Theist claims God doesn't exist.

[greenberg]

No, you haven't explained yet why it is, according to you, arrogant that some people believe they are being watched over by God.

Saying that there are so so many planets and so so many living beings, and that therefore it is arrogant to think that God would pay attention to them all, is not an explanation. You have left out a few steps.

From what you have said so far, it can be implied that you think that God (if there is one) is too small and too weak to be able to pay attention to all living beings. In the face of a small and weak god, it would then indeed be arrogant to think that god pays attention to all living beings.

 

[greenberg]

I already said it's up to those that make the claims to prove them, not me to disbelieve them.

Except that this is not the case here. You yourself have come forward with a claim.

You are making the claim that it is arrogant to think that God watches over each and every individual.

Your claim is: "It is arrogant to think that God watches over each and every individual."

Substantiate this claim.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Except that this is not the case here. You yourself have come forward with a claim.

You are making the claim that it is arrogant to think that God watches over each and every individual.

Your claim is: "It is arrogant to think that God watches over each and every individual."

Substantiate this claim.

Don't hold your breath whatever you do.

Jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Saying that there are so so many planets and so so many living beings, and that therefore it is arrogant to think that God would pay attention to them all, is not an explanation. You have left out a few steps..

That is the explanation, are you dumb or something? That out of the billions and billions of life forms in the Universe, God is going to watch over a dimwit like Jan? Hang on her every word and action? Remember them all?

Please, are you really so gullible to think that could actually happen?

It's narcissism. God botherers thinking they are special.

There is a difference between having an open mind, and letting your brains fall out. Don't do any handstands for a while, until you see what I'm saying.

 

[phlogistician]

Your claim is: "It is arrogant to think that God watches over each and every individual."

Substantiate this claim.

NO, my claim is that is it arrogant of the individual to think they are being watched over by god, when there are billions and billions of life forms in the Universe. Why would one such individual get the attention of a supreme being?

IF you are going to quote me, get it right.

 

[greenberg]

That is the explanation, are you dumb or something? That out of the billions and billions of life forms in the Universe, God is going to watch over a dimwit like Jan? Hang on her every word and action? Remember them all?

Why not? Why would it be impossible that God (if there is one) would do that?

Please, are you really so gullible to think that could actually happen?

No, but I'd like to hear a good reason why it would be impossible. Given that God is, in monotheistic religions, defined as having the quality of being almighty, given this definition, it is of course entailed that God is very well able to watch over each and every living being. In Vedic monotheism, one of the definitions of God is that He is the maintainer of the Universe and all living beings - and given this definition, it is of course entailed that He does watch over each and every being.

I myself have not made up my mind on the issue whether God watches over each and every living being or not. I am looking into both sides of the argument.

The theists have presented their case with their definitions of God, their logic is sound on this issue, their arguments are consistent.
So when someone opposes them, I'd like to check the opposer's reasoning.

God botherers thinking they are special.

Perhaps they are special. Perhaps they have something that I and you do not have. Perhaps they do something that I and you don't do.
Perhaps a special qualification is necessary in order to know for sure whether God watches over you personally, or whether He doesn't.
Qualifications are required all the time in our everyday life - you usually have to have the right education and experience to get a particular job, they won't just give you the job, for example. I think it is quite possible that similar is true with knowing things about God - that one has to qualify, one has to show that one is worthy of it and able to comprehend it.

If anything, I find it arrogant to think that while we have to qualify first to get things like jobs, relationships, status, etc., no such qualification should be required when it comes to knowing things about God. As if full knowledge of God should be available to everyone, without them moving a finger.

 

[greenberg]

NO, my claim is that is it arrogant of the individual to think they are being watched over by god, when there are billions and billions of life forms in the Universe. Why would one such individual get the attention of a supreme being?

Please explain why you think that one such individual would not get the attention of a supreme being.

Are there too many life forms in the Universe for a supreme being to pay attention to them all?
Is the individual too worthless?
Is the individual too small?
Is the supreme being too weak?
Is the supreme being too busy?

 

[Myles]

Why not? Why would it be impossible that God (if there is one) would do that?




No, but I'd like to hear a good reason why it would be impossible. Given that God is, in monotheistic religions, defined as having the quality of being almighty, given this definition, it is of course entailed that God is very well able to watch over each and every living being. In Vedic monotheism, one of the definitions of God is that He is the maintainer of the Universe and all living beings - and given this definition, it is of course entailed that He does watch over each and every being.

I myself have not made up my mind on the issue whether God watches over each and every living being or not. I am looking into both sides of the argument.

Don't take too long because I haven't much time left. Oh, and don't forget to let the Pope know !

The theists have presented their case with their definitions of God, their logic is sound on this issue, their arguments are consistent.So when someone opposes them, I'd like to check the opposer's reasoning.

Let's grant that their conclusions are valid; it's there pemises you should imvestigate !



Perhaps they are special. Perhaps they have something that I and you do not have. Perhaps they do something that I and you don't do.Perhaps a special qualification is necessary in order to know for sure whether God watches over you personally, or whether He doesn't. Qualifications are required all the time in our everyday life - you usually have to have the right education and experience to get a particular job, they won't just give you the job, for example. I think it is quite possible that similar is true with knowing things about God - that one has to qualify, one has to show that one is worthy of it and able to comprehend it.

They are special. Specially deluded. Your reference to qualifications does not hold. If someone wants to become a plumber, he trains, and gets a piece of paper after he has demonstrated his competemce in [lumbing. What might the qualification be to enable one to know things about god which opthers do not ? Who hands out the diplomas ?


If anything, I find it arrogant to think that while we have to qualify first to get things like jobs, relationships, status, etc., no such qualification should be required when it comes to knowing things about God. As if full knowledge of God should be available to everyone, without them moving a finger.

Full knowledge of god would be available ito everyone if he had chosen to make it so. Why does he want us to jump through hoops to get to know him ? Perehaps you can also consider that, while you are making your mind up on the earlier question.

 

[phlogistician]

Why not? Why would it be impossible that God (if there is one) would do that?

Well, if you want a scientific answer, I'd say relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle rule out omnipotence!

But it's not about be proving a negative, is it? It's about those making the claims proving their claims.

No, but I'd like to hear a good reason why it would be impossible. Given that God is, in monotheistic religions, defined as having the quality of being almighty,

Mortals defining the word God does not make it true!

The theists have presented their case with their definitions of God, their logic is sound on this issue, their arguments are consistent.
So when someone opposes them, I'd like to check the opposer's reasoning.

Where do you get the notion that there is any logic behind the idea of God? Far from it, the resoning is seriously flawed;

1: Where did we come from?
2: Everything has to come from something, so must have been created by something.
3: A super powerful deity must be the creator.
4: End of questioning.

Why don't theists apply the premise in 2: to 3 Ah, because the 'logic' falls into infinite regression, and never leads to an answer, so they trap out of the loop, but in doing so, nullify their own criteria. That's not logic! It certainly isn't sound!

Perhaps they are special. Perhaps they have something that I and you do not have.

I agree with you here. In the future, we'll probably be able to treat them and make them better, too. I wouldn't say they are 'special' though. 'Afflicted' would be a better word.