Atheists, smarter than religious people

Chumly wrote:

You did not ask a question you made a claim as per

real life wrote:

Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

Now you are rephrasing it as a question, with a person doing the "forcing" as per

real life wrote:

Who forces God to be or do anything?

I responded to your initial claim in a rational manner as per

Chumly wrote:

Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral.

Logically you'll need to demonstrate the plausibly of your anthropomorphic providential god for your question to have meaning. However a plausibility argument is not needed to support my claim, given the Christian Bible dictates what is expected of the Christian god.

Really! Show us.

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:

real life wrote:

snood wrote:

Still - two distinct and separate concepts.

You are quite right, my friend.

Just because God knows what we will do (foreknowledge) doesn't mean He 'caused' us to do it (preordination/predestination).

The distinction would seem to be an obvious one.

The alternative that I have heard oft expressed is the illogical position that some here have adopted:

'If God is omnipotent, then Man cannot possibly have free will (i.e. an all powerful God couldn't give Man a free will).'

Clearly that position is self contradictory.

I still take issue with the idea that God must know the future by necessity or compulsionl.

Who said it was by compulsion? Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

Is there any indication in the scripture that there are things God does not know?

He gives us choice.

Not sure how that answers my question though.

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

You did not ask a question you made a claim as per

real life wrote:

Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

Now you are rephrasing it as a question, with a person doing the "forcing" as per

real life wrote:

Who forces God to be or do anything?

I responded to your initial claim in a rational manner as per

Chumly wrote:

Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral.

Logically you'll need to demonstrate the plausibly of your anthropomorphic providential god for your question to have meaning. However a plausibility argument is not needed to support my claim, given the Christian Bible dictates what is expected of the Christian god.

Really! Show us.

OK

"You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!"
(Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

"The LORD is good."
(Nahum 1:2-8 NLT)

"For the land of Israel lies empty and broken after your attacks, but the LORD will restore its honor and power again"
(Nahum 2:2-10 NLT)

The list goes on.....

We are obviously not on the same page. Not in the same book. Not even in the same library.. ..

neologist wrote:

We are obviously not on the same page. Not in the same book. Not even in the same library.. ..

I think that's the basic problem with most of these 'discussions'. The two sides have totally different philosophical foundations for understanding the world around them.

It's hard to compare apples to apples when all one side has are plums and all the other side has are bananas.

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:

We are obviously not on the same page. Not in the same book. Not even in the same library.. ..

I think that's the basic problem with most of these 'discussions'. The two sides have totally different philosophical foundations for understanding the world around them.

It's hard to compare apples to apples when all one side has are plums and all the other side has are bananas.

And Chumly has an entirely different dictionary

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:

We are obviously not on the same page. Not in the same book. Not even in the same library.. ..

I think that's the basic problem with most of these 'discussions'. The two sides have totally different philosophical foundations for understanding the world around them.

It's hard to compare apples to apples when all one side has are plums and all the other side has are bananas.

And Chumly has an entirely different dictionary

It's rather amusing that you as a Christian would challenge me to demonstrate to you whether your Bible does or does not define your Christian god.

In any case there are many scriptural examples which give substance to the pretext of an anthropomorphic providential god and as such the Christian Bible does indeed dictate expectations of your Christian god.

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral. This BTW also answers Neo's question to me as per

neologist wrote:

You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?

God cannot act in such a manner such that the outcome is anything less than the most moral, that is in essence highly limiting.

You are now faced with the task of defining what is most moral, what is good and what is bad. Interestingly, it is the same issue raised by Satan in the temptation of Eve. Yet you do not see the conundrum you have proposed.

I'm not faced with it nope, your anthropomorphic providential god is.

It's funny to see a relativist claim that any standard of morality, whether God's or man's, is in any way invalid or incorrect.

If you are you saying "The LORD is good." (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) & "The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!" (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) does not dictate expectations of your Christian god, I would find your position dubious.

Chumly wrote:

If you are you saying "The LORD is good." (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) & "The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies!" (Nahum 1:2-8 NLT) does not dictate expectations of your Christian god, I would find your position dubious.

Your citation is of a passage directed particularly against Nineveh. Are you saying God's judgement against Nineveh was incorrect?

Perhaps you should offer him counsel from time to time.

You may recall that he also referred to himself as "I am that I am........

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral. This BTW also answers Neo's question to me as per

neologist wrote:

You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?

God cannot act in such a manner such that the outcome is anything less than the most moral, that is in essence highly limiting.

You are now faced with the task of defining what is most moral, what is good and what is bad. Interestingly, it is the same issue raised by Satan in the temptation of Eve. Yet you do not see the conundrum you have proposed.

I'm not faced with it nope, your anthropomorphic providential god is.

It's funny to see a relativist claim that any standard of morality, whether God's or man's, is in any way invalid or incorrect.

You might have a point, if I was arguing a real world pragmatism. Nothing could be farther from the truth however.

I challenge you to argue your anthropomorphic providential Christian god can choose any other path but the one that is most moral!

neologist wrote:

You may recall that he also referred to himself as "I am that I am........

Would that be BP or AP (after Popeye or before Popeye)?

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Nobody forces God to do or be anything.

Nonsense, god is very limited, in fact there is only one course of action god can take, that being the one this is most moral. This BTW also answers Neo's question to me as per

neologist wrote:

You were the one who brought up the term "best Christian moral conditions". What's that about?

God cannot act in such a manner such that the outcome is anything less than the most moral, that is in essence highly limiting.

You are now faced with the task of defining what is most moral, what is good and what is bad. Interestingly, it is the same issue raised by Satan in the temptation of Eve. Yet you do not see the conundrum you have proposed.

I'm not faced with it nope, your anthropomorphic providential god is.

It's funny to see a relativist claim that any standard of morality, whether God's or man's, is in any way invalid or incorrect.

You might have a point, if I was arguing a real world pragmatism. Nothing could be farther from the truth however.

I challenge you to argue your anthropomorphic providential Christian god can choose any other path but the one that is most moral!

What does 'most moral' mean to you as a relativist?

If you accept no such notion as that anything can be 'most moral' then how will you know if God (as described in the Bible) can or does choose such, even if I were to describe it to you?

In other words, how are you going to sit in judgement on God's moral standard, when you as a relativist claim all moral standards are equally valid?

(If you do not believe all moral standards are equally valid, then you must believe there is somewhere an absolute standard of morality that exists, and by which all others must be measured.)

neologist wrote:

You may recall that he also referred to himself as "I am that I am........

Would that be BP or AP (after Popeye or before Popeye)?

. . . Even by your standards, you're pilling the straw-men awfully high! I challenge you to argue your anthropomorphic providential Christian god can choose any other path but the one that is most moral!