I see what you are doing! It's not the point that she does not get what she want. You just don't want to admit that God blunders, badly might I add (if he even exists). Would you agree? Question can God blunder?


I don't follow. It meaningful to Angela that God makes up for his blunder, like you'd expect a good God to do.

Yes why not, he is God after all! The God you have in your mind seems like a God that is not divine,not capable of extraordinary things.


It doesn't help you at all. I think you're going to end up showing yourself to be intellectually shallow. You don't have a particularly strong argument here without first establishing a whole lot more about your belief system.

Good-hearted, but not good-minded.[/QUOTE]

Does it explain my OP question?

Angela is good in both our view and Gods view.

This last bit has nothing to do with my OP.

Based on the structure of your argument, that certainly seems to be the case. Tell me whether your underlying logic is any different if I changed the object of the desire:

The logic you present has nothing to do with being tormented. It's that God knew such-and-such, Angela didn't want such-and-such, and therefore you assume it's a blunder.

It's just bad logic.

How would you even define a blunder by God? By what standard are you attempting to measure God against?

Of course you don't follow. You're not really trying. The noise you're making is mostly a random collection of statements, many of which are parroted statements from better arguments but presented in a way as to be mostly incoherent.

You keep treating God as some sort of magical butler whose goal it is to make people happy.

At this point, you're clearly just using stupid definitions of God. In the other thread, you literally expressed a statement that suggests you view God as "magical."

Ahh, you are changing it to a banana.


My own God given standard of right and wrong, why?

Let me ask you something now.

Do you think God makes mistakes?
Should God be held responsible for his/her actions?
Is Satan evil?

Yes. The book of Job is entirely about your question, it's why it was written.

People complain all the time why does God let bad things happen to good people. You might not be too thrilled with the explanation at the end, but it's position that all monotheist religions stemming from Judaism subscribe to.

But instead of be kind of a douche and make you read it, I'll put the answer in spoiler tags for you:

A+ observation. Now tell me how the logic changes when I change the object like that.

So if God does something other than what you think God should do, God must have made a mistake? Because that's... ummmm... not a good reflection of anything resembling intellectual humility.

Probably not. And if he did, I'm not even sure I would be able to catch it.

I don't know how one might hold God responsible. That phrasing in some sense implies a punishment, but I'm not exactly sure how one punishes God.

Sure.

Well first of all thanks for not being a douche .

Now that I have read the answer, I can say, you are right, I really do not like that answer at all.

Who wrote that? Did God write that? It seems so wrong, it seems like the person who wrote that could not explain why God does bad things to good people. He then simply lets God pull the wool over his eyes, so to speak.

Unacceptable.

The book of Job is in the Old testament of the Bible. So some would argue God wrote it. More secularized religious people would say it was written by one the wise (?) men of the Bible.

Sklansky pointed out in another thread (correctly imo) that the purpose of religion is to solve the prisoner's dilemma. That is, to coerce rational actors to cooperate instead of take aggressive/destructive action against an individual (or group of individuals) when it might be logical, or beneficial, to do so.

The question you ask is perhaps the most challenging question religion needs to avoid to keep the social cohesion together. When bad things happen to good people they tend to lose faith in God and the idea that being a good person is rewarded. Religion argues that even if bad things happen to you in this life, good things will happen to you in the next. But obviously, when bad **** happens to good people, a lot lose faith and start doing bad things to people.

The answer to the question is just a simple, 'don't question God, just keep doing your best and we'll try to support you'. Yes, its a cop out, but it's a very challenging question for the religion's representatives to answer. It's pretty much a 'gotchya' question.

This is what I exactly said: Your assumptions are very reductive and simplified. That Angela is good in view of God we can never know. But you ignore this fact for that your conclusion survives.
The last bit has very well something to do with your OP. When your assumptions are not coherent your conclusion is not much worth.
What you are doing is like: Everything what has tyres is a car, so airplanes cannot exist.

Continuous incoherent assumptions...
When bad things happen to people (we don't know if they are good or not, how could we, we are like beginners in chess, they think their moves are good too, but they don't know it, even the masters have a limited understanding of good otherwise they would never lose) some lose faith and some become stronger in their faith. Dostoevsky didn't believe in Jesus till he experienced scaffold. And after being imprisoned in Siberia he probably did look at all the experience as a wakening call.
The point is: if god exists than "bad" might not mean to be tortured but to torture. But you guys reduce the meaning of "bad" mainly to: corporal pain and or poverty. But beyond this there are lots of possibilities.
Mr. Sklansky is also incoherent in the same way: "when it might be logical, or beneficial, to do so"
Who decides that the aggressive action is logical or beneficial? In the view of Al Baghdadi everything what he does is logical and beneficial. The view of all wise men is the same as the one of Socrates namely to accept: I know that I know nothing. If one assumes that one knows (like Mr. Sklansky is assuming) than it is only a matter of how long one lives to become the next Al Baghdadi.

No time right now, will write the rest later.

Such melodrama, settle down there snowflake. If you don't like your ramblings being criticised, try making them more coherent.

Part 2
Another point of Mr Sklansky is: What can god expect from humans when their rationality says this is good for you and this is bad for you. The limitation of their rationality makes them irresponsible.
The first revelation to Muhammad was:
"Recite in the name of your Lord Who created, created man from a clot of congealed blood."
For those who know religions this is already a proof that this book is from the world inside. No revelation could begin better than this. At first God tells people to doubt their knowledge because how much can someone who is from a clot of congealed blood understand? Not much.
"Recite: and your Lord is Most Generous, taught man what he did not know. Nay, surely man transgresses; for he believes himself to be self-sufficient."
Here is the missing point of Mr. Sklansky: What if humans wrong decisions are self imposed? Self imposed because humans surmise they know everything well enough although the reality proves them wrong every single day. If the blindness is self imposed than it is not a dilemma.
"Surely to your Lord is your return. Did you see him who forbids a servant (of Allah) when he prays? Did you consider: what if he is on the Right Way, and enjoins piety? Did you consider: what if he gives the lie (to the Truth) and turns away (from it)? Does he not know that Allah sees everything? No indeed;12 if he does not desist, We shall drag him by the forelock;by the lying forelock steeped in sin. So let him summon his helpmates. We too shall summon the guards of Hell. No, not at all. Never obey him. But prostrate yourself and become nigh (to your Lord)."
And it ends wonderful with "become nigh". Don't lie to yourself that you are strong. Accept that you don't know and that you are weak. Accept that you will return to Allah, accept that you will die.
An example to make clear how far humans might be responsible for their deeds:
It is judgement day. It is Mr "You"'s turn. God says: "You are accused of having followed evil. What do you have to say?" You: "I didn't ever see evil. If I had seen him, I wouldn't have listen to him. I would have avoided and fought evil. But I never did see such a thing like evil." God calls witnesses. Mr. You's brother enters. God tells him: "Your brother says he didn't ever see evil. So why are you accusing him?" You's brother contracts his brows and looks sharply at his brother and asks Mr. You: When you did *** my wife, you didn't see evil? Now really, one time be honest, you didn't see evil?" God calls the next witness and to Mr. You's surprise it is a cow. God tells the cow: Mr. You claims he didn't see evil. So why are you accusing him? The cow takes a deep look at Mr. You and asks Mr. You: " Because you wanted to eat a lot and to eat as cheap as possible and eat as comfortable as possible, me and millions like me were caged under miserable circumstances and you knew this but you didn't see evil? Why did yo do this to us? Didn't you think you are self sufficient and can escape death when you ignored our misery? Didn't you miss evil because you were an ignorant turning a blind eye to others suffering? "
The purpose of religions might not be to solve any dilemma, this is another reduction. The purpose might just be to remind so one cannot say: I didn't see evil.

The scenario in my OP is hypothetical, so it is possible that Angela is good in God's view.

I did not ignore anything, I assumed you knew the difference between a hypothetical and non- hypothetical situation.

That last paragraph is nonsense again. You actually did not use paragraphs, so I've gone ahead and put a space in between your line of text. Do me favor and use paragraphs, it makes life so much easier, thanks.

Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. I couldn't of written it any better.

What I find surprising though is that people that believe in God, don't question him. They are in essential powerless. If God does something wrong, it's who are we to question God or God has a purpose i.e in other words do not question authority.

The problem with that imo is that even authorities get it wrong and if you give them all the power, then you are left with a big dilemma, you aren't able to defend oneself from that power.

If you do not question God, then you won't even be able to tell if the God is indeed real. The God that you think is God might not be God at all. Because (religious)people blindly follow what they presume to be God they can in fact never be certain that their God is indeed the real God.

Logically you must question God, if you don't you will never know if he is real or not.

This is what baffles me most, because religious people do not see this, they see me questioning God, and how can I question such divinity, who are you blah blah blah!

It does not change. It becomes less severe but it still is not right. God can give a banana to Angela but refuses to so, so he should be held accountable for his actions. In a perfect world we all have exactly what we want. God can give us that be he refuses to so. He should be held accountable, its not a crime to withhold something but it should be. Especially when it's crucial!

You could say that withholding food from a baby is ok, it's not a crime. It is not severe, the baby eats less but survives. Mother and father do not go to jail.

But then what happens when the baby dies of starvation?It is way more severe this time, still same principle i.e withholding food, only this time the end result is a lot different. You are essentially saying that the parents should now NOT go to jail, RIGHT?

Yes and No, he could of made a mistake that would warrant questioning and that is not something you do, you simply accept that it's God and you have no right to question him.

I on the other hand would question it and seek to find a good explanation. If the answer does not compute with me such as rape is ok because God did it, then yes I would say he made a mistake.

That's the problem, right there. Maybe you should start thinking of God like he is human. That way you will be able to hold him accountable, unless you do not know how it works with humans, in which case I rest my case.

He makes a good point, I will add to that. We have flawed minds and bodies, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. These bodies could never of been created by God because God would of created us perfect.

Why would God need clot of blood to create us? Is God not the almighty after all?
Proof from the world inside? What does that even mean?

Here you are proving me right that God is not great. You have unknowingly just said that God created humans and he created us with little knowledge. We were made in the image of God = A flawed God.

So he creates us flawed with little knowledge and then wants us to believe he is generous? How can he be generous? If he were generous, he would of made us Gods right away, like himself. But chose to be very evil, and created us as his slaves to worship him! He is not generous at all, he is slave master and we are his slaves. That is not generosity that is pure EVIL!

You really think Sklansky is missing the point. You are missing it completely! Sklansky even points out that we humans have a limited capacity for understanding. We are imperfect, he even created us imperfect, you even said that he did. I can't even be bothered anymore, I stopped reading this nonsense.

Is this actually a true claim, or is this pulled out of your rear end? The more you make random assertions like this to justify your position, the more transparent it is that you've got no intellectual foundation to build on.

Is this actually a true claim, or is this pulled out of your rear end? The more you make random assertions like this to justify your position, the more transparent it is that you've got no intellectual foundation to build on.

You just completely violated your entire logic.

You keep talking about "holding God accountable." What does that actually mean? You're kind of just spamming the keyboard at this point, hoping that something coherent will fall out if you put enough words together.

Why not make a serious attempt to say something meaningful?

You talk about random assertions, like you don't assert anything yourself?

It's true for me, it might not be for you but who cares, you are irrelevant.

I don't mind being A. transparent and B. have no intellect! So you can stop bringing that up as a dick measuring contest, as I don't care.


How can anything be true to you, if all other people's assertions are BS to you? You like to ramble about assertions but you dismiss everyone's assertions.


Sure I did. lol


Can the law of the US hold humans accountable? If the answer is yes, then you should, stop posting here and go and research how that might work for God.

You still haven't defended your claim.

"It's true for me." It's rare that we run into true relativists around here.

In what sense is it "true for you" that "In a perfect world we all have exactly what we want."? What is the "truth" of that and in what way is that any different from me saying something like "It's true for me that God exists"?

Well, if that's what you're measuring when it comes to intellect, it's no wonder why you're coming up way short. If I were you, I'd be significantly more concerned about expressing pride in being stupid.

You can call it a ramble, but given that even people who agree with your conclusions believe that your argumentation is weak, the most probable conclusion is that your argumentation is weak. And therefore, maybe you should really focus on that as opposed to trying to just pretend like your argument is superior.

Okay. Go arrest God and have him tried in court. Tell me how that works out.

I claim many things, which one are you on about? While you are at it, defend this claim of your's: "Humans can do things contrary to God's nature."

I don't get your question. I want to live in a World where we all get what we want. What are you on about, truth? Or sense of truth?
Right now if you compare apples for apples then your statement of "It's true for me that God exists" is false, God does not exist. Reason is because I do not live in a World where I get what I want.

As far as you asserting that, there is no difference, I think. So you also just want God to be real but so far he still is not real. In the same way that I do not live in a World where I get what I want.

Who said anything about measuring? I'm not interested in a DIC/K measuring contest. I have stated this already.



Who said I thought my argument is superior?

I've said this before, you don't even realise it do you. You assert and make stuff up all the time. Here is another example were you've done it.

Believe me if I could, I would!

Under most theological conceptions of God, humans can do things that God cannot do. For a moral conception of God, we might say that God does not sin, but humans can.

You tell me. You're the one who said it was true for you. What do you mean by that? Or is "true" now a matter of "want"?

You don't want, therefore truth!

To me, it's not a matter of wanting God to be real. Either God is real or is not. One of those possibilities is true and the other is not.

So... you're saying that you talked about measuring.

The alternative is that you believe your argument is inferior, but choose to hold onto it anyway.

Edit: I suppose it's also possible that you consider our arguments to be equally valid. But then you would have to conclude that your argument is pretty poor because that's what you think of mine. Basically, there's no way this comes out good for you.

You're truly delusional.

Doesn't this make my point for me? That you can't actually hold God accountable?

I mean, I'm not even sure I feel good about mocking you. For most other people I mock, I do it out of entertainment, but at this point it all just feels kind of sad.

The "problem of evil" is over-hyped and overused. If we assume it is applied to the Christian God, then the Bible is very clear on a fair bit of "personality traits" that applies to "God", and they do not fit into a narrative of a fluffy-puffy being of pure niceness.

Sure, you'll defeat some new-agey narratives of God as "pure love", but that's not an argument against God, that's an argument against specific interpretations of the Bible.

That's not to say that such discussions can't be interesting. but there are far better ones to argue. "The problem of perfection" (my words) is far more interesting for example; views of the Christian God as "omniscient" and "omnipotent" are very widespread to the point of almost being universal to the Christian faith. Yet the Bible tells us that God makes mistakes, can be taken by surprise and can be misled.

Still, even those discussions are (again) not an argument against God, merely arguments against specific interpretations of canon texts. And even in the case of finding some argument against the entirety of a religious concept of God, it would still only apply to that religion and not the general concept of "god".

Bold statement! Can you actually back that up or is just more random drivel you read somewhere or simply made up in your head?

You should go back and read that statement, you are misreading it completely.

Right and we all know how you got to your answer!

Really? If I say to you I am not a black person, does that now make me a white person?
You're truly delusional.

NO! Just because a criminal escapes justice does not mean he can't be held accountable. Not only that but even if we can't hold him responsible right now, does not mean we can't hold him accountable later.

Now your true colors are coming out. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt. You make fun of people for your own entertainment, essentially you just said that you are a TROLL.

For a guy with all the big words, it a shame you are a so flawed in your basics of logic, so elementary.

I am going to stop responding to you from now on, in fact I have you on block. You are a waste of my time!

Considering that the concept of a moral God is quite prevalent, it's clear that you're trying to just argue that ignorance is sufficient.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

Here is the original exchange. Let anyone reading it come to their own conclusion.

SM: It's true for me, it might not be for you but who cares, you are irrelevant. [NB: "It" refers to the statement "In a perfect world we all have exactly what we want."]

AW: In what sense is it "true for you" that "In a perfect world we all have exactly what we want."?

SM: I want to live in a World where we all get what we want. What are you on about, truth? Or sense of truth?

AW: You tell me. You're the one who said it was true for you. What do you mean by that? Or is "true" now a matter of "want"?

SM: You should go back and read that statement, you are misreading it completely.

You do? I'd challenge you to share your knowledge at this point.

Okay. Good luck arresting God later.

My true colors have been quite clear from the start. You have an opportunity to make reasonable arguments, but if you don't do that, I begin to mock you for it. It's worse when people refuse to engage intellectually, such as you dramatically chastising someone else for criticizing the quality of your argument. In my view, getting mocked is earned.

Yes... It's such a shame that I have yet to adopt alternative logic as you have.

I expect you'll probably end up reading this anyway. It's only one click to show the post, and I'm doubtful of the level of self-discipline that you have. It may be that only you will ever know that you failed at this, too.