1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Jun '11 04:4311 edits
    A standard defense of the omni awesome god who remains inactive whilst people suffer all over the world is that we caused the problems and ought to sort it out ourselves - first of all this is no real defence of an omni god anyway; but given its claimed a child dies every 3 seconds I can only assume they are being made an example of if there exists an entity that could step in and stop them from dying in lieu of us creating a logistical network and producing, procuring the necessary goods and services to deliver help and assistance where its needed. Indeed for all the money that the rich or at least comfortable people have, money is merely a contract to be supplied such goods on the basis they are in sufficient supply at a rate which corresponds to demand for them - to that end even if one can purchase a kilo of food for some unit of currency it doesn't follow that a multi billionaire could lay his/her hands on a billion kilos of food and then transport it to the places where it could be utilised! There is of course more to it than feeding a person for one day! You have to be able to transform their barren lands, and train them to utilise the scant resources they have (or would be supplied) efficiently so they can fend for themselves. There's probably more to it than that - for example a-hole rulers (and their minions) who keep people in poverty anyway.

    You then have to factor in the fact that some humans wouldn't step into help out even if they did have the potential to do so; as for myself I do give money to the homeless, but not so much that I'll be homeless myself - many others wouldn't, and more importantly given some humans, even if they're not the ones actually exploiting people, and supposing they were in a good position to offer their assistance wouldn't change their ways on this matter so long as they have a hole in their ar$e; then again, what can the rest of us not so affluent or capable humans really be expected to do to make a meaningful difference!?

    So far I've only mentioned poverty, you then have to consider wholesale killings, rapes, deadly diseases (which even if we have the potential to cure - like in the poverty case, we lack the resources to distribute such medicines to everyone), natural disasters and so on...

    In short, I say again we humans are not equipped (either in resources, or as a collective, in morality or motivation) to solve the problems that take place in the world - and thus those who suffer when it is claimed they could potentially be helped are being made an example out of by some god.

    That is - unless any god that existsReveal Hidden Content
    not that I think its even remotely likely!
    doesn't actually give a damn! - I'd have no problem, philosophically speaking, with that one.
  2. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Jun '11 05:01
    Originally posted by Agerg
    A standard defense of the omni awesome god who remains inactive whilst people suffer all over the world is that we caused the problems and ought to sort it out ourselves - first of all this is no real defence of an omni god anyway; but given its claimed a child dies every 3 seconds I can only assume they are being made an example of if there exists an entity t ...[text shortened]... 't actually give a damn! - I'd have no problem, philosophically speaking, with that one.
    Here you go again. You continually blame God for all the problems
    in the world. If you were concerned about other peoples suffering
    you would be doing what you could to help rather than complain
    about God doing nothing. You don't know what God is doing or not
    doing. You don't even believe there is a God to do anything anyway.
    So stop your complaining and do something constructive about it.
  3. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Jun '11 05:05
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Here you go again. You continually blame God for all the problems
    in the world. If you were concerned about other peoples suffering
    you would be doing what you could to help rather than complain
    about God doing nothing. You don't know what God is doing or not
    doing. You don't even believe there is a God to do anything anyway.
    So stop your complaining and do something constructive about it.
    I'm not the one claiming an omnipotent omniscient, omnibenevolent god exists - I, along with others, merely raise the problems with supposing that kind of entity exists.

    Reconciling such a god with the world we live in is your problem.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Jun '11 05:12
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I'm not the one claiming an omnipotent omniscient, omnibenevolent god exists - I, along with others, merely raise the problems with supposing that kind of entity exists.

    Reconciling such a god with the world we live in is your problem.
    It is you that seem to have a problem with it.
    I don't and neither did Jesus. He saw His Father
    as a loving God.
  5. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Jun '11 05:153 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    It is you that seem to have a problem with it.
    I don't and neither did Jesus. He saw His Father
    as a loving God.
    Thats because you don't do enough (any?) independent thinking - indeed, if the Bible said 1+1=3 (= pi !!!) you'd accept it unquestioningly and just parrot that the mathematics which humans have constructed is all garbage.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Jun '11 05:32
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Thats because you don't do enough (any?) independent thinking - indeed, if the Bible said 1+1=3 (= pi !!!) you'd accept it unquestioningly and just parrot that the mathematics which humans have constructed is all garbage.
    But I have no reason to not believe the Holy Bible, since it
    has always proven to be true to me. It has been man's
    understanding that has always proven to have been wrong
    in the end.
  7. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Jun '11 05:461 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    But I have no reason to not believe the Holy Bible, since it
    has always proven to be true to me. It has been man's
    understanding that has always proven to have been wrong
    in the end.
    The food which you eat could be put to much better use...what a waste of a brain! ;]
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Jun '11 06:17
    Originally posted by Agerg
    The food which you eat could be put to much better use...what a waste of a brain! ;]
    Funny!. Now I can go to sleep with a little humor on my waisted
    brain. I like it.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    02 Jun '11 07:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    But I have no reason to not believe the Holy Bible, since it
    has always proven to be true to me. It has been man's
    understanding that has always proven to have been wrong
    in the end.
    Except that your 'proof' is always circular ie you never actual do a proof, but rather you start off with the assumption that the Bible is true then assert that therefore the Bible is true.
    You say that the Bible has always proven to be true, yet there are many instances in these forums where you have failed to provide any such proof. So either you keep your proofs secret, or, as I say above, you don't actually prove it but merely assert it without proof.
    Or maybe you are just playing the selective game ie for any given instance:
    1. If the Bible seems to have got it right: Whoopie, the bible is true.
    2. If the Bible seems to have got it wrong: I am sure it will be proven right in the end!
  10. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    02 Jun '11 10:54
    Originally posted by Agerg
    A standard defense of the omni awesome god who remains inactive whilst people suffer all over the world is that we caused the problems and ought to sort it out ourselves - first of all this is no real defence of an omni god anyway; but given its claimed a child dies every 3 seconds I can only assume they are being made an example of if there exists an entity t ...[text shortened]... actually give a damn! - I'd have no problem, philosophically speaking, with that one.
    yes, it wasn't humans who invented vaccines for diseases and agriculture and whatnot. it was a supernatural being coming to our aid.


    we already have fixed a lot of problems. all the suffering in the world is nothing compared to the dark ages, or when ghenghis strolled through eurasia. we keep solving stuff everyday, your only problem is that a supernatural being (which you don't even believe exists) of near infinite power could solve the problems for us faster. leaving us lazy bastards to sit in the sun all day long watching jersey shore (though i admit, a benevolent god would not fix world hunger before wiping that snooki abomination from the face of the earth).


    the world came to be. god in his infinite benevolence brought the universe to a start, maybe even slightly directed the laws of it here and there so this rock would be just right for us humans to come to being. he gave us intelligence and a will to use it.
    these are the terms of the game. someone gave you these wonderful gifts and you want more because it would be easier than just getting them for yourselves. you act as if you would be granted level 30 in a role playing game and you complain that you don't get teleported to the end boss where the programmers kill it for you.
  11. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Jun '11 11:155 edits
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    yes, it wasn't humans who invented vaccines for diseases and agriculture and whatnot. it was a supernatural being coming to our aid.


    we already have fixed a lot of problems. all the suffering in the world is nothing compared to the dark ages, or when ghenghis strolled through eurasia. we keep solving stuff everyday, your only problem is that a supernat complain that you don't get teleported to the end boss where the programmers kill it for you.
    The system you describe is not consistent with an omni-benevolent God. Moreover, to preempt the standard retort that I'm saying God isn't benevolent if he doesn't wipe my ar$e for me after visiting the toilet, this is a gross caricature of the argument I'm putting forwards. Petty struggles like having to look after my own personal hygeine for example fade into insignificance when you compare it to someone spending the last 30 minutes of their life thrashing about in agony with,say, a bullet in their belly - and no pre-emptive action taken by some god to stop this, or `post-emptive' action to at least put them out of their misery.

    Further, a system which allows people the free will to do as they please is not consistent with a benevolent God - it is consistent with a god who desires the "who's the daddy!"' factor if people choose to be subservient to it of their own accord.

    Basically, the world as it is fails to be harmonious with a benevolent God.
  12. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    02 Jun '11 11:20
    Originally posted by Agerg
    A standard defense of the omni awesome god who remains inactive whilst people suffer all over the world is that we caused the problems and ought to sort it out ourselves - first of all this is no real defence of an omni god anyway; but given its claimed a child dies every 3 seconds I can only assume they are being made an example of if there exists an entity t ...[text shortened]... actually give a damn! - I'd have no problem, philosophically speaking, with that one.
    Have you considered the possibility that your definition of what God is all about is wrong?
    Or that the definition of what God is, as described by believers, is also wrong?
    That none of us really understand who or what God is ?
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    02 Jun '11 11:284 edits
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    Have you considered the possibility that your definition of what God is all about is wrong?
    Or that the definition of what God is, as described by believers, is also wrong?
    That none of us really understand who or what God is ?
    Well I'm working from the definitions provided to me by most other theists. As for my own notions of what a god should entail - it is beyond my capacity to have any insight into the workings of things that may or may not exist outside dimensions I interact with. As such I give the matter no private thought and content myself with picking holes in what others have unjustifiably come up with (as per their own particular interpretation of scripture or what they `reckon' a God should be like) - there are a couple of attributes I vaguely recall I haven't yet found a way to discard yet - fair play to those who've defended them well enough (I can't actually martial them to my thoughts to give you an example though).
  14. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12692
    02 Jun '11 11:37
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Except that your 'proof' is always circular ie you never actual do a proof, but rather you start off with the assumption that the Bible is true then assert that therefore the Bible is true.
    You say that the Bible has [b]always
    proven to be true, yet there are many instances in these forums where you have failed to provide any such proof. So either yo ...[text shortened]... e.
    2. If the Bible seems to have got it wrong: I am sure it will be proven right in the end![/b]
    Now, you are making me laugh. That is hilarous.
  15. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    02 Jun '11 11:44
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Well I'm working from the definitions provided to me by most other theists. As for my own notions of what a god should entail - it is beyond my capacity to have any insight into the workings of things that may or may not exist outside dimensions I interact with. As such I give the matter no private thought and content myself with picking holes in what others h ...[text shortened]... m well enough (I can't actually martial them to my thoughts to give you an example though).
    Well its obvious that neither you nor the theists truly understand the nature of God, and furthermore what the Bible defines as 'love' or 'the love of God' is not something easy to appreciate because it conflicts with what our small simple minds has defined love to be.

    There are many unanswered questions in religion which believers are not honest enough to admit. Nobody for example knows what happens when we die. If the answer to that was clear and straightforward then there would be simple consistent answers across the board. But there are none.

    There are too many unknowns, and that makes the faith of the faithful irrational. But in my opinion irrationality is not the worst offence.
Back to Top