How does God either being not all good or not all powerful invalidate his existence?
That is, why can't God be powerful but not omnipotent or good but not wholly benevolent?
If he's not benevolent then he's not God because he defines what benevolent is.
>>75644681
Why are you trying to explain God under your concepts and circumstances?
Do you really think you're speaking on solid, grounded terms? That you're describing reality or a reality bigger than you?
You're not.
Honestly, atheists will cling to anything.
Personally I'd argue any non-living consciousness exhibited in natural systems is God and due to an inability to discern the edge of this system it extends to everything, thus a cosmological God. Basically if you believe the Gaia hypothesis I could argue it's the same consciousness exhibited in the big bang.
No
Omni
Characteristics
Necessary
At all. It's a faulty way of defining God based on not creating a God that's logically provably but that seems bigger and better than competing polytheistic systems, which is like believing two wrongs make a right, stooping to their level.
BTW this God is also evolution and evolution hates the weak (unless it's cute and female).
There is no good or evil, only dubs.
>>75645102
I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. But I'm guessing English isn't your first language.
>>75644681
The Abrahamic god is a complete contradiction ("Wrathful" while also being "All Merciful", etc.)
Basically Jews and Christians fucked up by only having a single entity, and then introducing another entity as an almost diametrically opposing force despite God never being able to lose because he is omnipotent, and to even suggest that any other being has even a slight chance against him would be heretical. But I guess the battle isn't actually between them, but rather playing out on Earth.
The standard excuse is free will.
Another excuse is "its all part of his plan and we just cannot comprehend it"
>>75645190
He's trying to say "It's impossible to understand it as humans lol so god is out there"
In other words, he's a fucking idiot committing a logical fallacy. "It exists because it is beyond us" is absurd.
>>75644681
God is all powerful and benevolent. All evil is a test for you.
Some are tested every day, some only once in their life.
The rich are tested in some ways, the poor in other ways.
Evil exists and is your responsibility to combat.
>>75645359
Oh. Well yeah that's retarded, obviously we have to be able to use logic and terms that make sense to us to define our world properly. Saying "lol it's beyond our comprehension" is a good way to never progress
>>75644681
>i can imagine an ultimate benevolence
>but what if god falls short of that
>my argument rests on #1 being able to imagine at all and #2 a concept of ultimate benevolence -- both things that god gave us because he is/has that ultimate benevolence
not an argument
>>75645359
>>75645486
Is it really impossible to consider that the world begins and ends at the point which we can appreciate it? Do you really believe in the infallibility of the human senses?
>>75644681
He can, but there goes the ontological argument...
>>75644681
Most important lesson in life for everyone: reality is a paradox
Because God is often asserted by religious types to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent?
A God doesn't require those traits to be a God but it's what most people seem to claim he is.
>>75645182
rekt
>>75644681
>god is not a secular humanist so he doesn't exist
Kys
>>75645592
No
It's absurd to claim you have a fucking clue that there is a Devine creator and he's x y and z and he hates it when you do a b and c but he exists outside human comprehention so you can't prove he doesn't exist therefore he does.
>>75644681
>why can't God be powerful but not omnipotent
The defining traits of God are omnipotence and omnipresence.
If He were not all-powerful, He would not be God.
>good but not wholly benevolent
What >>75644812 said.
God's will IS what is benevolence simply because He is God.
>>75645852
Nvm I didn't even read
>>75645293
If God were consistent you'd argue it wasn't consciousness, but just part of the system.
If God weren't consistent you'd argue it's capricious and unworthy of worship.
See how you've created an impossible position?
There's only one entity because only one entity is provable, how many times can you cut a string?
>>75645908
Absolutely not, omni traits are completely unnecessary for godhood and the only people saying they are expect Aquinas style arguments which they have canned rebuttals against. Aka, straw man.
In a fair debate, the strongest theist will always beat the average atheist.
Again, God is THE non living consciousness. It's non living because until science confirms the big crunch or infinite expansion we can't speculate if it can die. I've said it in other threads, we have to leave cosmology to the physicists no matter what difficult theology is involved in untangling it.
prove god is real to begin with
>>75645883
Good point
>>75646194
>In a fair debate, the strongest theist will always beat the average atheist.
So in a fair debate, the strongest atheist would always beat the strongest theist?
>>75646376
Prove that G-d isn't real.
>>75646543
Thats not how it works.
>>75646543
>Won't even spell God.
Afraid the Lord is going to smite your ass?
>>75646432
There is only one strongest theist, but a horde of average atheists with canned arguments that Aquinas has afforded their collective consciousness hundreds of years to formulate or enough bible knowledge to be relatively convincing.
The strongest atheist? Introduce me to him, I have a talent of determining levels of agnosticism, I'm yet to meet one that didn't trip themselves up by having their own arguments apply equally well against themselves. The strongest theist is perfectly Gnostic for their own reasons.
Personally, I'm only really worried about armoured. An atheist that doesn't need the cans is relatively intimidating.
>>75646656
It is when confronted with the full extent of the Gaia hypothesis. There is a little more to evolution than survival and selection if naturally occurring animals are having this conversation.
We should be sitting in trees foraging...
>>75646809
Mate you have no idea. God is much harsher to believers than disbelievers.
>>75646194
>omni traits are completely unnecessary for godhood
The omni traits are exactly what makes God God.
There is no such thing as 'godhood' as there is only one God.
God is all-powerful; omnipotent.
There can only be one God, as there can only be one all-powerful being.
>God is THE non living consciousness
Non-living consciousness is an oxymoron.
>if it can die
I'm sure God could end Himself if he wanted to, but other than that, no, because He is omnipotent.
Why must an all-powerful and benevolent god necessitate evil into his creation in the first place?
If he really is the inventor of all Earthly concepts, why make something fundamentally negative (and prominent) so essential to mortal existence, only merely to "test" the strengths of people's faiths, and to incite them to develop and grow? Why make it essential for that reason, when 'faith' in and of itself could so easily be misinterpreted or flat-out distorted by other religious followings, or manifest through alternative philosophies that may not even align to God's will?
Was he unwilling, or simply incapable of willing into existence a world where all is good - with no bullshit conditions or glaring risk of compromise, without any of it being diminished by a lack of contrast to badness? Isn't that fundamental contrast something he's responsible for in the first place? Can "freewill" really not exist without a biologically hardwired compulsion to fuck up, that needs to be resisted at all costs?
>>75644681
Evil exists for a better good. If not here, in the afterlife.
>>75644681
The key is the free will we got. You can decide whatever you want to do but you will in every case ultimately suffer the consequences.
>>75647207
>Why must an all-powerful and benevolent god necessitate evil into his creation in the first place?
This is probably the hardest question facing theology.
It's called 'The Problem of Evil.'
>>75647034
No, it's what makes your straw man easy to find flaws in. Feels like you're pretending, again, I have a brilliant talent for determining belief. I always knew which cuck brother believed and which didn't.
I feel like we've done this before ;)
Sorry how is a non living consciousness an oxymoron? If it wasn't born, its not living, if it hasn't died its not dead, therefore the third option of non living is indeed correct: non living consciousness.
Actually it might be living, but because I dare not speculate if the universe is infinitely expanding or will result in a big crunch. Again, cosmology is for the physicists, how it relates to God is for the contemporary theologian.
>>75646376
Just look at the rules of nature. They were not self-made.
>>75644681
because there is no god you littleshit
we are all shaved monkeys, but we like to difer from the "animals".
Also there is no justice, money and power control everything.
If you dont have money, or power to influence other ppl you are nothing, just like you are going to be your whole life.
You will work everday and end your life doing meaningless things that you consider are important, but in the end, you will just rott in the ground and die like the animals you eat everyday.
funny thing is that we consider ourself "special" with that "intellect" but in the end instinc is the true ruler of the world.
ppl get scared, ppl get happy, ppl get sad.
You can control all those emotions with global media, and there will be always the same result, just look at the past.
You are just a meaningless piece of meat, stop being a faggot about it and enjoy your fucking life fuckign virgin cryngy shit.
>>75647463
Being born is not a prerequisite to being alive.
>how is a non living consciousness an oxymoron?
Here:
con·scious·ness
/ˈkän(t)SHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
You can't very well be awake or aware if you're not conscious, now can you?
>>75647726
Not alive*
>>75647463
These people aren't posting strawmans you've just concocted this ridiculous definition for what god is that's held pretty much just by you while literally billions of people believe in the type of god they're talking about so their definition's actually quite a bit better then yours and not a strawman at all. Are you really going to tell me that if you went up to the average christian/muslim and told them their god wasn't all-powerful and and wasn't all-loving they'd just agree with you and consider that an accurate representation of their religious beliefs and religious belief in general? Really?
>>75647564
You should try talking to God.
He is real.
I have experienced the work of God firsthand.
If you seek God earnestly, you will find Him.
What's most important to remember is this:
God loves you.
>>75645359
Yet the OP is trying to understand God with a hefty anthropologic bias. Applying the moral code and ethical standard of a short lived species with limited knowledge and only a modicum of control over anything to an all knowing, all powerful, timeless being is silly.
What difference does it make to a God if person lives for 1 year, 50 years, or 100 years? Especially if there is a heaven your sould goes to afterwards.
>>75647449
No, it's the easiest, unless you're stuck in the medieval ages.
Evil only exists from perception, as the system itself requires imperfections in order to find solutions, not just evolution but also states of energy that are more or less efficient. Evolution, for instance, is best described as a heuristic, without preliminary answers that are agreeably wrong there can be no advancement or growth. Yes, I'm also arguing evolution has a sort of end goal, but not really because it's never enough.
There is no pleasure without pain, there is no direction without forward and backwards. Without "evil" none of this would be possible.
From both me and God, I'm sorry you're not enjoying yourself.
>>75647551
Always ad hominem.
That's right, I'm wrong because I'm Australian.
>>75647726
Yes, arguing in favour of God is arguing that the universe in some way is aware and/or has an imperative, although I don't discount that conscious things may not have an imperative or any desires, desireless if you will.
Now Google the definition of living for me, go doggy go. Good boy! See if our current cosmology defines the universe as alive or not.
>>75647820
Maybe I'm the only one that's right? Maybe I'm a prophet of God to redefine it for a post enlightenment human kind?
>>75647564
Edgy Mexican "intellectual", keep up that nihilism because life is a competition and by preaching that you're making it easier for me to win.
>>75648095
Neither of us can prove God is loving, in fact God's love seems entirely conditional.
>>75648095
>I have experienced the work of God firsthand.
Elaborate.
>>75644681
>How does God either being not all good or not all powerful invalidate his existence?
It doesn't. There not being sufficient (or any) evidence for his existence kinda does.
>>75645359
>"It exists because it is beyond us" is absurd.
Suppose we are all figments of imagination and the entire universe is nothing but a relatively fleeting fantasy to Him.
How within this hypothesis do you, a mere speck several orders of magnitude below Him, expect to understand God yourself?
>>75648612
>How within this hypothesis do you, a mere speck several orders of magnitude below Him, expect to understand God yourself?
How do you? How does anyone? Arguments like that backfire because they make every religion obsolete because nobody can't understand "him" and all the qualities "he" might or might not have are just imagined.
>>75645448
This
>>75648791
Your repsonse tells me you don't understand faith.
He's given us the tools to find him. You won't find him with tools bound to man and man's plane of reality.
>>75645102
That line of thought fails because if God is following some form of logic that humans cannot fathom then he is an inherently Alien being that humans will find no common ground between.
If you're willing to say that God smiting us is like anthills to a child, fine, "god works in mysterious ways", but there is then zero reason for us ants to attribute Good and Benevolence to this being. To us he appears absolute Evil and why in the world would we follow or worship such a being?
Or put it this way... why not proscribe that Satan works in mysterious ways as well, what appears evil to us is a larger concept and we should be worshipping him instead?
2+2=4. Even omnipotence cannot alter that. Or perhaps better put, if 2+2 were made to equal 5, we would call *that* answer "4". There are limits to this notion of "higher" concepts that you cannot escape from.
>>75644681
>That is, why can't God be powerful but not omnipotent or good but not wholly benevolent?
You just described most gods thoguh.
>>75644681
The thing to understand about God is he is always right. Every time right. No mistakes,no blunders, No miscalculation, he's right. You may not like what he does but he's right. If you came back in a thousand years you would see, he's right.
>>75648985
>Your repsonse tells me you don't understand faith.
"It's real in my mind" isn't that hard to understand.
>He's given us the tools to find him. You won't find him with tools bound to man and man's plane of reality.
That falls under the qualities you're just imagining, like I said.
>>75647449
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
this handsome bastard already btfo 'the problem of evil' 40 years ago.
problem of evil only works on an emotional level and not a logical/intellectual one.
>>75649923
The entirety of postmodernism, or the philosophical fashion of our age, is one appeal to emotion after another.
>>75649448
What if your own self is an imagination? What if you're just a cog in the system that's convinced itself it's alive, but really every action it's performed is just the expected response?
>>75650185
>What if your own self is an imagination? What if you're just a cog in the system that's convinced itself it's alive, but really every action it's performed is just the expected response?
>babby's first adventure into methodological solipsism?
Yeah, what if?
>>75644681
Then you would not be describing the Christian God.
>>75650438
I'm actually arguing for the direct opposite of solipsism, sorry you missed the point.
I have a theory, if you try to enlighten people about the true nature of God, they'll either immediately reject it or start believing the exact opposite. It's kind of like a safety mechanism preventing you from grasping the truth.
Because, like, how does one fathom that they don't actually exist?
>>75650565
Exodus 3:14 can still be interpreted as a cosmological God and if it were a loving person describing God they would describe a loving God. The exodus passage is the only correct Judeo-Christian means of identifying which God we worship. It's also the name of God I don't speak out loud instead of doing the ridiculous G-d thing.
>>75651061
>I have a theory, if you try to enlighten people about the true nature of God, they'll either immediately reject it or start believing the exact opposite. It's kind of like a safety mechanism preventing you from grasping the truth.
Step one: Proclaim something is the truth without any evidence.
Step two: "Predict" that people won't believe you.
Step three: Act as if you predicting that people won't believe you proves your claim.
>Because, like, how does one fathom that they don't actually exist?
You being able to think up stupid questions like that ensures that at least you exist.
>>75651376
I didn't proclaim anything, I asked questions.
How do you feel about Socrates?
>>75648294
no your ego is just high, its called the illusion of knowllege, you feel like you can answear to everybody and be right with everybody at the same time?
what a joke you are sir.
A competition were you were born too late and yet too young.
i am not preaching becuase i dont want ppl to hear me.
you in the other hand just take what others say to you and convert it in the "right way"
guess what there is no right or bad way of doing things, there is just doing things.
And you are not doing shit at all.
fucking do your homework son and fuck off nerd.
nerds and geeks are the most disgusting race just look at you,
>>75644681
>I don't know what free will is
Atheists once again show they're children.
>>75645102
>Le god is beyond logic meme
If god is really out of grasp for our minds, then trying to understand his motives, rules or nature is a loss of time and we shouldn't worry about it.
>>75651735
More Mexican intellectualism.
My God is believable, which is why I preach it, also I feel like in a world of atheists someone needs to take sit on the other side or else the playground swing ain't moving.
That's me, glad to meet you.
And yeah, I do have an answer for everything, actually my least endearing quality, imagine having a friend you can never beat in an argument? It always ends in their frustration.
Eventually the Human will admit I'm right.
>>75644681
This.
The "problem of evil" ignore the possibility that God could be all evil, or that a malevolent being could create illusions. Some (or maybe most) Gnostics believe that matter is evil, or that a false god has trapped consciousness (or even God itself) in degenerate meat, or that Jehovah was a demiurge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
>The Cathars held that the creator of the world, Satanael, had usurped the name of God, but that he had subsequently been unmasked and told that he was not really God.
Also, it's strange for someone to not believe in God, but believe in evil.
What is the evidence that "evil" exists? It's a man-made concept, like God.
But to realize that "evil" is a man-made concept, that's perhaps more horrifying than a godless universe.
An atheist might argue that evil exists because they've "felt it", and yet they will reject "feelings" (such as spiritual experiences) as evidence of God.
But I think most atheists are atheists simply because they want to play Homer the Heretic and not go to church on Sunday.
>>75651571
>I didn't proclaim anything
>if you try to enlighten people about the true nature of God
God exists, God has a certain nature
>It's kind of like a safety mechanism preventing you from grasping the truth
>the truth
>How do you feel about Socrates?
First the solipsism now the Socratic method - what is this, Philosophy 101?
>>75645448
>All evil is a test for you.
So, considering that god is omniscient, he knows exactly whether or not you will end up being in hell or heaven, so some people are nothing but props for others and exist solely to test those whose faith is, apparently, strong enough? That sounds kind of cruel.
>>75644681
God isn't all powerful because he is right. He's right because he's all powerful.
>>75644812
How do you know what God is?
If someone says God is omnibenevolent, and there is no evidence of an omnibenevolent being, does that mean there is no God? Only if the premise is true. But if the premise is true, the conclusion that there is no God must be false. So there's a chance the premise is false, or the the being just hasn't been found yet.
How would people know God when they see it? It all depends on their preconceived notions of God, the attributes they think God must have.
>>75645359
God exists or not (unless God is some kind of quantum phenomena that is simultaneous existing/not existing).
God could exist and every story humans have made about God could be wrong. The existence of God does not prove that any attributes humans have assigned to God are correct though (except the attribute of existence). God could exist and have none of the traits humans have ascribed to it.
There are all kinds of things that exist in the universe that are "beyond" humanity's current understanding.
But the thing is, even thought some things have not been discovered yet, humans will still look for them. They have faith in the existence of things unseen. They have faith that there are things that exist, waiting to be found.
God is a delusion, perpetuated to alleviate the suffering that is life.
>>75645687
There are all kinds of paradoxes in physics, yet atheists refuse to accept paradoxes when it comes to God.
If the universe is fundamentally paradoxical (and quantum mechanics would suggest it is, which quantum particles being able to exist and not exist at the same time, with quantum particles which are entangled changing state simultaneously no matter the distance, with bosons like photons being able to occupy the same space), then "classical logic", either/or logic (that humans invented) is insufficient to describe the universe.
The Case Against Reality
http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/04/the-illusion-of-reality/479559/
>A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.
>Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman explains why human perceptions of an independent reality are all illusions.
Many religious traditions readily accept that the world is somewhat illusory. Yet science takes the world on its face (even though some stars in the sky are so far away that they may not even exist anymore, and are therefore optical illusions).
Jean Baudrillard:
>The problem of the existence or inexistence of God had been resolved through simulation. Just as we have done with the problem of truth or with the fundamental illusion of the world: we have resolved it through technical simulation, and through the profusion of images in which there is nothing to see.
>“Illusion is the fundamental rule”
>Baudrillard sees the perfect crime as our doomed attempt to render the world (which is fundamentally a world of illusion) knowable in computer models and information, by the “cloning of reality” and the “extermination of the real [the original illusion] by its double.”
>Baudrillard cites that sect while underlining the key Gnostic concept of illusion: “A principle of illusion – the concept of the world as the work of the devil and, at the same time, that of perfection achieved here on earth – are the two fundamental concepts of the Cathars”.28 Procreation, say the Manicheans, is “the most formidable device in Satan’s strategy” because it traps particles of Light in Evil matter.
>The world of our reality of matter, is for Baudrillard half a reality, as it was siphoned off from antimatter at the time of the formation of the universe. Again, contemporary science is called upon to point to the illusory nature of the world and the cosmos.101 But this illusion is necessary, it is what prevents our world from being knowable and predictable. The one thing worse, for Baudrillard, than the radical illusion of the world, would be to find the world rendered knowable.
>according to Manicheanism the reality of the world is a total illusion; it is something which has been tainted from the very beginning; it is something which has been seduced by a sort of irreal principle since time immemorial…
>>75645883
It's absurd to claim God is XYZ and you see no evidence of anything that is XYZ therefore God does not exist.
If the premise is true (God is XYZ), then the conclusion (God does not exist) is false.
Rather, the premise could be false. Or the premise could be true, and you just haven't found it yet.
It makes more sense to say what God is not (by ruling out different concepts of God). But even then, you could probably never completely rule them out, because human knowledge will always be incomplete.
>>75654872
God of the gaps wew lad
>>75645908
>The defining traits of God are omnipotence and omnipresence.
>If He were not all-powerful, He would not be God.
No, those are simply traits that Judeo-Christians have ascribed to God. How do you know they are correct?
The whole argument by Epicurus was about how 3 supposed traits of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) could not all simultaneously be true, because, Epicurus states that evil exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
However, what is the evidence that evil exists? Because people think it does? People thinking something exists is not accepted as evidence for the existence of God, so why is it accepted as evidence for the existence of evil?
>>75654872
>hurr durr, God MUST exist so anything which suggests otherwise is wrong, and since there is no evidence for him the lack of evidence is proof
kill yourself you retarded faggot
>>75654872
It makes the most sense to never say what God is/isn't, as they are objective remarks which can't be verified.
People need to shut up and be silent.
>>75644681
Life is an experiment to see how you will do. Remove evil and it's a hotel where nothing happens, which is a type of Hell, which is evil.
>>75655356
My argument isn't a "God of the gaps" argument at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
>"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.
If an atheist thinks God is a bearded man in the sky, and they see no bearded man in the sky, does that mean God does not exist? No, only if God is, in fact, a bearded man in the sky, which contradicts their conclusion that God does not exist. Finding no bearded man in the sky does not disprove the existence of God. It could only help to disprove the premise that God is a bearded man in the sky, that that concept of God is false.
When atheists say there is no evidence of God, it all depends on what they think qualifies as evidence, which depends on their preconceived notions of God, their premises of God, the traits they think God "should" have (or that other humans have claimed God has).
But how would they know God if they saw it? How do they know what to look for? Atheists disbelieve in every concept of God, they think there is nothing to find (even though scientists regularly look for things they've never seen before, believing in the existence of hidden or unseen evidence).
>>75655673
You completely misundersood what I was saying and you're calling me retarded?
I never claimed God must exist.
But your claim that "there is no evidence for God" COMPLETELY rests on what you think qualifies as evidence for God. But how do you know that what you think qualifies as evidence for God actually corresponds to reality? How do you know you're looking for the right thing? If God does not exist, you can't be looking for the right thing, there's nothing to find.
If an atheist thinks God is a bearded man in the sky, and they see no bearded man in the sky, does that mean God does not exist? No, only if God is, in fact, a bearded man in the sky, which contradicts their conclusion that God does not exist. Finding no bearded man in the sky does not disprove the existence of God. It could only help to disprove the premise that God is a bearded man in the sky, that that concept of God is false.
If a premise about God's attributes is true (God is a bearded man in the sky), it could never lead to a conclusion that God does not exist, that's a contradiction. Something cannot be non-existence yet have other attributes (unless it's a myth, or a fictional character, or maybe an illusion). You could only conclude that the premise about God's traits (besides existence) could be false, that the stories about God might be wrong.
Pretty sure that if some being has the power over time and space, can create and unmake life and matter, not to mention other supernatural powers, is by our standards and definition, a god, regardless if he's actually has limitations or isn't wholly good or evil or whatnot. Those things don't really matter.
For instance, if I could dictate the fate of mankind on a whim, if by my will I could send people to a heaven or hell of my creation, aside from becoming omniscient and "almost" omnipotent, I'd pretty much be a god. I say almost because... say... I could do almost everything, but I couldn't kill puppies. It can't be helped. I'd be defective in that regard. Still, would it really matter?
>>75644681
Why do we use these measurements to describe God as if He is a human?
>>75646376
Some people believe the universe is God.
Prove the universe is real.
>The world of our reality of matter, is for Baudrillard half a reality, as it was siphoned off from antimatter at the time of the formation of the universe. Again, contemporary science is called upon to point to the illusory nature of the world and the cosmos.
>>75647034
>The omni traits are exactly what makes God God.
Well, if God is all that exists (or has ever existed), then yes, I suppose God does all things, exerts all power, expresses all love, knows all things that become known, but also commits all evil -- against itself.
>Non-living consciousness is an oxymoron.
Consciousness is (supposedly) electromagnetic in nature.
If there is no God, non-consciousness gave rise to consciousness, a "sleeping" universe "woke up" on its own. Is that not a contradiction? That something unaware (like a rock) could lead to awareness?
>I'm sure God could end Himself if he wanted to, but other than that, no, because He is omnipotent.
Well there is the idea of God's debris. That God (in its omnipotence) killed itself to create the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris
> It surmises that an omnipotent God annihilated himself in the Big Bang, because an omniscient God would already know everything possible except his own lack of existence, and exists now as the smallest units of matter and the law of probability, or "God's debris"
>>75657265
>Why do we use these measurements to describe God as if He is a human?
>uses male pronoun
Do you see the irony?
>>75644681
>God
>this is real
>>75647207
If God is eternal and omnipotent, God could purposefully forget Its own identity (and assume every identity).
If God is the only things that exists, and if God exists in multiple conscious and unconscious states (akin to waking and sleeping states), then unconscious-God could commit "evil" against itself, not realizing that all evil God does only hurts itself. In that sense, God would not be "testing" people's faith in It, but God would be playing with Itself. However, equating evil with "play" may be offensive to some people, but only because they know how it feels to suffer at the hands of evil.
Jesus said "love thy neighbor" as thyself and "love thy enemies."
In the Nag Hammadi library, Jesus also said "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there."
>>75645102
>God is beyond logic
>But God is good, Everything he does should not be questioned
>We shouldn't question the philosophy of God because he is beyond logic, but we should accept that he is good, because a book and my dreams say so
>Being this much of a muslim
Flag is not a surprise
>>75647463
>Sorry how is a non living consciousness an oxymoron? If it wasn't born, its not living, if it hasn't died its not dead, therefore the third option of non living is indeed correct: non living consciousness.
Humans don't fully understand consciousness, or think that only animals with sufficient neurons have consciousness, but there is also the idea that God is an eternal consciousness.
Panpsychism is the view that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism
But which sounds stranger? The idea of an eternal consciousness, or the idea that non-consciousness can give rise to consciousness? That dead matter can suddenly "wake up" and become aware of itself, that atoms can suddenly realize they are atoms?
When it comes to the origin of the universe, people think the past goes backwards until it stops. That every effect has a cause, so there are innumerable causes going back to the origin of the universe. But if the universe began, there was a cause without a prior cause, a causeless cause. So there is either an infinite number of causes (and no beginning aka eternity) or a causeless cause (which, I think, would also be eternal). Which is remarkably similar to the Hindu concept of Brahman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman
>>75647483
Theists can easily believe that an eternal God (who existed prior to the universe) created the laws of physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
>The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.
However, to explain why our universe seems fine-tuned for life, some physicists suggest that our universe simply has random laws of physics, and is just one of innumberable universes (possibly connected by black holes) which each have random laws of physics, so that the laws of physics in our universe are kind of the result of natural selection, or rather, we simply emerged in a universe that was suitable for life.
Rather than believe in God, they would rather believe in an infinite number of universes which will never be observable, each with random laws of physics.
>>75647564
Would you recognize God if you saw him?
Matthew 25:35-40
>"For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' "The King will reply, 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'
>>75644681
stfu Epicurus
>>75648496
What do you think qualifies as evidence for God?
Do spiritual experiences qualify as evidence for God?
Do certain drug experiences qualify as evidence for God?
I assume you would rule all of those out as hallucinations.
And yet you probably consider personal experience in your own life as evidence for all kinds of things. And all evidence in the outside world must be interpreted inside the human mind, even if it was instruments or computers that gathered it. The interpretation of evidence is always an internal process in the human brain.
>>75644681
It's not an argument against God in all forms, rather an argument against specific Gods, namely Christianity.
>>75648791
>How do you? How does anyone? Arguments like that backfire because they make every religion obsolete because nobody can't understand "him" and all the qualities "he" might or might not have are just imagined.
Every religion?
http://www.allabouthinduism.info/2013/03/08/vishnu-the-protector/
>As if he is seeing a dream, Vishnu watches Brahma create the Universe. By the act of watching his dream, Vishnu sustains the Universe. When Vishnu wakes from his dream one cycle of Creation ends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cycle_of_the_universe
>Hindu scriptures hold that Lord Vishnu, the protector and caretaker of all creation, sleeps in the middle of a vast ocean on the giant snake Sheshnaga. When the cycle begins, Lord Brahma is born out of the 'lotus', an allusion to the kamal[lotus] which is the origin of all life. This 'lotus' comes out of the navel of Lord Vishnu. The lotus is known as Brahma Kamal. The first sound of Lord Brahma is Om, the origin of all creation.
>>75649774
>why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
If God is alone, if God is all that has ever existed, why would God create all kinds of things and creatures to forget He is alone?
Why do forever alone NEETs play videogames?
>>75650565
In Gnostic Christiniaty, which was attacked by Irenaeus as heresy, and whose scriptures were left out of the Bible by Athanasius of Alexandria, the Creator God of the universe is a malevolent demiurge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge
>according to Manicheanism the reality of the world is a total illusion; it is something which has been tainted from the very beginning; it is something which has been seduced by a sort of irreal principle since time immemorial…
>Baudrillard cites that sect while underlining the key Gnostic concept of illusion: “A principle of illusion – the concept of the world as the work of the devil and, at the same time, that of perfection achieved here on earth – are the two fundamental concepts of the Cathars”.28 Procreation, say the Manicheans, is “the most formidable device in Satan’s strategy” because it traps particles of Light in Evil matter.
>>75651735
>guess what there is no right or bad way of doing things, there is just doing things.
>fucking do your homework son and fuck off nerd.
That's a contradiction.
If there is "no right or bad way of doing things", you can't criticize anybody's actions. Your argument is that all behaviors are valid.
>>75645102
This
People defining God is like Women defining men.
>A REAL MAN WOULDNT DO THIS AND DOESNT DO THAT!! PAMPER MEEE!!!
Just role reversal.
>>75644681
That entire line of thought is basically just edgy atheistfags shitalking God and your faith and has nothing to do with whether or not He exists.
yeah i dont get this argument. if you read just the first few pages of the bible you can see that god is clearly not omnipotent or omniscient
