to said question will reveal some great universal truth yadda yadda yadda. ...[text shortened]... soever disrupting the entire line of reasoning...time for you to go back to the drawing board.

I see...so people who are not saved go to some happy wonderland in the sky then - just like Christians (chapter and verse please)! - they don't die (cease to exist) or otherwise thrash around in a lake of fire for all eternity. Be sure to let your comrades in Christ know this. Assuming you noticed the tone of that last statement, the example you dodged (again) is straight forward, it's a question of which is better:

1)Atheist X experiences horrific and non-standard suffering before he dies - once he dies, according to your doctrine he gets no further reward or spiritual/intellectual advancement.
2)Atheist X does not suffer before he dies - once he dies, according to your doctrine he gets no further reward or spiritual/intellectual advancement.

The reasons you don't answer hypotheticals, or even acknowledge them is more due to fear than anything else I wager. You have yet to show, in sufficient and relevant detail why my hypotheticals are ill-formed - beyond "no no, I see no reason to answer your questions". Trained monkey or otherwise you have disrupted nothing (since you have merely dodged them).

Originally posted by Agerg
I assume you missed the "for example" part then. You forget I need only search for counter examples to the claim your god is omni-benevolent - I'm free to choose any example from any period of time.
As for moral superiority; I need only show I am morally superior to [b]your formulation of this god - i.e. an entity you try to approximate via an attribution ...[text shortened]... stantiation! I need only find examples where your god can be more benevolent and I'm done.[/b]

you are most certainly not contesting anyhting I have said about God, as I have offered very little in that regard.

Prove then, if you can, that you are morally superior to god. (this should be interesting)

Originally posted by Agerg
I see...so people who are not saved go to some happy wonderland in the sky then - just like Christians (chapter and verse please)! - they don't die (cease to exist) or otherwise thrash around in a lake of fire for all eternity. Be sure to let your comrades in Christ know this. Assuming you noticed the tone of that last statement, the example you dodged (again) ...[text shortened]... Trained monkey or otherwise you have disrupted nothing (since you have merely dodged them).

athiest X1 and athiest X2 are hypotheticals, we know nothing of who they are and what they have and have not accomplished, so I feel no moral bias towards either example. However putting a face to these hypotheticals (even one I do not know) can alter my objectivity. So which is better? Purely hypothetically X2 is optimal...or is it? Perhaps at the moment of xis death X1 has a moment of clarity as xer life flashes by. That moment leads xer to the realization of a supreme being and xhe comes into full reconciliation with the creator (hypothetically of course). This is the problem with the hypotheticals as you have framed them, unless they can be held universally true, then they are supect and useless in philisophical debate.


I see...so people who are not saved go to some happy wonderland in the sky then - just like Christians (chapter and verse please)! - they don't die (cease to exist) or otherwise thrash around in a lake of fire for all eternity. Be sure to let your comrades in Christ know this

pretty sure that's not what I said, for someone who is in college you suffer from some real reading comprehension issues.

Originally posted by Doward
you are most certainly not contesting anyhting I have said about God, as I have offered very little in that regard.

Prove then, if you can, that you are morally superior to god. (this should be interesting)

Well you've offered very little of anything to be honest; and as for
Prove then, if you can, that you are morally superior to god. (this should be interesting)
it is (a) a different discussion, (b) required that you acknowledge the entity to which I refer is your notion of some god.

Make a new thread; might entertain you on it, if you play ball in this thread.