A Little Bit Of Kent Hovid Creationist Humor

[Morcova]

I apologise for the misunderstanding re Morcova's post, but I still find your attempts at comparing science "humour" with KH's rubbish to be rather misplaced, especially if it places the blame incorrectly on scientists for people dying. And especially seeing as you've either used the exact same arguments yourself elsewhere and yet make out that if scientists do that it's fallacious; either that or expressed your dislike of a particular argument that you then go and use yourself.

Don't be fooled, the post that AV linked to was about mass murder in the bible.

And asking people to justify it.

AV was just exploiting the death of people for points.

 

[agentorange20]

Like this?

The difference here is these acts were commandments of God and they were carried out with vengeful, aggression and oppressive and did so on purpose and out of spite of their neighbors. In a holy book no less. Gross.

While the NASA event is the result of an accident, a poor design flaw.

 

[Caduceus]

AV1611VET's arguments are rather 'thin'.

S/he can't have it both ways. If this Supreme Being is in absolute control (re God Did it Case Closed) then all the horrors of history including the Challenger tragedy have been personally devised and orchestrated by this Being who has foreknowledge of everything (i.e. omniscience). Therefore, according to AV1611VET's claim the Challenger accident was planned by AV1611VET's Supreme Being long before AV1611VET's Supreme Being ever created the Universe. It therefore follows that individuals like AV1611VET appear to believe in a Being that has deliberately planned the massacre its creations in the most appalling ways - as has been shown by human history.

How can such a Being therefore be described, by those that believe in it, as benign and loving?

 

[AV1611VET]

If this Supreme Being is in absolute control (re God Did it Case Closed) then all the horrors of history including the Challenger tragedy have been personally devised and orchestrated by this Being who has foreknowledge of everything (i.e. omniscience).

There are your key words, right there.

That is not a statement of absolute control.

 

[Caduceus]

There are your key words, right there.

That is not a statement of absolute control.

So are you suggesting your Being is not in absolute control?

 

[AV1611VET]

So are you suggesting your Being is not in absolute control?

Correct --- He turned control over to Adam and Eve.

 

[Caduceus]

Correct --- He turned control over to Adam and Eve.

If this Being is not in control why call it 'God'?

 

[AV1611VET]

If this Being is not in control why call it 'God'?

I don't think you understand; although He gave control (or, more appropriately, dominion) to Adam and Eve, He still has the final say over His creation.

 

[Caduceus]

I don't think you understand; although He gave control (or, more appropriately, dominion) to Adam and Eve, He still has the final say over His creation.

You can't have it both ways. If the Being gave control to A&E then it can't be in control. Conversely, if the Being has 'the final say' then it is in control.

Therefore, if, as most Theists believe, this Being is omniscient, it follows, as I orginally wrote, that all the horrors of history were known beforehand by this Being who, in full knowledge, allowed these things to occur.

 

[AV1611VET]

Therefore, if, as most Theists believe, this Being is omniscient, it follows, as I orginally wrote, that all the horrors of history were known beforehand by this Being who, in full knowledge, allowed these things to occur.

And your point is what? He hates our guts? He doesn't exist? Or what?

 

[Caduceus]

And your point is what? He hates our guts? He doesn't exist? Or what?

Read my earlier comment:

How can such a Being therefore be described, by those that believe in it, as benign and loving?

 

[AV1611VET]

Read my earlier comment:

How can such a Being therefore be described, by those that believe in it, as benign and loving?

Here's your previous post:

AV1611VET's arguments are rather 'thin'.

S/he can't have it both ways. If this Supreme Being is in absolute control (re God Did it Case Closed) then all the horrors of history including the Challenger tragedy have been personally devised and orchestrated by this Being who has foreknowledge of everything (i.e. omniscience). Therefore, according to AV1611VET's claim the Challenger accident was planned by AV1611VET's Supreme Being long before AV1611VET's Supreme Being ever created the Universe. It therefore follows that individuals like AV1611VET appear to believe in a Being that has deliberately planned the massacre its creations in the most appalling ways - as has been shown by human history.

How can such a Being therefore be described, by those that believe in it, as benign and loving?

What you're espousing here is technically called Panentheism (not Pantheism, but Panentheism). God is outside of His creation, and man's freewill is a place where God does not tread. He may, convict a person to do or not do something, but that is a far cry from forcing him.

 

[Caduceus]

God is outside of His creation, and man's freewill is a place where God does not tread. He may, convict a person to do or not do something, but that is a far cry from forcing him.

So, if I have understood you correctly you are postulating that your deity has no over-all control? I ask again, why call it God?