Therefore we can describe these actions as mathmatical functions: - BB
That's where you went wrong.
The Pastor of my Old Church Tried to Re-Convert Me Yesterday
by cofty 2596 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
adamah
jgnat said- I didn't say analogies were useless. I just said they are inferior. A + B = C is unambiguous. And always will be, much more than an analogy.
Sure, the limitations of analogies are well-known, since they allow more possibility of confusion. But I see Bart has already offered an interesting argument using classical symbolic logic to support his claim, based on the principle of God's 'perfect love'.
-
cofty
Adam - Bart is either being ironic or moronic.
I am inclined to believe its the former.
-
Phizzy
"limitations of analogies are well-known" , very true, but boy do we need them ! If we did not explain hard to understand stuff, Math, Astro-pysics etc using analogies and metaphors we , the great unwashed, would not get an inkling of what it was all about.
Just think of "Black Holes " "The Big bang" etc.
Something as difficult to understand as a Supreme being simply has to be anthropomorphised and reduced to metaphor.
-
besty
go on phizzy - take a crack at the OP now you have had a beer :-)
-
cofty
As I said before if we are just crudely reframing the opposing view then Cofty's is "if god exists he dun it". It's an assertion. It's not based on anything logical. - Flamegrilled
This is an example of your unwillingness to deal honestly with the other side of the argument. You asked me a few pages ago whether I was arguing, "if god exists he dun it". I replied that the tsunami happened with the full knowledge and permission of the god of christian theism as you had already agreed - but this is NOT my point as you are well aware.
jgnat has summed up your problem very well but you ignored her. I have explained it numerous times but you willfully misrepresent it.
You can have a deity that passively observed the tsunami, that is not a problem. It raises other problems but that's another thread.
You can't have the loving god of christian theism who passively observed the tsunami; that is a contradiction.
You are proposing a solution that drowning a quarter of a million people is compatible with an omnipotent and loving god for reasons that are a total mystery not only to unbelievers but also to you.
You have so far ignored my response to that. It requires that you redefine "love" as a quality that, under some circumstances, includes the drowning of a quarter of a million innocent people.
You argue that god is so superior to humans that we cannot fathom these mysteries - but christian theism requires that we do.
Jesus is held up as the epitome of love for christians to imitate. Jesus summed up the law of love as "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us". But if you are correct then Jesus' words are meaningless, loving actions become indistinguishable from hateful of evil ones. Do we love others by giving food and shelter to the needy, or by drowning them? It depends on whether you are led by Jesus' words or god's example.
Natural evil deals a fatal blow to christian theism. You can retreat to the god of the pre-exile Old Testament or to a new image of a deity who is not omnipotent as jgnat proposes, but the god of christianity is a self-contradictory failure.
-
flamegrilled
Cofty - you will note that I've never conceded that God drowned a single person in the Asian tsunami, never mind about 250K. So just about all that you wrote above is unsubstantiated. You are the one saying "god dun it" not me.
Might there be a reason for inaction under the circumstance? You haven't proven that such a reason cannot possibly exist, nor that we would necessarily be aware of it if it did.
You argue that god is so superior to humans that we cannot fathom these mysteries, but christian theism requires that we do.
I don't see why.
-
cofty
I've never conceded that God drowned a single person in the Asian tsunami - Flamegrilled
The god of christian theism knew about the earthquake in advance
He observed the wave rise from 19 miles below the Indian Ocean.
He watched it for another hour as it rushed towards the countries around the pacific Rim
He knew for a certainty what the death toll would be.
He knew that the lives of a further 5 million would be devastated
He only had to say the word to stop it in its tracks
He did nothing.
You are making a moral distinction where none exists.
Apart from that you appear to have ignored every word of my post above. I am out of patience with your dishonesty.
You can have a deity that passively observed the tsunami, that is not a problem. It raises other problems but that's another thread.
You can't have the loving god of christian theism who passively observed the tsunami; that is a contradiction.
You are proposing a solution that drowning a quarter of a million people is compatible with an omnipotent and loving god for reasons that are a total mystery not only to unbelievers but also to you.
You have so far ignored my response to that. It requires that you redefine "love" as a quality that, under some circumstances, includes the drowning of a quarter of a million innocent people.
You argue that god is so superior to humans that we cannot fathom these mysteries - but christian theism requires that we do.
Jesus is held up as the epitome of love for christians to imitate. Jesus summed up the law of love as "doing unto others as we would have them do unto us". But if you are correct then Jesus' words are meaningless, loving actions become indistinguishable from hateful of evil ones. Do we love others by giving food and shelter to the needy, or by drowning them? It depends on whether you are led by Jesus' words or god's example.
Natural evil deals a fatal blow to christian theism. You can retreat to the god of the pre-exile Old Testament or to a new image of a deity who is not omnipotent as jgnat proposes, but the god of christianity is a self-contradictory failure.
-
Bart Belteshassur
Cofty- Did you say that we were not allowed to use logical mathmatical models. Human and natural influence on the planet has been modelled this way for years. If the model is in error please show me where and I may be able to correct it. This is how science and logic work through peer review is it not.
BB
-
adamah
Besty said-
go on phizzy - take a crack at the OP now you have had a beer :-)
Ahhh, Cofty won't allow that kind of thing, since he's already said people have to legitimately believe in their position in order to argue the theist position (you can find his words from a week ago or so, but he said something like "true theists only", and how he's not playing games).
BTW, I can't figure out where all the "true theists" went? You don't suppose few were willing to play a rigged game where the house is pre-destined to win?
Adam - Bart is either being ironic or moronic. I am inclined to believe its the former.
Do you understand classical symbolic logic?
Adam