For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[SciWriter]

People here who are referring to God as being actual truth and fact is probably the basis of the claim of being dishonest, for God has not been shown to be true.

This doesn't have to be stated outright, but just as in saying God could have done this and that, etc.

So, it's not the belief itself that is dishonest, but the claims of its truth.

[scifes]

phlog is embarrassing himself by being dishonest, he should stop.

[lightgigantic]

People here who are referring to God as being actual truth and fact is probably the basis of the claim of being dishonest, for God has not been shown to be true.

This doesn't have to be stated outright, but just as in saying God could have done this and that, etc.

So, it's not the belief itself that is dishonest, but the claims of its truth.

your ideas about god being purely a limb of speculation aside, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty you have just given the boot to about 60% of science

[phlogistician]

As you say, I said one argument for why God might be unwilling to act concerns free will. That argument is not likely to be applicable to an earthquake.

So give me a reason that does apply.

So, there must be some other reason God might be unwilling to act to prevent earthquake deaths. Of course, that's assuming that he doesn't act to prevent some deaths, which remains to be proven.

'must' be? That sounds rather certain, when you don't have any proof of anything. Ah, and now you say God may save some people. We know people die, however, so the question still stands, and you have wasted yet another opportunity to acquit yourself.

Have you thought of any reasons why God didn't make everybody immortal yet?

Now you are being absurd and diversionary. One, this thread is where I ask you questions, and you attempt to answer honestly, it's not a debate where you counter with questions. Two, we've gone over and over that I have no concept of your God, so how am I supposed to assign motives to such?

As for the contradiction thing, obviously you're wrong again. I never mentioned free will as the relevant "ingredient" in earthquake deaths.

You said 'evil', and I wanted to keep the scope broader, but you've excused yourself through a rat hole, trying to evade natural disasters, because you cannot counter the argument.

[SciWriter]

your ideas about god being purely a limb of speculation aside, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty you have just given the boot to about 60% of science

That's fine, for science is ongoing. It doesn't just prove things in a day.

The other side has nothing. 100% speculation, with nothing ongoing.

[phlogistician]

phlog is embarrassing himself by being dishonest, he should stop.

You've got a week to qualify that statement, while I'm off surfing, and if you don't, you're getting reported.

[scifes]

it's the same statement you've made regarding a big portion of this site's posters, and it's been much more than a week and you haven't qualified it.
in failing to qualify your statement, you have rightfully earned mine.

if you beleived thiests to be dishonest, you had plenty of time and space to show it. you haven't.

instead, you kept changing your requirements of your opponents, sending them to your ignore list, and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their arguments.
i never knew james had this much patience.

you feel like reporting, report to your heart content, wanna put me on ignore, go ahead. but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

[wynn]

but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

What reason is there to accept otherwise?

There is plenty of theoretical solutions to the problem of theodicy.

But to accept them, one would need to overhaul one's whole knowledge and meta-knowledge base.
Which is a big task. There would need to be some considerable incentive for a person to do so.


As far as things stand, what reason is there to not measure God's nature by this world and life as it is usually lived?

This world and life as it is usually lived are all most of us know.

[NMSquirrel]

You've got a week to qualify that statement, while I'm off surfing, and if you don't, you're getting reported.

ooo..threats..i bet he is scared...NOT!

[NMSquirrel]

and it's been much more than a week and you haven't qualified it.

if you beleived thiests to be dishonest, you had plenty of time and space to show it. you haven't.

instead, you kept changing your requirements of your opponents, sending them to your ignore list, and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their arguments.

you feel like reporting, report to your heart content, wanna put me on ignore, go ahead. but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

im glad im not the only one who see's that..

i never knew james had this much patience.

someone give him a raise..

[lightgigantic]

That's fine, for science is ongoing. It doesn't just prove things in a day.

The other side has nothing. 100% speculation, with nothing ongoing.

as I said, aside from your notions about theism being purely a discipline of speculation, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty, you have just given the boot to about 60% of science.

[lightgigantic]

ooo..threats..i bet he is scared...NOT!

especially since phlog has been running with the ball now for about a month trying unsuccessfully to qualify his statement about theists being essentially dishonest

[James R]

phlogistician:

So give me a reason [that God allows evil] that does apply.

One argument is that God has chosen to create a specific kind of world in which conscious, intelligent, free-willed creatures such as human beings can exist. It may be that the natural laws put in place to govern such a universe necessarily allow natural disasters as well as permitting the existence of God's creatures.

So, if a rock falls on somebody's head and kills him or her, that is not necessarily a malicious direct act of God. It could be explained as a consequence of God's creating a particular kind of universe in which things like gravity and rocks exist alongside free-willed, intelligent, conscious human beings.

"Why did God not create a world in which rocks could not fall?" will be your next question. Such a world would have no gravity. Stars and planets would not form in a universe without gravity.

"Why doesn't God intervene to stop rocks falling on people's heads?" Perhaps he does, but in more subtle ways than altering gravity on the spot, and not all the time. Or maybe God has a greater plan in allowing a rock to strike a particular person at a particular time, even where such a strike results in death.

"Why didn't God make everybody immortal?"
I'll wait for you to come up with at least one possible reason for this. After all, I shouldn't have to do all your thinking for you.

So, there must be some other reason God might be unwilling to act to prevent earthquake deaths. Of course, that's assuming that he doesn't act to prevent some deaths, which remains to be proven.

'must' be? That sounds rather certain, when you don't have any proof of anything.

It's simple logic. If the explanation of event E is not X, then it must be something other than X.

Ah, and now you say God may save some people. We know people die, however, so the question still stands, and you have wasted yet another opportunity to acquit yourself.

Not at all. I have now asked you several times to consider why it might be that people are not immortal in a world created by a loving God. You persist in avoiding thinking about the matter.

Now you are being absurd and diversionary. One, this thread is where I ask you questions, and you attempt to answer honestly, it's not a debate where you counter with questions.

When do you plan to start thinking? There's another question for you.

Two, we've gone over and over that I have no concept of your God, so how am I supposed to assign motives to such?

That's a valid point.

Your question, then, is fundamentally about the motives of a being for whom you have no concept. Do you not find it somewhat odd to be asking about the motives of something undefined? Maybe you should just forget the whole "problem of evil" thing, because you're in no position to discuss the matter in the absence of any definition of "God".

Better to go back to square one and start working out what kind of thing a "god" might be. You can't do the advanced class without first studying the basics.

[wynn]

especially since phlog has been running with the ball now for about a month trying unsuccessfully to qualify his statement about theists being essentially dishonest

You poor theist victims, right?!

You theists are the ones coming forward as supposedly having the superior view on things, and that everyone should bend to your will. Yes, bend to your will, because on our own, it's not like we can know what scriptures want or mean. We, the run-of-the-mill people, simply need to rely on theists like yourself. And we have to take for granted that you know your business and that you are right.

And then, when the going gets tough, you just take the "caveat emptor" attitude, renouncing any and all responsibility.

If this is what theism is supposed to be about then to hell with it.

[James R]

Signal:

phlogistician, for one, is a prime example on the other side of the coin. He's an atheist who is arrogant enough to say that he can dismiss all gods without even knowing what a god is. Ask him whether he has "the superior view on things" and I'm sure he'll tell you he does.

And look at his reactions when the going gets tough.

[lightgigantic]

You poor theist victims, right?!

You theists are the ones coming forward as supposedly having the superior view on things, and that everyone should bend to your will. Yes, bend to your will, because on our own, it's not like we can know what scriptures want or mean. We, the run-of-the-mill people, simply need to rely on theists like yourself. And we have to take for granted that you know your business and that you are right.

And then, when the going gets tough, you just take the "caveat emptor" attitude, renouncing any and all responsibility.

If this is what theism is supposed to be about then to hell with it.

and how is this different from, say, the run of the mill people relying on a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic or any other professional?

[Search & Destroy]

1. God requires faith,
[faith is gained by spiritual apprehension rather than proof]

2. Faith is an admitted suspension of logic,
[as in both faith and logic occupy different incompatible systems]

3. Blatant illogicality is a dishonest act.
[meaning that by using invalid reasoning, one is acting in an untrustworthy way]

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

[lightgigantic]

1. God requires faith,
[faith is gained by spiritual apprehension rather than proof]

2. Faith is an admitted suspension of logic,
[as in both faith and logic occupy different incompatible systems]

3. Blatant illogicality is a dishonest act.
[meaning that by using invalid reasoning, one is acting in an untrustworthy way]

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

so if you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, that's a suspension of logic?

[Search & Destroy]

and how is this different from, say, the run of the mill people relying on a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic or any other professional?

Because a professional requires skills, and a theist doesn't. Or am I wrong?

[lightgigantic]

Because a professional requires skills, and a theist doesn't. Or am I wrong?

Only if you think saintliness/enlightenment doesn't require skills