How could you tell?

[Davian]

My faith in Barney allows me to follow Barney's will.

Barney is the Purple Messiah:

Barney, a Dinosaur Demon? Pastor Says He's Too New Age - Los Angeles Times

"In his new booklet, "The Purple Messiah," Chambers cites an episode in which Barney conjures up Mother Goose--who pops out of a book of nursery rhymes--by uttering "Shimboree, shimborah," a common expression heard on the TV show. This sequence, Chambers claims, is a seance."

 

[Cearbhall]

How could you know he isn't lying to you?

Note: I didn't say "do you know"

Speaking from experience, don't expect this to go anywhere further.

Jesus Christ cannot lie.

"I know he's not lying because he can't lie. The reason I know he can't lie is because he can't lie." This is how logic led me to agnostic atheism.

 

[ranunculus]

How do you make a moral assessment that god is good if you believe your moral compass comes from god? Answer is, you can't.

 

[Elioenai26]

Speaking from experience, don't expect this to go anywhere further.

"I know he's not lying because he can't lie. The reason I know he can't lie is because he can't lie." This is how logic led me to agnostic atheism.

You were led to agnostic atheism because you constructed strawmen of the Christian worldview, and then attacked them by "logic".

Now why would you do that?

 

[Elioenai26]

How do you make a moral assessment that god is good if you believe your moral compass comes from god? Answer is, you can't.

Saying God is good can be a moral assesment.

An atheist can also say God is good. This would simply be acknowledging that God is a maximally perfect being.

It is necessarily true that God is all good.

And your logic is fallacious at best...

Why can't I say God is good and at the same time hold that God is the source of my sense of what is good?

 

[KCfromNC]

Saying God is good can be a moral assesment.

What standard do you use to judge your god's morality?

An atheist can also say God is good. This would simply be acknowledging that God is a maximally perfect being.

Or they could just mean the god does more good than bad. When people call other people good, they don't mean that person is the infallible creator of the known universe. No need to change the meaning of the phrase just because a god is involved.

It is necessarily true that God is all good.

No it isn't. See, assertions are easy. The tough part is giving good reasons to believe them.

Why can't I say God is good and at the same time hold that God is the source of my sense of what is good?

You can, it's just entirely circular and therefore meaningless. You're basically saying god is what it is.

 

[Elioenai26]

What standard do you use to judge your god's morality?



Or they could just mean the god does more good than bad. When people call other people good, they don't mean that person is the infallible creator of the known universe. No need to change the meaning of the phrase just because a god is involved.



No it isn't. See, assertions are easy. The tough part is giving good reasons to believe them.



You can, it's just entirely circular and therefore meaningless. You're basically saying god is what it is.

In a debate with Dr. Craig, Dr. Pigliucci, a non-theistic naturalist understands that the word "God" is and I quote: "is what we call a perfect anthropomorphic God, that is, a God that does have something to do with the everyday working of the universe, but he is perfect, he doesn't make mistakes, he's always good, he's all over the place..." (Debate Transcript: Massimo Pigliucci-University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States – 1998)

KC, you need to understand that "God" capital "G" is what philosophers refer to as the concept of a "maximally great being", i.e a being which possess all compossible perfections. Goodness is one of these perfections.

This is not a religious statement at all. You do not need to be a Christian to make that statement. It is a statement regarding what attributes God must possess. The word "God" simply represents that which we conceive is the greatest being that we can conceive of. One thing that such a being must necessarily possess is Goodness. This being must be All-Good, All-Powerful, etc. etc.

It is not a religious statement. Dr. Pigliucci understands this. He is a non-theist, not a theist.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In a debate with Dr. Craig, Dr. Pigliucci, a non-theistic naturalist understands that the word "God" is and I quote: "is what we call a perfect anthropomorphic God, that is, a God that does have something to do with the everyday working of the universe, but he is perfect, he doesn't make mistakes, he's always good, he's all over the place..." (Debate Transcript: Massimo Pigliucci-University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, United States – 1998)

KC, you need to understand that "God" capital "G" is what philosophers refer to as the concept of a "maximally great being", i.e a being which possess all compossible perfections. Goodness is one of these perfections.

This is not a religious statement at all. You do not need to be a Christian to make that statement. It is a statement regarding what attributes God must possess. The word "God" simply represents that which we conceive is the greatest being that we can conceive of. One thing that such a being must necessarily possess is Goodness. This being must be All-Good, All-Powerful, etc. etc.

It is not a religious statement. Dr. Pigliucci understands this. He is a non-theist, not a theist.

Is God Really Omnipotent? - YouTube

 

[Elioenai26]

Is God Really Omnipotent? - YouTube

I do not respond to videos.

If you have something you wish to say, then say it.

In fact, if you have an aversion to saying "God" (why you would I have no idea) you can refer it as "123" or "gslgk" if you like, the name is immaterial to the fact that whatever is the greatest being we can conceive of is the greatest being we can conceive of. Most people refer this greatest conceivable being as "God". This being must exist necessarily and not contingently, for that which exists necessarily is self-evidently, qualitatively greater than that which depends on something else for its existence. This being must be omnipotent, I.e. capable of bringing about any logically possible state of affairs. All-good, because it is self-evidently, qualitatively greater to be all-good than not all-good, or good only sometimes or wicked. etc. etc.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not respond to videos.

If you have something you wish to say, then say it.

In fact, if you have an aversion to saying "God" (why you would I have no idea) you can refer it as "123" or "gslgk" if you like, the name is immaterial to the fact that whatever is the greatest being we can conceive of is the greatest being we can conceive of. Most people refer this greatest conceivable being as "God". This being must exist necessarily and not contingently, for that which exists necessarily is self-evidently, qualitatively greater than that which depends on something else for its existence. This being must be omnipotent, I.e. capable of bringing about any logically possible state of affairs. All-good, because it is self-evidently, qualitatively greater to be all-good than not all-good, or good only sometimes or wicked. etc. etc.

The basic premise of the video: "If God is perfectly good, then he is incapable of doing evil. But if he is incapable of doing evil, how can you say he is omnipotent?" The two do not cohere together.

 

[Elioenai26]

The basic premise of the video: "If God is perfectly good, then he is incapable of doing evil. But if he is incapable of doing evil, how can you say he is omnipotent?" The two do not cohere together.

How is not having the ability to commit evil and the concept of omnipotence contradictory? Are you familiar with what omnipotence even is in Anselmian Perfect Being Theology?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is not having the ability to commit evil and the concept of omnipotence contradictory? Are you familiar with what omnipotence even is in Anselmian Perfect Being Theology?

Not having the power to do something is incompatible with the idea of being all-powerful.

 

[Elioenai26]

Not having the power to do something is incompatible with the idea of being all-powerful.

You misunderstand the concept of God's omnipotence then. Research it. I have in fact, stated numerous times that when theologians say God is omnipotent THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE CAN DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

You seem to think that omnipotence is the ONLY attribute God possesses.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You misunderstand the concept of God's omnipotence then. Research it. I have in fact, stated numerous times that when theologians say God is omnipotent THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE CAN DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING.

You seem to think that omnipotence is the ONLY attribute God possesses.

I don't misunderstand what the word means.

 

[Elioenai26]

I don't misunderstand what the word means.

Yes you do.

Look up the word in its context in which we are speaking. Look it up as an attribute of God and see what you find.

 

[Cearbhall]

You were led to agnostic atheism because you constructed strawmen of the Christian worldview, and then attacked them by "logic".

Now why would you do that?

What other reason do you have for knowing that God is good because he says so and that this is factual because he can't lie?

 

[Elioenai26]

What other reason do you have for knowing that God is good because he says so and that this is factual because he can't lie?

God of the philosophers or God as revealed in Jesus Christ?

God of the philosophers is by definition omnibenevolent. It is one of His compossible perfections.

God as revealed in Jesus Christ....well now, I will let you answer that one for yourself. Was not He the most benevolent soul to ever have trod upon this evil earth? In His teachings are we not taken into the heights of heaven and shown the most sublime, most supremely virtuous ethic ever to have been uttered by man? Was not His life one of ceaseless self-sacrifice, compassion, and love? Was not His life the model for all the men and women who have been born and lived since who we consider to be most virtuous?

I challenge all here to produce a more noble, more virtuous, more good person than Christ. I challenge you to give me an example of any person who has inspired more people to be better people than Christ has.

Ask yourself this:

If God were to come and dwell among men, what would we expect Him to be like?

In Christ, we have our answer.

Isaac Watts knew this, years ago...

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross – Isaac Watts 1707
When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.

Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.

See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.

Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I'm just curious.

I know theists assume their god is good, wrote/directly influenced the bible, talks to you, etc., but how would you know if your god was either evil or a trickster and lying?

It's a gamble, with no apparent downside.

Everything we are urged to do by God is an intrinsically good act, based on any form of morality, whether you believe as I do that it's objective, or as you might think, subjective.

Now, people here have claimed and will claim knowledge of God, as I do, and you will level the charge of potential deception, but to what end? What does this evil trickster have to gain by getting us to be nice to each other?

Answer that, and we can discuss why we believe it's not so.

 

[Elioenai26]

It's a gamble, with no apparent downside.

Everything we are urged to do by God is an intrinsically good act, based on any form of morality, whether you believe as I do that it's objective, or as you might think, subjective.

Now, people here have claimed and will claim knowledge of God, as I do, and you will level the charge of potential deception, but to what end? What does this evil trickster have to gain by getting us to be nice to each other?

Answer that, and we can discuss why we believe it's not so.

Marvelous wisdom from Him who alone is All-Wise !

 

[Cearbhall]

God as revealed in Jesus Christ....well now, I will let you answer that one for yourself. Was not He the most benevolent soul to ever have trod upon this evil earth? In His teachings are we not taken into the heights of heaven and shown the most sublime, most supremely virtuous ethic ever to have been uttered by man? Was not His life one of ceaseless self-sacrifice, compassion, and love? Was not His life the model for all the men and women who have been born and lived since who we consider to be most virtuous?

You're well aware that I'm not Christian and that therefore my answer to most of these questions is no...or more like "I don't know" because an ancient text that claims supernatural happenings isn't exactly what I'd call a reliable source.