god as a programmer.

[davewhite04]

God: Hmmm, it's the day after my son's birthday, I think I'll kill over a quarter million people with a tsunami, because it just makes perfect sense.

What a stupid thing to say.

Who is this "God" you're talking about? Have you heard of natural disasters, both man made and natural? When God comes in the question ie something supernatural happens, then yeah blame God.

 

[(Q)]

What a stupid thing to say.

Who is this "God" you're talking about?

The very same one you claim is a watchmaker, with things ticking along fine.

Have you heard of natural disasters, both man made and natural?

Oh, so God is not a watchmaker and everything isn't ticking along fine? Make up your mind.

When God comes in the question ie something supernatural happens, then yeah blame God.

If you can praise God for good things, then you have to blame God for bad things.

 

[davewhite04]

The very same one you claim is a watchmaker, with things ticking along fine.



Oh, so God is not a watchmaker and everything isn't ticking along fine? Make up your mind.



If you can praise God for good things, then you have to blame God for bad things.

You have not understood a thing I have said and therefore will never likely to.

Things are ticking along fine... tick tock tick tock...

Why wouldn't natural disasters exist?

You don't need to acknowledge his existance end of. And respect other peoples work not attack it on site.

None of this matters because here comes some more...

 

[(Q)]

You have not understood a thing I have said and therefore will never likely to.

Yes, that is one of the most common and lame excuses believers use when they are incapable of responding intelligently or are humiliated to see that what they originally stated was nonsense.

Things are ticking along fine... tick tock tick tock...

Sure, until God decides to kill you, because it makes perfect sense.

Why wouldn't natural disasters exist?

They do exist in the same way good things happen without the need for God.

You don't need to acknowledge his existance end of. And respect other peoples work not attack it on site.

I don't respect other peoples work when their work is biased, poorly thought out and ignores facts and evidence.

 

[spidergoat]

One day you will see it from God's point of view, because you are a god, and it will make sense then. You can't make sense of it now, but I know who it was and it should be raining.

Glad you admit it doesn't make any sense.

 

[DaveC426913]

Without lending any credence to the concept of an existing God, it's not as illogical as people here make out.

This:
I think I'll kill over a quarter million people with a tsunami, because it just makes perfect sense.
is a strawman.

The concept behind God being a watchmaker is basically that he set up the physics of nature. Electrons buzz around nucleii, moons buzz around planets, etc. These are things are generally work just great all over the universe. The concept does not presuppose that God necessarily concerns himself with how humans get along.

The most common error in the atheist camp is the creation of strawmen - atheists make up their own simplistic ideas of theism and then attack those.
(much like theists create strawmen for refuting things like Darwinian evolution). One sees that theists haven't cornered the market on crappy logic.

 

[(Q)]

Without lending any credence to the concept of an existing God, it's not as illogical as people here make out.

This:
I think I'll kill over a quarter million people with a tsunami, because it just makes perfect sense.
is a strawman.

The concept behind God being a watchmaker is basically that he set up the physics of nature. Electrons buzz around nucleii, moons buzz around planets, etc. These are things are generally work just great all over the universe. The concept does not presuppose that God necessarily concerns himself with how humans get along.

My statement above said nothing about how humans get along. If God "designed" everything, then he designed tsunamis and every other natural disaster. Tsunamis do not work great as they tend to destroy things and kill people. If God designed everything, then he would know that would not design it such that it would kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single day.

The most common error in the atheist camp is the creation of strawmen - atheists make up their own simplistic ideas of theism and then attack those.

I did no such thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Tsunamis do not work great as they tend to destroy things and kill people.

In whose opinion? Us humans?

My house works great. Does it "not work great" because some ants got squished when I built it?

If God designed everything, then he would know that would not design it such that it would kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single day.

You assume God's job is to be our wet nurse. Why?

 

[(Q)]

In whose opinion? Us humans?

And, an intelligent God.

My house works great. Does it "not work great" because some ants got squished when I built it?

That's a much better example of a strawman.

You assume God's job is to be our wet nurse. Why?

I assumed no such thing. Perhaps, you didn't understand what I wrote.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

god as a programmer.
this is about the possibility of god as a programmer.

which god ?

 

[DaveC426913]

And, an intelligent God.

Your human opinion of what an intelligent God should be.

You seem to think God's job is to keep us safe.

That's a much better example of a strawman.

It is not a strawman; it is an analogy.

I can explain that too - but you shouldn't be using them yourself without understanding their applicability.

I assumed no such thing. Perhaps, you didn't understand what I wrote.

Here is what you wrote:

Tsunamis do not work great as they tend to destroy things and kill people. If God designed everything, then he would know that would not design it such that it would kill hundreds of thousands of people in a single day.

Why do you think God would not design a universe in which tsunamis occur?

 

[(Q)]

Your human opinion of what an intelligent God should be.

You seem to think God's job is to keep us safe.



It is not a strawman; it is an analogy.

I can explain that too - but you shouldn't be using them yourself without understanding their applicability.


Here is what you wrote:

Why do you think God would not design a universe in which tsunamis occur?

Human opinion? What's that exactly? Are you saying human intelligence is different from another life form or a god's intelligence? Intelligence has various levels or categories? How does that work?

Oh I see, your strawman was an analogy. Gotcha.

If we go by the belief that the universe was created for humans, then yes, it would stand to reason that God would create the universe so that it wouldn't kill us as a result of how it works, especially in the hundreds of thousands on a single day.

 

[DaveC426913]

Human opinion? What's that exactly? Are you saying human intelligence is different from another life form or a god's intelligence? Intelligence has various levels or categories? How does that work?

You don't know what an intelligent God thinks. You have a human opinion of how you think an intelligent God ought to think. And you think an intelligent God ought to protect humans from a rough world.
It all comes down to your assumption that a totally foreign entity should have the same motives, morals and knowledge that you do.

Oh I see, your strawman was an analogy. Gotcha.

OK, so you don't what either one is.

If we go by the belief that the universe was created for humans, then yes
it would stand to reason that God would create the universe so that it wouldn't kill us as a result of how it works, especially in the hundreds of thousands on a single day.

Ah! OK. We can move forward.

All totally agreed. With that big if.

God the Watchmaker says nothing about God protecting us. That's not what God the Watchmaker is about. Which is why the entire line of reasoning of protecting humans is missing the point.

 

[(Q)]

You don't know what an intelligent God thinks. You have a human opinion of how you think an intelligent God ought to think. And you think an intelligent God ought to protect humans from a rough world.
It all comes down to your assumption that a totally foreign entity should have the same motives, morals and knowledge that you do.

Why should an intelligence think any different from any other intelligence? How does that work exactly? And remember, we're talking about intelligence, not motives, morals or knowledge. If an intelligent God creates a universe for humans, then an intelligent God would want to keep them protected from harm like any other intelligence. If not, then what's the point of creating the universe? To allow the universe to easily kill humans isn't very intelligent. Or is it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why should an intelligence think any different from any other intelligence?

1] Why shouldn't it?
2] Go back to my ants analogy. Can the ants tell why I squished them to build my house? They can't event conceive of my intelligence - goals, motives or knowledge. By your logic, the ants would think I'm a logical paradox and can't possibly exist.

And yet, here I am, thinking differently from them. I let them live in my backyard that I built, but I don't go out of my way to coddle them.

If an intelligent God creates a universe for humans,

It didn't.

Why do you keep erecting this strawman?

The only one claiming God cares about humans ... is you.

OK, You're absolutely right! A God that cares about protecting humans doesn't make sense. Granted!
Since that was your contribution - and is not what this thread is about - can we drop it and get back on topic?

 

[(Q)]

1] Why shouldn't it?
2] Go back to my ants analogy. Can the ants tell why I squished them to build my house? They can't event conceive of my intelligence - goals, motives or knowledge. By your logic, the ants would think I'm a logical paradox and can't possibly exist. And yet, here I am, thinking differently from them.

Your ants strawman assumes ants have intelligence, that they are capable of gaining knowledge and applying it, just like any other intelligence, by definition. Humans can conceive of another intelligence, without too much difficulty.

It didn't.

Why do you keep building this strawman?

The only one claiming God cares about humans ... is you.

OK, You're absolutely right. A God that cares about protecting humans doesn't make sense. Granted!
Since that's not what this thread is about, can we drop it and get back on topic?

If you had noticed, I was responding to something Dave said earlier which started the discussion regarding humans and understanding God. If this was off topic to the OP, then I apologize and will no longer clutter up your thread. That said, most every thread on this forum and other forums often will have various discussions that are off topic to their OP. It would appear that's a big problem for you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your ants strawman assumes ants have intelligence,

Please, stop misusing a term you don't understand. It makes you look foolish.

Humans can conceive of another intelligence, without too much difficulty.

Indeed. They can conceive of intelligences different from our own. Intelligences that perhaps built a universe that allowed life to form live, evolve - and die. Without taking personal responsibility for the heath and welfare of each individual.

Just like I do with the ants.

If you had noticed, I was responding to something Dave said earlier which started the discussion regarding humans and understanding God. If this was off topic to the OP, then I apologize and will no longer clutter up your thread. That said, most every thread on this forum and other forums often will have various discussions that are off topic to their OP. It would appear that's a big problem for you.

The problem is that you asserted it as if it followed logically from the thread topic. As if anyone here other than you has been talking about a God that is concerned with human lives.
That's what makes it a strawman. And - incidentally - not an analogy.

 

[(Q)]

Please, stop misusing a term you don't understand. It makes you look foolish.

Indeed. They can conceive of intelligences different from our own. Intelligences that perhaps built a universe that allowed life to form live, evolve - and die. Without taking personal responsibility for the heath and welfare of each individual.

Please explain how intelligence is different from one entity to another, and try not to continue using your ants strawman.

Just like I do with the ants.

Using that strawman just makes you look foolish.

The problem is that you asserted it as if it followed logically from the thread topic.

Nope.

As if anyone here other than you has been talking about a God that is concerned with human lives.
That's what makes it a strawman. And - incidentally - not an analogy.

I can only conclude from your responses there may be a reading comprehension issue on your part or you're just being belligerent.

 

[DaveC426913]

Please explain how intelligence is different from one entity to another,

You assume God thinks the way we do. That, if he saw a person suffering, he might do something about it.

Read up a little on God the Watchmaker. It has nothing to do with humans; it's about keeping the physics of the universe working. That will save a whole lot of screen real estate used up with strawmen.



Although judging from the rest of your post, you've given up discussing the issue and are now just trying to fling poo at it. That's OK. The conscientious God thing you brought up has nothing to do with the OP, and - since you refuted your own argument in the same breath - the whole thing cancels out to a net contribution of zero.

But let us know if you want to have a discussion about the thread topic.

 

[(Q)]

You assume God thinks the way we do. That, if he saw a person suffering, he might do something about it.

Wrong, I think intelligent beings think intelligently.

Read up a little on God the Watchmaker. It has nothing to do with humans; it's about keeping the physics of the universe working. That will save a whole lot of screen real estate used up with strawmen.

Since you didn't bother reading my discussion with Dave, I'll simply ignore your childish rant.

Although judging from the rest of your post, you've given up discussing the issue and are now just trying to fling poo at it. That's OK. The conscientious God thing you brought up has nothing to do with the OP, and - since you refuted your own argument in the same breath - the whole thing cancels out to a net contribution of zero.

But let us know if you want to have a discussion about the thread topic.

I was having a discussion with Dave till you butted in with your ant strawman and started belly aching about how my posts aren't up to the OP standards. Again, if you want, I'd be happy to stop posting on your precious thread and Dave and I can go elsewhere to continue our discussion so you're free to berate others who don't follow your narrow minded path.