You lost me, could you rewrite that so I can understand exactly what you meant. Perhaps with a few more sentences and more clear.

Well if there is a God and he intervenes on some things but not others i have to ask why. Why save little baby Jane but let baby Doe die?

Where a deists god or a theist God who takes the hands off approach is more understandable.

lol.

I don't get this.
I accept that I can be wrong, in fact I have 2 statements that I believe in.
A. God does not exist
B. If God exists then he is the devil, he is not a good God.

A direct contradiction but like I said that's ok, one of those statements is correct, I just don't know which 1.

That's interesting but I don't like the analogy, we can't compare ourselves to God. So even though we don't always help, I don't think that justifies in saying that then we all must be evil.

We could be to some degree all evil, but that's a different topic imo. Some people more evil than others, I can get on board with that.

My point is that if God is real and he does not intervene then he must be evil and not good.

And one last thing, we people can't intervene divinely. Such as preventing rape. God can do this, right?

Exactly, so do you agree that if God exists then he is a monster?
Why is this more reasonable? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Id say if there is a God who does intervene sometimes but not others it does not look good. But again in this situation im an ant judging the highest intelligence in existence, so...

You seem to be saying the ability to intervene is a given. But maybe the deist god can not intervene. Judging him as evil for not intervening makes no sense.


Or watch what happens on star trek when they mess with the natives. I figure if there is a God he would know any interactions could have unintended consequences including pillaging and killing in his name. So a hands off approach would make sense.

And yet, your argument seems to be premised on an underlying assumption that we should compare God to ourselves in understanding good and evil.

For example...

You are using your own conception of good and evil to judge God to be either good or evil. But you just said that we can't make that comparison.

I don't know what God "can" and "can't" do. What is your concept of God and what are you setting as the limits of God's actions?

Well, your being very humble. I understand what you are saying and I do agree with your statement, however I do still feel we should be able to hold God responsible for his/her actions. Otherwise God would be able to get away with anything and that is just wrong.

Ok, that's not something I thought about. A God that can not intervene. I don't think he falls into my category of a God.

The God I am talking about can do all things supernatural.

What happened? I still don't fully understand your hands off approach and why that would be better as an intervening God. Or God that made us perfect to start with.

Cant really make i clearer then what i wrote. Maybe God would never intervene even though he could because he knows bad stuff would happen.

Thats a whole new discussion...

He knows bad stuff would happen if he intervened? Such as? Could it be worse than the stuff he lets happen as a result of not stepping in?

You always make my life more complicated Aaron grrrr... Couldn't we just agree that your analogy was wrong because people can't intervene like God can. You changed that detail to "help other people". Helping other people and intervening are 2 completely different things.


I don't like were this is heading, you are trying to undermine my understanding by trying to put forth that God is greater and knows better. And that I can't understand what his understanding of good and evil is.

We can both agree that rape is wrong, are you saying that for God rape is different, he sees that differently?


I always thought God was good.
God can do anything imaginable. No limits.
Obviously nothing bad.

Such as what sometimes happens on earth between the people arguing over what they think God wants. War and death.

It's true that God can do things in ways that humans can't, but it would seem quite plausible that humans can do things in ways that God can't.

You don't think helping other people is a form of intervening? Maybe you should elaborate more on what you think you're talking about.

I'm asking you to look more closely at the assumptions and claims that you're making. If that leads to you discovering errors, then I guess you can say that I really am trying to undermine your understanding.

Nope.

Let's say that you've somehow concluded that I'm male, but it turns out that in reality I'm female. For an extended period of time, you would have had a false image of me in your head. It would be so false that if you had actually met me in person, you would not have actually realized it was me (because your expectation is one thing, but the reality is something else).

You might then go into a long investigation for some male that meets some description and has done certain things, and you would discover that this person does not exist.

But in no way would that imply that I actually did not exist. You just established the wrong parameters and so your search was unable to locate the thing you were searching for.

So maybe you don't think "God" (whatever it is in your head) exist. That just might mean you're looking for God with the wrong parameters.

christianity is a scam > Yes. Just like any other religion.

u woke up from the matrix just like i did 5 years ago. Welcome.
Is not easy u will see brainwashed adults believing their imaginary friends are real or at least pretending. Some pretend so well they kill people in the process.

glgl

What has that got to do with your analogy?

Also what do you mean, what can humans do that God can't? (I don't really see how it is relevant.)

I agree you can use intervening in the context like a person helping out, but that is not what I am on about. I have addressed that, I meant divine intervention, something humans can't do.

That's a nice story bro but I don't buy it for a second. Even if I have my parameters wrong, God could present himself, are you saying that he does not want to be found? Has he given me false parameters, to lead me on some wild goose chase?

Is this some game that I must play, in order to find God I must search with the right parameters? I mean, I just don't buy it. It's another one of those vague analogies, that gets used a ton to make a point.

You want to reject the analogy because humans are not God and God is not human. If you want to say it's wrong, then one is left scratching their head as to what you think an analogy is supposed to be or do. It almost sounds like you're looking for an exact correspondence and not an analogy.

Humans can do things contrary to God's nature.

What do you believe "divine" intervention is?

You can assert whatever you want about God. You can say that he has given you false parameters or whatever. Or he could be right in front of you and you're just too stubborn to admit it.

Do you believe that truth can be found no matter how one attempts to find it?

No that's not the reason I rejected the analogy. It just did not seem fitting because God can intervene magically while a human can not.

I doubt that.


Google divine

Right in front of me? What do you mean? You mean that you are God?Or that my monitor and laptop are God, that's what is right in front of me right now?


Depends if the truth has any power behind it.

If you are talking about God, then yes because does he not work in mysterious ways? He can point you, in fact present instant truth towards his existence. Just like I can point you towards my existence.

You tipped your hand with this usage. This just shows that you're not being particularly intellectually honest.

Why?

di·vine1
dəˈvīn/
adjective
1.
of, from, or like God or a god.

So you've now got "divine intervention" as "God-like intervention" which means... "magical"?

I mean right in front of you like the truth of your terrible argumentation is right in front of you.

What does the bolded actually mean to you? You keep throwing words around, but you seem to have very little idea what you're saying.

It's possible for truth to be right in front of you, and you would still deny it. That you don't seem to think that's possible is merely more evidence for the rest of us to see that you're delusional about the nature of truth.

You have been an atheist for 5 years and these are the best arguments you can come up with? This is the level of discourse you are looking for?

You are arguing from a perspective where this life and everything that happens is important
. Think of vaccinations given to little children. They can be quite painful and uncomfortable but this usually only lasts a few days. Are the parents that evil to let this happen? No, of course not. What are a few days compared to the average life expectancy? It's just what the body has to go through to live a happy life.
Now think of life as a vaccination for the soul. You might have to go through pain and suffering. Maybe a lot. What are a few decades compared to eternity? It's just what the soul has to go through to live a happy eternal life. Does this make God evil?

How is the bolded not the most reasonable and most plausible perspective to adopt, based on our knowledge of the world?

I was arguing against the notion that if there is a god he must be evil.

ok fair enough

Life is important, especially MY life. Especially this life right now. If you want to make up excuses that's fine, that's up to you.

Funny! We have NO choice but to give those (painful) shots. As parents we know it is better and the child suffers less as a result of not giving them.

Are you saying that God has no choice?
If so that proves my point that God is not really a God, if he can't do things that are out of this world, he can't be a true God. He can be my creator, like a scientist can create stuff or an inventor. But does that make the scientist or inventor suddenly a God?

That's a big stretch of an analogy, my friend. A few shots that I can't even remember hurting to several decades of hurt, pain and misery. It is also just your assertion of the matter.

If God could do something to about it,and he did nothing, then yes that would make God evil. If God had no choice (which I find hard to believe) then no. But in my book that does not make him God anymore. Just more of an Alien entity that is super intelligent but not God.

You seem to have a very definition of what God can or must be.

If you can justify a few days out of decades, why can't you justify a few decades out of eternity?

Again, narrow definition.
Also, you might not understand all the complexities that are at work here. Then add free will on top of that and things murky mighty fast. If this life is supposed to be a learning experience then constant intervention defeats that purpose.

What does this mean? "very definition"? Did you leave a word out?


Because it is not certain that it is indeed decades out of eternity, whereas the first example, we know, KNOW that those vaccinations will do their job for the rest of a child's life!


What's narrow about it?

So God can not deal with complexities? There are more complex things than God can deal with? Is that what you are saying?

Is this life suppose to be a learning experience? That's your claim, does not make it apply to me.

So now you add the word "constant" to argue my point. I would agree from a learning perspective that indeed constant intervening might not be best. But that is not what I am talking about. I'm not talking constant, I'm talking about when something happens that is not right, such as rape.

How do you argue that God did the right thing and let rape happen? So the suffering is fine because, afterwards one can go and live for an eternity? Who even asked God for eternal life? Why does it cost to enter eternal life? Why is suffering all right for some lame ass excuse like you produced?

What the ****? Is that the cost of admission?

Yes, I left out "narrow".

You seem to be focused on an all-powerful, interventionist god.

No, I am saying it might be more complex than a human can grasp.

Is this life suppose to be a learning experience? That's your claim, does not make it apply to me.

The intervention would have to be constant. There is always something happening somewhere that is need of prevention.
Also, if you have God intervene in what you consider the worst circumstances then the second worst experiences are the worst. Then he has to eliminate those and the originally third worst are at the top of the list now. This continues until someone wonders why doesn't God prevent paper cuts and stubbed toes.

That doesn't sound like a bad deal.

Maybe you are allowed to opt out of both this life and the next.