Question for a Christian (Hicks)

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 6:45 pm

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:
Kaelik wrote:
Do you think it makes any sense to talk about an omnipotent being that created the universe to be bored? Like do you not get that boredom is a reaction to our genetic predisposition to seek something that will satisfy our biological needs?
I think we're talking about a mythical being that is always being given human attributes. Like benevolence for example.
No, we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe who is always given distinctly non-human attributes like omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience, and this is covered for by a bunch of idiots talking about how he also has all these human attributes and that is why he does X.

Those 'idiots' you're referring to who make up the creator being you wish to argue about think of god as being more human than completely foreign. You're even attributing benevolence (omni or no), at least as far as 'we' would understand it, to a being that you want to set up as 'beyond'. If you're going to tell me you attribute benevolence to this being because 'idiots' do, then 'idiots' attribute all kinds of things to their given sky daddy. I just suggested boredom on a whim and and feel there truly is not a better answer that anyone else could give. I just found Robby's response (turning what reason into 'when') and erik and your seeming indignation at the suggestion to be odd. I mean if you have a better answer that you figure makes more sense then have at it.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:24 pm

MGuy wrote:Those 'idiots' you're referring to who make up the creator being you wish to argue about think of god as being more human than completely foreign. You're even attributing benevolence (omni or no), at least as far as 'we' would understand it, to a being that you want to set up as 'beyond'. If you're going to tell me you attribute benevolence to this being because 'idiots' do, then 'idiots' attribute all kinds of things to their given sky daddy. I just suggested boredom on a whim and and feel there truly is not a better answer that anyone else could give. I just found Robby's response (turning what reason into 'when') and erik and your seeming indignation at the suggestion to be odd. I mean if you have a better answer that you figure makes more sense then have at it.

So to be clear. You made a really stupid argument for god. You made this really stupid argument based on the premise that everything any idiot has ever said about god must be true. And then your defense is "well fuck it, I can't think of anything better!"

Great, then don't open your stupid fucking mouth, which is 100% of erik's point. If you don't have a good answer, don't fucking answer.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:38 pm

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:Those 'idiots' you're referring to who make up the creator being you wish to argue about think of god as being more human than completely foreign. You're even attributing benevolence (omni or no), at least as far as 'we' would understand it, to a being that you want to set up as 'beyond'. If you're going to tell me you attribute benevolence to this being because 'idiots' do, then 'idiots' attribute all kinds of things to their given sky daddy. I just suggested boredom on a whim and and feel there truly is not a better answer that anyone else could give. I just found Robby's response (turning what reason into 'when') and erik and your seeming indignation at the suggestion to be odd. I mean if you have a better answer that you figure makes more sense then have at it.
So to be clear. You made a really stupid argument for god. You made this really stupid argument based on the premise that everything any idiot has ever said about god must be true. And then your defense is "well fuck it, I can't think of anything better!"

Great, then don't open your stupid fucking mouth, which is 100% of erik's point. If you don't have a good answer, don't fucking answer.

No. I'll clear it up. I made a joke not an argument. I believe god is just a mythological figure, one who gets all sorts of human ideas stapled to it (like benevolence) and I merely stapled another human trait to it. Boredom doesn't make this supposed deity prevent it from retaining its 3 omnis. Robby responded to it by changing the question.

erik, thought the answer so compelling he took it seriously making it out as though the answer was 'so crazy' I might as well have said ramen so that he didn't mistake it for something serious, which I pointed out that since he took it 'so' seriously that it wasn't as 'silly' as he pretended it was. There is nothing in the question about what reason this tri omni god that prevents anyone from attributing human -ish qualities to it. I mean, unless the question was asked with the intent on not being answered by anything other than 'it's beyond our reasoning'.

Also you're kaelik, so just by you speaking up in the first place you're gonna be going off on one about it no matter what so there's that.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 8:43 pm

MGuy wrote:I think we're talking about a mythical being that is always being given human attributes. Like benevolence for example.

...
And you're saying ramen noodles makes more sense than boredom.

Nope and nope.

Omnibenevolence is more than just benevolence. It is beyond a human attribute. You cannot equivocate the two anymore than omniscience and knowledge or omnipotence and power.

And I didn't say it makes more sense, I said it was just as good (but meaning just as bad).

A god creating because it decided it was bored is just as baffling as saying it created because of the categorical imperative of Ramen noodles needing to exist. Neither makes any sense.

Kaelik wrote:Great, then don't open your stupid fucking mouth, which is 100% of erik's point. If you don't have a good answer, don't fucking answer.

Well, my point wasn't to tell him to shut up, just to illustrate that it was a bad answer. If MGuy had stuck to his guns that it was a joke rather than dying on that there hill, I woulda been like "Oh, okay. Ramen noodles is funnier though."

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:35 pm

Die on what hill? You're attributing benevolence to this would be deity as we understand it. I mean, unless you're looking for an answer like 'his benevolence is beyond our limited human scope to understand' which I doubt you would accept even if it were a serious answer. Would it make the answer better for you is I said he was omnibored? If we're going to make up attributes in some kind of silly quest to ask 'what are the reasons a god with attributes x, y, z have for doing X' then I don't really see a reason you can't just slap on any silly thing. I mean in this set up why is omnibenevolence even a thing to attribute to a creator sky daddy? I mean hicks' version of god doesn't seem to support it being benevolent.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:37 pm

MGuy wrote:Die on what hill? You're attributing benevolence to this would be deity as we understand it.

You are a lying shithead. I stopped reading your post after this sentence because you have proven that you cannot talk honestly about this subject.

Here let me demonstrate.

When asked why God created the universe you answered League of Legends, and that makes you an idiot, because clearly the answer is DOTA.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:59 pm

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:Die on what hill? You're attributing benevolence to this would be deity as we understand it.
You are a lying shithead. I stopped reading your post after this sentence because you have proven that you cannot talk honestly about this subject.

Here let me demonstrate.

When asked why God created the universe you answered League of Legends, and that makes you an idiot, because clearly the answer is DOTA.

It's cool if you're gonna ignore what I said. That's not a new tactic for you or anything when you're going off on one. You claim this deity is benevolent I claim it's bored. Clearly what I said is crazy.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:00 am

MGuy wrote:It's cool if you're gonna ignore what I said. That's not a new tactic for you or anything when you're going off on one. You claim this deity is benevolent I claim it's bored. Clearly what I said is crazy.

No see here is the thing, I get that you are an idiot and a liar. I get that, but surely not even you can be so fucking stupid that you can't tell that your deliberate decision to lie about what other people are saying makes any discussion with you absolutely pointless when it is pointed out to you.

So either stop repeatedly lying about what other people have said, or get used to people ignoring you.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 2:56 am

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:It's cool if you're gonna ignore what I said. That's not a new tactic for you or anything when you're going off on one. You claim this deity is benevolent I claim it's bored. Clearly what I said is crazy.
No see here is the thing, I get that you are an idiot and a liar. I get that, but surely not even you can be so fucking stupid that you can't tell that your deliberate decision to lie about what other people are saying makes any discussion with you absolutely pointless when it is pointed out to you.

So either stop repeatedly lying about what other people have said, or get used to people ignoring you.

I'd be more than happy for you to ignore me kaelik. If you never responded to anything I said ever I could not only get used to it, it would make this board a better place for me. So go ahead, go from ignoring most of my posts to claiming, at random, that I'm lying. That's the premise you decided to go with and if you don't want to own it that is fine.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:34 am

Pope Francis at a loss for words as street child asks: 'Why does God allow children to suffer?'

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:44 am

Not mentioned in above post: Pop Francis saying, "You know what? Forget the speech I prepared today. Listen to this little girl. Listen to how much she's been suffering. That's more important than what I was going to say."

Say what you will about how false his religion is, but the man knows what's really important.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:42 pm

Grek wrote:Not mentioned in above post: Pop Francis saying, "You know what? Forget the speech I prepared today. Listen to this little girl. Listen to how much she's been suffering. That's more important than what I was going to say."

Say what you will about how false his religion is, but the man knows what's really important.

Or alternatively, is really good at PR.

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:08 pm

Kaelik wrote:
Grek wrote:Not mentioned in above post: Pop Francis saying, "You know what? Forget the speech I prepared today. Listen to this little girl. Listen to how much she's been suffering. That's more important than what I was going to say."

Say what you will about how false his religion is, but the man knows what's really important.
Or alternatively, is really good at PR.

Why is it that it seems that previous popes seem not to have been good at PR or even had a decent PR department? Surely appearing to be humble and other virtues, rather than swimming in gold and gems must have been something that some previous upper-church dude thought of before? (or at least giving that appearance)