I haven't. And this bit about free will doesn't excuse God from sitting idle.

1) I am not omniscient, and
2) I have free will.

And that is my answer.

He forgot to give himself free will.

"Free will" is always the answer to this question, all major religions.

Which is then admitting not omnipresent.

Thanks.

it is obvious that my answer in #2 is my personal view.

If you have another, that is your answer.

If you have a child who never has to do anything for himself, never encounters difficulty, never experiences hurt or suffering, that child grows up to be incapable. Lacking resilience, empathy, the ability to deal with any headwind or accept that the universe isn't centered around himself. They cant' take correct, they're convinced the universe is there to wipe their butts. Now, the person may seem fine for a while, all nice and outgoing living under perfect conditions, until the minimal empathy and resilience that he has is strained--maybe by being asked to do an assignment instead of some fun activity, maybe a significant other has a problem with him.

I've grown plants like this. They grow in perfect conditions. Perfect water, nutrient, sunlight, temperatures, etc. Then when you put them outside in the ground they die, even the conditions are superior to the conditions that species would normally encounter in natura. They need to be hardened off first. Cactus nurseries often grow plants to a size desirable by collectors, but if they put those plants, who normally grow exposed to 10-12 hours of intense sunlight per day in the wild, who have the capacity to withstand really challenging conditions, in the sun for just 2-3 hours they sunburn.

Your analogies don't work because God created a universe in which suffering is necessary. He could have created a universe in which it is possible to grow in empathy and resilience etc., but with less or no suffering. Since he is omnipotent and omniscient, he had the power and knowledge to do so, by definition. That he didn't means he was unable, didn't know how, or was unwilling to do so.

On the other hand, your children and your plants evolved to need suffering in order to develop fully. We evolved this way, because the natural world already has suffering we can't prevent.

Why a straw man? Because the people who question religious "wisdom" are generally judging it only within the context of human existence. Children are born with debilitating conditions all the time, through no fault of their own (or their parents). They might be sentenced to a brief, painful life. For what purpose? Neither you, nor any other theist, can answer that question.

Why begging the question? The author presumes (without knowing themselves, of course) that perceiving the "whole of reality" is guaranteed to answer the queries. This is wholly unsupported.

Keep trying, gil. This is pathetic.

And your second paragraph demonstrates only that you misunderstood the author.

Your go-to insult and response.

Too bad you can't actually counter anything I said. Guess I hit a nerve.

I said that you misunderstood that part of the article.

And no, I will not attempt to counter what you said because you start from a position of misunderstanding.

Or am I too stupid for you to explain it to me?

We make judgements based on our understanding of reality. Nobody, except theists, claim to know more than than what can be observed.

No one but theists make judgements based on what they do not know.

If so, we agree.

but that's not what the OP says.

You are always posting stuff that doesn't support religious BS. Keep at it. Count me as one of your supporters. I love to see theists make fools of themselves.

did you read this part, that I excerpted?

According to Islamic teachings, although human beings can grasp just a small part of reality, they are inclined to make judgments as if they perceive the whole of reality....

Keep responding. Your responses are truly as insightful as your original posts.

Not me. Not anyone who knows there's a lot we don't understand. This guy has invented a whole group of non-thinkers and accuses everyone of belonging to that group. You're one of them.

And again, you obviously missed the point.

No doubt. Same with you. I don't dispute this statement and never have, so it's a straw man.

But neither you, nor the author of the article, was able to explain why this matters. You are begging the question by assuming that A) your creator exists, B) it knows everything, and C) knowing everything will explain why humans have to suffer.

All you've managed to do is take one unanswerable question and create 3 new unanswerable questions, and then blame skeptics for not accepting your "answer."

Keep trying, gil. You haven't explained a thing.

The obvious problem being if god's will is unknowable, why do virtually all religionists pretend to know it?

The author presumes Allah knows what he is doing and that is all for a greater good. There is no actual evidence for this, so he has to assume it based on scriptural quotes, which themselves have no evidence behind them.

The essential foundation.

And the responder presumes that there are no deities, a presumption based on no evidence.

I differ from most other posters in this regard, who think you can't prove a negative.

If you have diligently searched for evidence but found none, such that the lack of evidence is itself axiomatic, than that is evidence that something doesn't exist.

And yes, I understand that you are referring to some sort of physical manifestation. But we can only project what qualities we feel are present in the Creator.

And deciding at any age that, with no evidence, there are no gods sounds like a good point for confirmation bias as well.

is that there is none. No faith required. Just evidence.

You keep saying faith as if it's anything but deciding something is true inspite of a complete lack of evidence. Why do you consider this "good" and not believing something because there is no evidence "bad"

there is no evidence. And I make no claim of good or bad. If you are an atheist, I would not say that your atheism is either good or bad. And the same applies for theists.

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2018, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Doesn't that lead to the conclusion that phlogiston most likely does not exist, rather than it does exist but we don't need to evidence to prove it?

to clarify things. The discovery of oxygen and its role in combustion was partly due to a paradoxical flaw in the phlogiston theory and experiments designed to explain it. Science is always looking for flaws and explanations that explain them, using experimentation and logic to find a more accurate answer. That's why science works. There is a method to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

Both the author and the responder in question have the same level of evidence on the topic in question, but you only label one of them as such.

You statement is a tautology. I accept without evidence the existence of God because accepting something without evidence doesn't require evidence. Is that your position?

-- Christopher Hitchens

For further reading see...

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

"perceive all of reality" then you are pretty much outside the laws of physics as we know them.

Your perception would ignore the speed of light barrier, and could see the macro, micro and quantum.

You probably could see at all points on a timeline (although if a photon could think/perceive, so could it along the track it traveled since time stops at c and a photon is, from it's perspective, everywhere on it's line from start to finish at the same time).

IF you could do all of those things, then yeah you probably could answer all those queries. You could read the book from front to back, simultaneously. You'd know who killed the cook and with what instrument in what room.

Of course, again, you'd have to break all the rules the universe has, and it certainly makes free will seem illusory if one can do that because no matter what free will you think you have, page 74 is coming, and you are going to kill the cook in the living room with a knife.

That's ignoring of course the possibilities of a multiverse, or an infinite, repeating universe, in which case all choices are made by all versions of you which renders no particular choice at all special (since all choices must be made by at least some of the infinite versions of you). A multiverse really, really destroys any notion of a God, or the uniqueness of reality.

Almost nothing has a "guarantee" that is not remotely a standard in logic or rational thought. It's not even scientific.

My post was a hypothetical, if you had this ability what would that mean? It would mean you could see all points on a timeline if you are literally outside the space-time continuum.

It's the same thought experiment scientists do when they imagine someone about to cross the event horizon of a black hole and time stopping for them as they watched all of eternity flash by for the rest of the universe.

of the article is that if only we mere mortals could perceive all of reality like Allah can, we would understand why horrible shit happens.

think first before answering instead of reflexively attacking.

“IF you could do all of those things, then yeah you probably could answer all those queries”.

Perhaps you forgot you wrote that?

And what followed after?

to an unperceivable (to stupid humans) moral good in all the atrocious pain and suffering in the universe? You seem to be agreeing that such a good is possible.

Try reading what I said, in total, one last time. Because if you can't comprehend it after that, I'm done with you.
I didn't "forget" anything, that's the second time you've basically accused me of being stupid.
You are pointless to try to debate with because you spend time responding to what you think/want the other person to have said instead of making an attempt to see what someone else is saying and that maybe they have a valid point.

Instead you go full snark and full "are you just stupid or forgetful."

So I'm done with you as long as that is your default setting.

Feel free to have the last snarky word.

Epicurus was right, you know...

All scripture is man-made, and suitable for confusing people. Since there is no evidence of the existence of any deities, reason is what we have to work with. I suggest using it regularly.

Probably because it confirms what you already believed.

For further reading:

I believed it. In reality, I read Epicurus before realizing that I didn't believe that deities existed. I came to that understanding at about age 20. By then, I had read many things, learned from them, and applied them to my own personal philosophy, world view and ethical compass. Those were generated after taking in more information than you can imagine.

You cannot speak to my beliefs. Only I can. Stick to your own beliefs, and speak about them, if you dare. So far, you've remained quite silent about any material statements about your beliefs.

But do not presume to tell me what I believe or how I came to my beliefs. You have no way of knowing that, except from what I write here. You are not capable of knowing my thoughts. To think you are is the very definition of blind arrogance.

Goodbye.

it is interesting that you decided to attack rather than debate.

you can expect them to tell you you're full of something. You are not competent to tell others how they think or what they believe. Not in any way.

Not on what you believe.

Go look again at your initial post in this subthread. See if you do not find the word "believe" in there.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=293507

...Allah* is a phantasm, a mere fantasy of the mind preserved on paper to infect future minds.


Allah* has not allowed anything...
Allah* does not allow anything...
Allah* will never allow anything...

Allah* does not exist in the real world.


Allah* = a placeholder for the name of any purported supernatural deity that has ever been, is being or ever will be proffered.

Jesus understood as well.

...the understanding of a leprechaun.

For both leprechaun versions 2.1 and 3.0.

For all leprechaun versions from beta 0.0 to 9.99.

Or is your understanding limited?

Assuming that the second applies, do your limitations inhibit reality, or constrain it in any way?

for you to understand in the slightest even the concept of a being that exists outside of reality.

Yet you persist in believing that you do.

The Creator is a part of reality.

Tired of whataboutism?

Since that reality did not exist prior to its creation, such a thing would be impossible.

Think, guillaumeb. Think!

If the creator is part of reality then that creator is bound by that reality and thus cannot violate the laws of reality anymore than you or I can.

Pretty much not a God then.

And I accept it as only that.

Ya know, omniscient, omnipresent and responsible for creating the universe.

Does this reverse previous claims the creator exists independent of creation?

The Creator is a part of the creation, but being the Creator, obviously existed prior to the creation.

Last edited Sun Sep 16, 2018, 08:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Do you believe The Word became flesh? If so, literally or metaphorically.

That no matter which way the question is asked, you cannot be wrong?

If so that goes a long way to explaining why that belief is so popular.

Uff da!

And instead making snide remarks about counting ability.

Dissonance?