So where in that list is your evidence that Capracus is not really - despite meeting all the criteria and evidence presented so far - your God? So you are in reality not free to reject Capracus as your God - it's just that you are being kept in the state of divine ignorance required to facilitate your desires as a living entity. So you think you can deny your God, but you really can't - it's Capracus, and all your attempts to be "free" of this truth are just like a fish flopping around on land. That makes sense.
No, I am taking about whether God could, as omnimax, choose to directly remove suffering. Please do not try to alter that which I am talking about. No, it can‘t, in my view. I do not consider "omni" to mean "do anything conceivable". What of suffering makes its removal a logical impossibility? Do you think one can be human and not have suffering? That a human without suffering is a square circle? But God, as an omnimax, has the ability to end humanity, does it not? In scripture he has threatened as much, no? If this is how he might choose to end suffering, then this is how he might choose. But it would still be a choice. Yet you don't accept other choices that a God might make, such as the claimed choice of a poster here not to (at least as you see it) hold his own in an online discussion forum, So, as said, your dismissal Caracas' claim (simply because of a choice he might have made) remains fallacious. But let's move this away from the contentious issue of suffering, which I fear might detract from my main point (although understanding your argument wrt suffering and omnimax might be worthy of its own thread). Is God intervening directly in the affairs of Man a logical impossibility? If you accept not, then pick your own example of where God could do one thing but chose not to. Once you have that, use it to understand the fallaciousness of your dismissal of Caracas' claim on the basis of the choice he might have made. I.e. God being able to do one thing and choosing a different course is no grounds for dismissing him as God.
I’ve made no such insistence regarding things and values. I designed a universally connected reality that is perspectively a thing and a collection of things. Among those collection of things are things you have labeled values/qualities, which like other things, are essentially unique elemental perspectives of the whole of my creation. I as stated above, God makes no distinction between values and things, they are simply props to to lend character to my creation. You must realize that your God sometimes gets an itch to blow off some steam, so occasionally I’ll throw a banana peel into human cultural evolution and the result is these convoluted tail chasing philosophies that have provided me with eons of amusing human activity. So if you want to avoid being the butt of a divine joke, philosophically speaking you need to watch your step. The above nonsense is an example of one of my gag philosophical bated hooks. Similar to my earlier warning, in this case it’s OK to nibble on the bait, but if you swallow the hook the jokes on you. Being an omni God I do have free will, but I didn't grant that quality to your universe, so you need to give up on these notions of free will. Your universe is like a multi dimensional billiard table, where I progressively tweek the arrangement with every shot.
As stated previously, you are sounding less omni by the moment. At this stage, you could even take tips from Monty Python.
You just levelled the claim the removal of suffering was indirect. I am expressing that this is far removed from the truth. The removal is very, very direct. Your notions are impersonal (namely, you disregard the state of the recipient). Kind of like some well meaning but clumsy welfare worker who attempts to go around fixing all sorts of problems but is oblivious to people's needs and concerns. (You wouldn't say they were directly attempting to solve ptoblems, even though they may have rolled up their shirt sleeves ... rather the lack of appropriate reciprocation makes it impersonal). Yes, but that platform of not suffering is born from a state of unmixed attachment to God, and not attachment to honours, wealth, fame etc (or even so-called pious versions of attachment to honours, wealth and fame arising from religiousity, etc). Or for that matter, even aversion to attachment to honours, wealth and fame (or so-called pious versions of such aversions arising from religiousity, etc). No. That a solution to suffering that doesn't arise from the attitude of the beholder, namely unmixed attachment to God, is a square circle (ie, a veiled form of suffering). End humanity? I'm not sure what you mean by that. If God's revelation is necessarily irrational (as popularized by a mid millennia Christian movement .... often celebrated for its philosophical numbskullery), then you ultimately have a "thing" (in this case, God) that has no qualitative values (much like a square circle us a similarly irrational object on account of being at the crossroads of conflicting values). I find it is no coincidence that atheists would choose the dumbest form of christian philosophy as the epitome of religious thought for the sake of positing their criticisms. After all, who can resist a good straw manning (especially in online discussions)? As mentioned, if you really want to play the divide between things and the qualities that define things, try looking at philosophies that make a genuine attempt at it. If you have nothing to go by than special pleading, you will simply lack sophistication and your ideas will become obsolete (and of course, what atheist wouldn't take delight in religiousity becoming wholesalely obsolete? Of course the solution is not as simply as finding the most flammable strawman). Not at all. This premise of God wagering his independent will as the platform for understanding Him (or even appreciating progressive spiritual life) is precisely the fallacy that I am highlighting. The only traditions that attempt to capitalize on this are celebrated as philosophical jokes (and hence, are popular amongst certain fanatics, who have a vested interest in irrational religious discourse, and atheists, who have a vested interest in making jokes at the expense of religious philosophy).
Unit Musika, even you should be able to understand that an omni God can express itself in any way imaginable. From a human perspective much of my creativity might seem preposterous, like putting Trump in office, or sending units like you on philosophical wild goose chases. From my perspective though, the only one that really matters, such inanity adds necessary balance to my divine composition.
No - I am being quite clear and you are obfuscating. The removal of suffering, as per the means you believe can achieve it, requires the person to want to do it. It is not God choosing to do it directly but offering a way for an individual to choose to do it. Thus it is not God acting directly. Thus the removal would be indirect. I'm trying to understand what your argument is, Musika. Or at least what your objection to the fairly simple logic I presented is. The issue of suffering is clearly causing a distraction to that point, so I'll drop it as an example and move on. So would you agree that God choosing to not intervene directly in a given situation is something an Omnimax God is capable of? If so, then is choosing to not disclose himself as, at least as far as you see it, someone who can hold their own in a online discussion forum, not also something the omnimax God could do? There is no such premise. Please stop obfuscating. It is quite clear you realise the error of your original dismissal and are now trying to cover it up. Needless to say I find that behaviour rather disappointing. C'est la vie, I suppose.
If you want to stay relevant to the discussion you will have to start paying attention to points as they develop. You ran out of new source material several posts ago.
... and the removal of suffering, as per the means you believe it can be achieved, disregards whether the person wants it or not. Hence it is impersonal. Granted, the superficial notion of suffering in this world is dictated by the solution of acquisition. eg. A person is suffering because they are poor, so then they acquire wealth and they are supposedly no longer suffering .... because rich people apparently dont suffer. So, along those lines, one may perceive God as directly solving the problem of suffering through the standard channels of acquisition, or popping up with a bag full of gold. However if the problem of suffering in this world begins (and ends) at a broader point, namely within the attitude of the living entity's relationship with God (deeply lodged in free will), then the direct manner of solving it is different. Suppose you have some relationship issue with someone, and its you who is actually labouring under some sort of misunderstanding of the status quo or whatever. What is the direct manner that the other party would bring that problem to an end? Simply coming on as if they are your best friend, while you maintain a vigilance of being unable to tolerate the sight of them? Or to put it another way, what possible solution could there hope to be that wouldn't involve a very direct intervention/experience with the said person that was in accordance to a level of reciprocation you were comfortable with? Besides this, what possible solution could hope to be more direct? . Sure . Sure. God is supremely independent. There is no reason He couldn't pose as an online contributor here. But, as mentioned, God doesn't wager His revelation on an irrational premise (at least, outside of an embarrassing chapter of Abrahamic obscurantism, He doesn't). You may not have heard of the euthyphro dilemma, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma) but if you want to play a divine omni version of "Simon says " ("Capracus says"?), a lot of things start to lose their necessity ... least of all, a rational connection between "things" and "the qualities by which we discern such things" Huh? You don't perceive the complete suspension of rational thought behind Capracus's : "Hey I'm God, yeah, totally omni, although I independently refuse to display anything Godlike or omni or any other value or quality that could possibly be held as distinct from a regular joe with a mediocre understanding of religion and philosophy, but don't let that shortcoming fool you because I just said I am God." I am beginning to wonder if you have paid attention to anything Capracus has said.
How? By what evidence? You have presented no evidence or argument for these denials, these unsupported and apparently baseless rejections of your God. Of course we do. We have been pointing it out in the posts of overt Abrahamic theists here for a long time. It is a basic characteristic of that God and its community of faithful as represented here. But in your posts, Jan's, and the like, it is accompanied by evasions and misrepresentations and dishonesties in the service of slander and disparagement - Capracus, as one would expect from the God involved, appears to have no need for such tactics, and no hidden agenda of that kind. Your God is speaking as the God you have presented to us in the past. Now you reject your God, deny your God - and we are reminded that Scripture - the Scripture you put forward here - has warned us of this temptation of pride, and this temptation of fear: it makes apostates of the faithful, forswearers of belief in the Almighty. It is a weakness of human belief, and we expect it. According to your Scripture, you God will forgive you - but only if you repent. Unless you have evidence, reason, argument, some base in thought for your beliefs that you have hidden so far. Do you?
And that is irrelevant. But thanks for playing. But you're seemingly not willing to drop the example of suffering, which I have now repeatedly said is clearly muddying the waters. So... Moving on... Ok. Ok. So you say he could... but doesn't? Who are you to know the mind of God? If God "doesn't", and that is as you are suggesting an absolute, then that becomes a "can't". You can't have it both ways. No, they don't lose their necessity simply because Capracus happens to claim to be God, and that you can't prove otherwise. On one hand you say "There is no reason He couldn't pose as an online contributor here" and now you are trying to argue that he can't be an online contributor here. One or the other, Musika. The rest is simply obfuscation on your part. Is that all you have? A claim of the "suspension of rational thought"? You have accepted that "There is no reason He couldn't pose as an online contributor here". So let's expand that slightly: is there a reason He couldn't pose as an online contributor here that posts: ""Hey I'm God, yeah, totally omni, although I independently refuse to display anything Godlike or omni or any other value or quality that could possibly be held as distinct from a regular joe with a mediocre understanding of religion and philosophy, but don't let that shortcoming fool you because I just said I am God." I'm beginning to wonder if you have any clue as to the illogic of the dismissal of Capracus' claim, and that your obfuscation is simply instinctual rather than thought through. The alternative is that you do have a clue, and your obfuscation is a deliberate and dishonest tactic. I see no other alternative, which is a pity. And further disappointment. TL;DR - you accept that God could pose as an online contributor... yet you state that the contribution alone is grounds for dismissing that claim. You don't think God is capable of posing as an online contributor making those posts? If God wanted to?
Creating that particular kind of wordfog to suggest an argument while delivering a slur, to denigrate by innuendo without the accountability of having meant anything in particular, is a basic tactic of the oA theist on a science forum. It's a field mark, like the miiaw slur that identifies a catbird in a thicket. https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Gray_Catbird/sounds One interesting aspect is its mimicry of what reasonable people automatically tolerate and allow for in good faith: for example, the word usage that so oddly and closely resembles someone using English as a second language and relying on a translation app, bilingual thesaurus, or phrase book, for their vocabulary and sentence structure. Meanwhile: no evidence or argument has appeared for rejecting your God, Capracus. As you and the others have posted so firmly and at such length on the centrality of such refusal to believe, deploring it in no uncertain terms, the suggestion that you must have some basis in evidence and reason for your rejection and denial is a normal one: time to share it.
Just a bit of advice, if you feel someone is being dogmatically irrelevant and just want to drop the subject, its best just to ignore it and edit it out as opposed to repeatedly request that they stop discussing it snd simultaneously departing on a personal quip about why they are wrong and you are right. People will just interpret that as an invitation to clarify things. We are talking about the revelation of God (or enlightenment or samadhi). We are talking about the process of a living entity to transition from a state of illusion. We are talking about coming to a state of "really" knowing God. If you cannot tie such a state to any objective value (as per the euphyphro dilemma) you are talking of a "thing" (in this case the revelation of God) that has no discernible value or qualities. This places it in the same category as square circles. IOW it is something that has no authority outside of special pleading. Can God propose something irrational that has no authority beyond special pleading? Sure. Even a four year old can do that, what to speak of Capracus or an omni max personality. Does the revelation of God require it to be irrational? If one is looking beyond a select period of Christian philosophical history that is celebrated for its obscurantism, no. So what happens if an omnimax personality not only levels a prescriptive claim that is completely bereft of any rational framework or reference, but wagers their omnimax independence on it (aka, the euphyphro dilemma 101)? You will have persons disregarding it in lieu of the rational framework given by the pre-existing body of history and philosophy. Its kind of like a doctor proposing that if you eat twelve iced donuts a day you can cure cancer. If they don't tie the act of eating donuts to even a single qualitative value that discerns curing cancer (ie, provide a rational framework for their claim .... I mean even the snake oil peddlers of yesteryear had the forethought to plant a scripted stooge amongst the onlookers ... so that would give them at least one more qualitative value than what Capracus is offering), they will not get many clients (especially in environments with an already existing rational body of work that deals with cancer and its cures). So when atheists, in regard to the subject of revelation, advocate that a satisfactory answer to the question "Why does God do X?" is "Wrong question", one has to wonder if this is yet another obvious example of strawmanning. At the very least, there are qualitative values tied to the act of strawmanning, no?
And now all that remains is for those persons to pony up with some of that "rational framework" they claim to have consulted, or any other evidence and argument they have recognized and employed, to explain their rejection and denial of God.
Irrelevant question unit Musika. The pertinent question is whether there is any level of informed human reason that can define any revelation of God as genuine, and the answer is no.
If you're not even remotely familiar with the components of the question, your notions of what the answer might be have no value.
The irony here is that references to a rational framework were already provided in the parts you consciously edited out in order to compose a troll reply.
You are in error unit Musika. That you believe that familiarity with the relevant components is even possible exposes your fundamental ignorance.
Suggesting that familiarity with components of a question are not integral to understanding a question doesn't take you further into favorable territory.
You have compounded your error unit Musika by failing to acknowledge that the relevant components to the question are not accessible to biological units such as yourself.
