…Continued

What’s the difference between something that cannot be defined and something that does not exist, and how do you tell the difference?

<<… since your version isn't necessarily mine or his or their's then you've disproven nothing, at least not to the satisfaction of those who don't agree with your version.>>

Sure, but Not_Now.Soon believes in the version I described, so I had disproven his version of god. Not that it matters, though. My only point was that at least one version could be disproven.

<<… you assume an omnibenevolent god wouldn't allow suffering...>>

No, I’ve allowed for the possibility of some suffering:

“It could be argued that a world with no suffering or evil at all may be absurd or undesirable …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252243)

<<… that it would have the same understanding of suffering as you.>>

You are yet to come up with a reasonable understanding of what it means to be ‘good’ which still allows for the level of suffering and evil that we have witnessed throughout history.

<<But what if the deity views the three score and ten years here as a mere blink of time in terms of infinity and that a little suffering will be of benefit in enjoying infinity elsewhere.>>

But it’s not just a little suffering, though, is it? It’s still clearly excessive:

“… natural disasters having consumed entire civilisations, mass starvation, diseases that affect infants, worms that need to burrow into our eyes just to survive, genocide, etc.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252243)

<<A bit like an omni-loving parent might see the suffering of having a band-aid ripped off as acceptable suffering.>>

You forget that omnipotence was a part of the equation. If a parent were omnipotent, then they could remove the band-aid without the pain. Your analogy is invalid.

<<I've given you more fodder to talk around as you seek to find a way out of the hole you've dug.>>

What hole? You’re the only one trying to dig themselves out of a hole with this ill-defined “the deity” of yours. You're not doing a very good job of it, either.

My apologies for the brain fart, mhaze. My answer to this claim didn’t address your new variable:

<<… you assume an omnibenevolent god … would have the same understanding of suffering as you.>>

Apparently not able to point to an understanding of ‘good’, for which an unlimited amount should result in a better word than what we’ve witnessed thus far, you appeal to various understandings of suffering instead.

Unfortunately for your irrelevant diversion, this argument doesn’t hold. You see, an omnibenevolent god would view the suffering from the perspective of the sufferers, as it would not be a show of unlimited or perfect kindness to view the suffering from any other perspective - let alone from the perspective of an eternal being for whom the suffering would arguably be infinitely smaller.

Your argument is flawed.

The best you could do at this point would be to again appeal to different understandings of what it means to be ‘good’, and we can go in circles. Yay!

Again, though, this is an irrelevant diversion because my only point was that there is a version of "the deity" that can be disproved. And, in my extensive experience with Christians and as a former Christian myself, it just so happens to be the god that most Christians believe in - despite your attempts to portray it as some obscure invention of my own making, irrelevant to any actual believers understanding of their god.

There are a few other attributes to consider though too, before you say you've disproven God AJ Philips. For instance, one aspect is that God knows that we need Him. Often we don't know this though, and try to do our own thing without Him with mixed results.

With the aspect of needing someone, sometimes the only way people realize how much they need and depend on someone else, is if that other person steps aside and let's them do things on their own. And if they really do depend on that person they notice it right away.

In the same way, when people have become super successful, wealthy, or greatly recoginized in some other way, they forget about God. This happens several times in the history of Israel in the bible. And when Israel forgot about God they were described as a murderous and greedy people. And growing worse till finally they fall from their plesent position and are conquered by some other people's and Israel repents and again turns to God.

(continued)

(Continued)

God let them fall. Is that evil? Is it evil that that they became as rotten as they were? In today's world it is still the same. We have abudent crime among the poor who hold great struggles, and among the rich that have no reason for their corruption, but they still have it (even make laws or lobby laws to protect themselves). And crime among everyother strata of society. As a body of people, a population, we need God.

As indivuals too, we need God. Often we forget this until we go through hardship, sorrow, or experience something to suffer through. Then many people call out to God. And if He helps them that is justification for trusting God and seeking Him more.

The more I think about it, the more I think mhaze has a point that Christianity has helped the societies it is involved in. When the world turns away from God it suffers. Same for any smaller populations. Nations, countries, or anything else. But to indivuals, even if we acknowledge and turn to God, we are surrounded by a world that actively turns away and encourages others to do the same (as you do AJ Philips). It's likely the connection to good people suffering because as a whole the world is in an enviornment where people get hurt.

To mhaze.

Thank you for your support of Christianity. Even the support of "the Deity" without knowing who or what He is. I have a question for you though. You've supported Christianity for it's impact on societies. And you've supported God without a belief in Him. Can I ask why? Do you recognize God in a simular way Yuyutsu recogizes God? Unknowable but definitely there? Or do you recognize God without knowing which religions might have come from Him, so don't try to guess at His nature and qualities.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreaciate your support. But I'm courious about your stance on the spiritual world. And also wondering if you would like to know God more. It is one of the belief in Chrustianity that God wants us in a relationship with Him. To be close to Him and depend on Him. Even to send His Son to not only save us from our sins, but to teach us, as well as offer us the Holy Spirit to be in contact with God.

...I'm not a prophet, or a miracle worker, but I do know God. It might not be much, but if your interested I can tell you what I've found, and hopes you can find Him too. I don't think God is unknowable. I don't mean that as an argument, but as an encouragement. :)

To David f.

I feel like I need to thank you. Though you don't believe in God, and have voiced that you think Christianity is evil. You've shown that you've looked into it more then I would have assumed by your first claim that you put a lot of thought into it. I want to thank you for the aspect of Martin Luther eventually speaking out against the Jews. That was something I did not know and can consider now that I can look for more about it.

However, I disagree that Christianity is evil. Every time I see people putting into practice what Jesus taught, it seems to be good. (As best that I can tell what is good anyways). Any time I am around a church or around those who are Christian, I'm not worried about something evil about to happen. The worst I can give credit for is that within the Christian ranks there is judgmental people that are more willing to cast people out or worse to hell, instead of trying to rescue eachother. That is the worst I've seen. It's also not all Christians either. Keep that in mind. It's not evil.