The silence of God

[Sparhafoc]

Mars showing superior skills at jelly wall nailing!

But don't forget to open your hart to Jesus!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Again, Sparhafoc - and Mars Cydonia - beat me to it.

Greetings,

Since "GOD can do it", this shows that god KNOWS what would convince a soul he's supposed to have created to believe in him.

As I've pointed out a few times but to which I have not received a coherent reply.

Kindest regards,

James

yes and there are atleast 4 possibilities

1 God knows that nothing would convince you

Wrong.

If God supposedly created me, he'd have created me to have a loving relationship with him (his purported goal, at least according to you) - if not, then what's the point in creating me? (As I've already pointed out in a previous post to which I haven't received a coherent response.)

2 God will do something and convince you at some point in your life

Which is an unnecessary option if that's God's goal.

3 If God does X and X would convince you, it could be that by doing X god would loose other potencial followers, he would gain you but he would also loose others.

That would mean that God would have created souls that were never going to have a loving relationship - which contradicts the property of omni-benevolence - similar to 1.

4 God doesn't exist

unless you disprove 1,2,3 you shouldn't automatically conclude 4

Wrong.

Again, like all theists/deists, you assume a supernatural creator-entity exists.

The null position is that no supernatural creator-entity exists - it's for theists to provide evidence (the four steps to which I referred in a earlier post) that such a entity exists.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

The null hypothesis, LEROY

Learn what it means, be better informed, stop repeating your fabulously amusing errors.

Or don't - it's pleasant to have a village idiot to hand.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I obviously disagree. Since you never demonstrated a deity has a goal, how could I agree with anything based off that? Care to justify your premise now?

if God doesn't have a Goal then why would he do something different like knocking doors ?

:facepalm:

You are the one claiming a deity has a goal. I am simply asking why you think that. What is up with this weird burden shift?

Yep. All you have is a counterfactual

yes the original argument presented by Grumpy was based on counterfactuals and I am answering with other counterfactuals. you have a personal issue with counterfactuals but that is only your own personal issue.

Yep. Turtles the whole way down. My point is just demonstrating your hypocrisy at this point. Your refusal to justify your premise demonstrate that you know you are being a hypocrite with this argument.

. Now care to justify your premise or are you going to insist, again, that because you can string a sentence together, you have an argument?

the burden proof is yours, you (well grumpy) are the one who is presenting the argument you are the one who has to prove that by doing something different (like knocking doors) humans would react according to Gods desires or goals.


you are the one who is making a positive argument, you are the one who is claiming that by doing something different (like knocking doors) humans would do whatever God intends us to do.

The argument Grumpy Santa presented was the argument from the silence of a god. Your secondary goal argument has nothing to do with that, as MarsCydonia loves to point out. Beyond that, besides what Rumraket and Sparhafoc has presented, you yourself have already proven the premise of the argument from silence:

leroy[/url]"]a loving relationship by definition is a two way street...

Tis hard to have a two way street if one is silent.

 

[leroy]

If God supposedly created me, he'd have created me to have a loving relationship with him (his purported goal, at least according to you) - if not, then what's the point in creating me? (As I've already pointed out in a previous post to which I haven't received a coherent response.)

God supposedly created you with the ability to ether willingly decide to love him or to willingly decide to reject him, it could be that there is nothing he could do, to make you willing to love him

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, why would knocking your door or do something else produce a different reaction is you?

Which is an unnecessary option if that's God's goal.

I don't understand the objection.

That would mean that God would have created souls that were never going to have a loving relationship - which contradicts the property of omni-benevolence - similar to 1.

God crated souls with free will,

I could be that by doing X God would gain you, and X is the only thing that would make you love God, but by ding X God might loss many other potencial followers.

this has something to do with the butterfly effect, a small miracle in your house that would convince you, could produce a disaster in China that would deconvert many Christians.

]

Wrong.

Again, like all theists/deists, you assume a supernatural creator-entity exists.

The null position is that no supernatural creator-entity exists - it's for theists to provide evidence (the four steps to which I referred in a earlier post) that such a entity exists.

Wrong, in this particular context the null hypothesis is that God cold have not done anything different (like knocking doors) to achieve his goals more efficiently.


this is suppose to be a positive argument for the existence of God, you are the one who has to disprove every other possibility before concluding that God doesn't exist.

 

[leroy]

You are the one claiming a deity has a goal. I am simply asking why you think that. What is up with this weird burden shift?

I am not the one who is claiming that God has a goal, Grumpy is the one who is making the assumption. I am just granting his assumption.

The argument Grumpy Santa presented was the argument from the silence of a god.

yes and the argument presupposes that God has a goal,

 

[leroy]

The null hypothesis, LEROY

Learn what it means, be better informed, stop repeating your fabulously amusing errors.

Or don't - it's pleasant to have a village idiot to hand.

what would be the null hypothesis for this statement? if you can answer correctly you will prove that you can answer something that a 13yo can answer

Grumpy Santa wrote:

Not a very impressive god. You'd think that it would be powerful enough to provide evidence so incontrovertible that someone would have no choice but to accept it. It should be smart enough to know what that would be for any individual, shouldn't it?

 

[Sparhafoc]

God supposedly created you with the ability to ether willingly decide to love him or to willingly decide to reject him, it could be that there is nothing he could do, to make you willing to love him

As already explained, internal contradiction.

You're saying that God does not have the knowledge or power to change a human being's mind.

God is supposedly maximally knowledgeable, and maximally powerful, while humans are painted as being mere shadows, barely even pixels compared to 'his' maximalness.

So you've changed the characteristics of your god to try and win an argument on the internet with heathens.

You're lucky the god dude's just a fiction, cos I can't imagine 'he' would be very impressed with one of 'his' supposed followers telling untruths about 'him'.

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, why would knocking your door or do something else produce a different reaction is you?

This is what LEROY tries to say to everyone who rejects logically his ideas and debunks them to the satisfaction of every other human.

I don't understand the objection.

Doesn't usually stop you from replying anyway.

God crated souls with free will,

Citation, please.

I want to see this in the Bible, please.

Leroy - do you think you're a prophet?

Exekiel 13:9

9 My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign LORD.

Jeremiah 23:16

16 This is what the LORD Almighty says: “Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.

Timothy 4:2-4

3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

The Bible spends a considerable amount of words spelling out what your alleged God thinks about those who pretend to be able to lay claim to knowledge.

Can't even do your own religion right, can you?

I could be that by doing X God would gain you, and X is the only thing that would make you love God, but by ding X God might loss many other potencial followers.

this has something to do with the butterfly effect, a small miracle in your house that would convince you, could produce a disaster in China that would deconvert many Christians.

:lol: :lol: :lol: what juvenile bollocks

Again, contradicts maximal knowledge, maximal power, you heretic!

Wrong, in this particular context the null hypothesis is that God cold have not done anything different (like knocking doors) to achieve his goals more efficiently.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I am coming to think you are actually special LEROY. You're not like the other Creationists - you're vastly less competent than them!

In other words, the opposite of how thousands of years of logic has worked.

The things you need to say to protect your silly belief system. Comedy gold.

 

[Sparhafoc]

what would be the null hypothesis for this statement? if you can answer correctly you will prove that you can answer something that a 13yo can answer

Coming from a guy who clearly struggles even to spell correctly, routinely uses grammar in ways grammar was never meant to be used, and who wouldn't admit that up means 'up' if he'd found himself stupidly declaring the opposite.

Let's look at what James said, shall we?

Again, like all theists/deists, you assume a supernatural creator-entity exists.

The null position is that no supernatural creator-entity exists - it's for theists to provide evidence (the four steps to which I referred in a earlier post) that such a entity exists.

So James explains what the null hypothesis of this statement means in the very statement you are denying that he shows a null hypothesis.

As I said - you are just prattling bollocks like you've got verbal diarrhea. It's like you think shouting LA LA LA will mean your argument wasn't shown wrong.

Dunning Kruger Syndrome - those with little ability rate themselves more highly - and who could have smaller ability than you? Which is why you're so confident and terminally unwilling to countenance your own repeated errors, and still seem to want to project that you're right even as you're repeatedly shown wrong, over and over again.

You are the Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail.

It is but a flesh wound!

 

[Sparhafoc]

I am not the one who is claiming that God has a goal,...

The Bible is the one claiming that God has a goal. If you want to challenge that, then you're not arguing for Christianity, are you?

yes and the argument presupposes that God has a goal,

As per the numerous instances from the Bible already cited.

Why do you pretend to competence, LEROY?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Again, LEROY claiming God doesn't have a goal, even though he contradicts scripture and thereby undermines the basis for his own argument.


1 Timothy 2:3

This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance

Ephesian 1:9-12

9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Do you usually find yourself contradicting scripture as you argue that scripture is the basis for knowledge of God, LEROY?

Or, as I said already, do you just make it all up as you go along thanks to the near perfect ignorance you confidently employ?

I so wish there were a knowledgeable Christian here because they'd have a damn sight more to say to you about this than me. I am just going to laugh in your face.

 

[Steelmage99]

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, why would knocking your door or do something else produce a different reaction is you?

Let's put that to the test.

How about you present some of those arguments, or even better some evidence, for your god.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Even better than that, let's start a thread just for it!

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15387

 

[leroy]

God supposedly created you with the ability to ether willingly decide to love him or to willingly decide to reject him, it could be that there is nothing he could do, to make you willing to love him

As already explained, internal contradiction.

You're saying that God does not have the knowledge or power to change a human being's mind.

God is supposedly maximally knowledgeable, and maximally powerful, while humans are painted as being mere shadows, barely even pixels compared to 'his' maximalness.

remember when I told you that I was going to ignore irrelevant comments? you see it doesn't matter if you are 100% in this particular point, even if you succeed in showing a contradiction.

that does absolutely nothing to show that this statement is wrong

you cant prove that if God exists he would have achieved his goals more efficiently if he would have done something different, like knocking doors or being less silent

so try again, but in your next reply please focus just on relevant comments, you will save hours of your precious time if you do that.

 

[Sparhafoc]

remember when I told you that I was going to ignore irrelevant comments? you see it doesn't matter if you are 100% in this particular point, even if you succeed in showing a contradiction.

that does absolutely nothing to show that this statement is wrong

And there you have it folks. Not only will LEROY proudly ignore everything that's inconvenient, he'll also simply dismiss the necessary ramifications of logic, and do so condescendingly as if he'd be doing us a favour by ever engaging with even a modicum of honesty.

Why are you even here, LEROY?

You're just repeatedly refusing to engage in any form of discussion that anyone on the planet would recognize as discussion.

Regardless, even if you refuse to address posts that substantively debunk your bullshit, still they remain, untouched by you, and therefore undefeated.

Given your ability in responding, I don't think there's any qualitative difference between you responding or not, just quantitatively in terms of bullshit per word count.

so try again, but in your next reply please focus just on relevant comments, you will save hours of your precious time if you do that.

Not under your command, LEROY, if that wasn't already crystal clear to you.

Don't care if your Morton's Demon is getting angry with me, don't care if you want to publicly admit that you will only address information that is convenient for you.... all these things do is show that you have nothing worth listening to and are too thick to learn.

No skin off my nose. I take great pleasure in popping the hubris bubbles of cretins like you.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I posted this 'proof', and have since linked to it... what... 5 or 6 times each time LEROY repeats his idiotic spiel.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=179602#p179602


Already answered in spades. You can't debunk it because it follows logically, and no answer you can give is coherent - just attempts at circular reasoning.


Oh and we still have that little topic in waiting where I have shown that you contradicted the Bible, the very source you appeal to for legitimacy for your arguments.

You haven't just lost this discussion, LEROY, you've lost the war singlehandedly. But, in true Black Knight fashion, you still think you can bite my ankles.


LEROY, I would hazard a guess you've been kicked off of every other discussion forum you've been on. It's not 'them' LEROY, it's you.

 

[leroy]

I posted this 'proof', and have since linked to it... what... 5 or 6 times each time LEROY repeats his idiotic spiel.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=179602#p179602


Already answered in spades. You can't debunk it because it follows logically, and no answer you can give is coherent - just attempts at circular reasoning.


Oh and we still have that little topic in waiting where I have shown that you contradicted the Bible, the very source you appeal to for legitimacy for your arguments.

You haven't just lost this discussion, LEROY, you've lost the war singlehandedly. But, in true Black Knight fashion, you still think you can bite my ankles.


LEROY, I would hazard a guess you've been kicked off of every other discussion forum you've been on. It's not 'them' LEROY, it's you.

ok so once again

Easy.

I want a relationship with my neighbours.

I can do one of two things.

1) Hide, erase all evidence of my existence, get a bunch of undereducated, barely literate loons to tell everyone that they know I exist and that they can speak to me and hear my voice and know I love all my neighbours and want them to believe in me before I will present myself to them, then spend gigantic amounts of my material wealth and individual energy contriving and planting empirical evidence which very strongly suggests that I don't exist, and that all the stories my barely literate loons tell are categorically and unequivocally bollocks.

or

2) Go and knock on the door and introduce myself. Perhaps take a bunch of flowers or a cake?

but if you knock the door and your neighbor doesn't what to open the door, what should you do?


form this thread
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=15387

it is obvious that you are not even interested in knowing if God/neighbor exists you are not even curios enough to look at your door and see if there is a neighbor out there



besides you are making the assumption that knocking doors is the best way to gain followers, if you are doing something else, and you are already gaining followers, what makes you think that knocking doors would be better?.......you have to prove it

 

[MarsCydonia]

God supposedly created you with the ability to ether willingly decide to love him or to willingly decide to reject him, it could be that there is nothing he could do, to make you willing to love him

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, why would knocking your door or do something else produce a different reaction is you?

Were the issues with this not pointed out to Leroy?

Indeed they were. Leroy simply opted to run away instead of responding.

God crated souls with free will,

I could be that by doing X God would gain you, and X is the only thing that would make you love God, but by ding X God might loss many other potencial followers.

this has something to do with the butterfly effect, a small miracle in your house that would convince you, could produce a disaster in China that would deconvert many Christians.

Were the issues with this not pointed out to Leroy?

Indeed they were. Leroy simply opted to run away instead of responding.

Wrong, in this particular context the null hypothesis is that God cold have not done anything different (like knocking doors) to achieve his goals more efficiently.

Is it that Leroy does not understand the null hypothesis? Or is it that Leroy prefers this "clearly not the null"-hypothesis as a strawman (that he will still fail to knock down)?

this is suppose to be a positive argument for the existence of God, you are the one who has to disprove every other possibility before concluding that God doesn't exist.

Leroy is confusing his arguments here. Even Leroy's version of the "Silence of god" argument requires premises and if the premises are demonstrated to be true, then the argument stands if the conclusion follows from the premises.

Leroy has presented "objections" to Leroy's version of the "Silence of god" argument but has ran from any comments that point out how is objections do not hold.

16 pages about "the silence of god" and Leroy has yet to address:
1. The correct form of the argument.
2. How his objections to his flawed form of the argument (where he pretended to know god's goals) were shown to be invalid.
3. How his flawed form of the argument and or his now reversal of "not knowing god goals' brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint

 

[MarsCydonia]

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them, why would knocking your door or do something else produce a different reaction is you?

From someone who constantly runs away from the usual form of the argument and who runs away from the comments that point out that his "objections" to Leroy's version of the "Silence of god" argument , the hypocrisy would be astounding... If we were talking about someone other than Leroy that is.

16 pages about Leroy's version of the "Silence of god" argument and Leroy has yet to address:
1. The correct form of the argument.
2. How his objections to his flawed form of the argument (where he pretended to know god's goals) were shown to be invalid.
3. How his flawed form of the argument and or his now reversal of "not knowing god goals' brings glaring issues for a christian standpoint

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

If God supposedly created me, he'd have created me to have a loving relationship with him (his purported goal, at least according to you) - if not, then what's the point in creating me? (As I've already pointed out in a previous post to which I haven't received a coherent response.)

God supposedly created you with the ability to ether willingly decide to love him or to willingly decide to reject him, it could be that there is nothing he could do, to make you willing to love him.

Which means, as I've said several times, that god is creating souls to burn in hell for all eternity - which means that god can't be omni-benevolent (all-good).

form previous threads, it is obvious that your are not even willing to look at the arguments for the existence of God and make an honest effort to understand them,

Given I was brought up Roman Catholic in Ireland, this is clearly nonsense.

why would knocking your door or do something else produce a different reaction is you?

An omni-benevolent/omnipotent god would create me to love him, and thus be with him instead of burning in hell for all eternity.

An omniscient god would know what would convince me.

Which is an unnecessary option if that's God's goal.

I don't understand the objection.

If god's goal is to bring me to him then offering an option of doing something to bring me to him is unnecessary. The other three options are what happens after he does something to bring me to him.

That would mean that God would have created souls that were never going to have a loving relationship - which contradicts the property of omni-benevolence - similar to 1.

God crated souls with free will,

I could be that by doing X God would gain you, and X is the only thing that would make you love God, but by ding X God might loss many other potencial followers.

this has something to do with the butterfly effect, a small miracle in your house that would convince you, could produce a disaster in China that would deconvert many Christians.

Which means that god has created souls to burn in hell - ergo, god is not omni-benevolent.

Wrong.

Again, like all theists/deists, you assume a supernatural creator-entity exists.

The null position is that no supernatural creator-entity exists - it's for theists to provide evidence (the four steps to which I referred in a earlier post) that such a entity exists.

Wrong, in this particular context the null hypothesis is that God cold have not done anything different (like knocking doors) to achieve his goals more efficiently.

this is suppose to be a positive argument for the existence of God, you are the one who has to disprove every other possibility before concluding that God doesn't exist.

No - the null hypothesis is that god(s) don't exist. It's for the believer to provide evidence that any entity, then their entity, exists.

The silence of god is definitely not a positive argument for the existence of any god!

If you're changing the purpose of this thread, then your argument still doesn't work since you don't know what is a purported god's goal(s) is(/are), you can't claim that this purported god's doing anything else would make things better or worse. In other words, since you don't know what god's goal is, all possible actions are equally effective - or not - as the case may be.

Kindest regards,

James