The story as I understand it

[RealDealNeverstop]

No. Of course it isn't. But my position isn't relevant to the discussion. I am an atheist. I don't think God exists. I'm not sure even that evil is a meaningful concept.

This is why I've answered the way I've answered.

Ok. Fine.

Explain how God can be omnipresent and be absent.


For the last time -- Duh.

Now explain how God can be omnipresent and absent.


No, I am not.

I am asking--as I have been since this conversation began--how can God be omnipresent and absent.

Please explain this.

That which is omnipresent cannot be absent. This has nothing to do with whether other things exist. Omnipresence (the attribute of being everywhere) and absence (that attribute of NOT being in some particular place) are contradictory.

Why are the posts I've answered this in being ignored? Let me try again because it seeems you don't understand the conclusions of. your own claim. You say if God is omnipresent then God cannot be absent from anywhere. That is very true but what is not being understood are a couple of things. Let's say "everywhere" consists of a house with ten rooms and God being omnipresent is in all ten. In 4 of those rooms evil acts are being committed by people. By your claim that means either:

God is not in those 4 rooms, thus negating the quality of being omnipresent.

Or

Evil does exist in the presence of God thus making my claim that evil exists only in God's absence false.

That is the false dilemma mentioned earlier. The core confusion is equating evil with a geographic location. Evil doesn't have an address because it is not a "place" but only an action. Thus, God is still in those 4 rooms, remaining omnipresent, but God is not inside the people that are committing the evil.

We are separate entities from each other and God, that is why I pointed out your conclusion assumes God's omnipresence is exclusive. Evil comes from the actions of people and not a location. Omnipresence is being in all places at once. People are not "places."

 

[SiderealExalt]

I wondered if the def of omniscient changed after I went to sleep but I guess not:

1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. –noun 2. an omniscient being. 3. the Omniscient, God.

Instead of wasting pontificating dollars how about explaining how it doesn't or can't apply?

Probably because you posted something contradictory to that definition. Wow that was hard.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Probably because you posted something contradictory to that definition. Wow that was hard.

I described God's omniscience as "full awareness." The first line in the dictionary def is "...having... full awareness."

 

[SiderealExalt]

I described God's omniscience as "full awareness." The first line in the dictionary def is "...having... full awareness."

Which has nothing to do with why omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive traits. If you want to resort to ad hom attacks because of lack of argument, don't expect people to agree with you.

 

[chingchang]

This thread cracks-me-up. As a former Atheist...I do understand why this thread exists and the Atheist POV. Here's the funny thing about it...believers CAN NOT convince Atheists...and Atheists CAN NOT convince true believers. Atheists have not had a spiritual experience...and therefore CAN NOT speak that language. True believers have had a spiritual experience (perhaps ongoing) and CAN NOT deny their experience. No amount of reason/logic presented on behalf of the Atheist argument matters. This really brings several verses of the Bible to light...

1 Corinthians 1:20-25 (NIV)
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Y'all don't think we know it is ridiculous? Pah-lease. You can never use your own reason and logic to reach God...you must humble yourself and honestly seek him. Then...he will show himself to you and you'll be changed. I know this from experience as do many other true believers. And trust me...I'm no fundamentalist...I'm just telling you about my experience. But my experience does validate the words contained in the Bible in many cases (such as this).

Free hugs for my Atheist friends!
chingchang

Which has nothing to do with why omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive traits. If you want to resort to ad hom attacks because of lack of argument, don't expect people to agree with you.

 

[soul_biscuit]

This thread cracks-me-up. As a former Atheist...I do understand why this thread exists and the Atheist POV. Here's the funny thing about it...believers CAN NOT convince Atheists...and Atheists CAN NOT convince true believers. Atheists have not had a spiritual experience...and therefore CAN NOT speak that language. True believers have had a spiritual experience (perhaps ongoing) and CAN NOT deny their experience. No amount of reason/logic presented on behalf of the Atheist argument matters. This really brings several verses of the Bible to light...

It's funny how willing many believers are to simply assume that atheists have never had a spiritual experience simply because they don't believe. It may interest you to know that I have had deeply spiritual experiences, and that I (shocker!) do not interpret them the same way you do.

1 Corinthians 1:20-25 (NIV)

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

I think I agree. God's word would seem foolish if you were to accept the story that the world is plainly telling us.

Y'all don't think we know it is ridiculous? Pah-lease. You can never use your own reason and logic to reach God...you must humble yourself and honestly seek him. Then...he will show himself to you and you'll be changed. I know this from experience as do many other true believers. And trust me...I'm no fundamentalist...I'm just telling you about my experience. But my experience does validate the words contained in the Bible in many cases (such as this).

This simply does not impress me. How do you know I have not honestly sought God? I have, and I found nothing.

Free hugs for my Atheist friends!
chingchang

I do not oppose free hugs.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

It's funny how willing many believers are to simply assume that atheists have never had a spiritual experience simply because they don't believe. It may interest you to know that I have had deeply spiritual experiences, and that I (shocker!) do not interpret them the same way you do.

[/I]

I think I agree. God's word would seem foolish if you were to accept the story that the world is plainly telling us.



This simply does not impress me. How do you know I have not honestly sought God? I have, and I found nothing.



I do not oppose free hugs.

You haven't even been honest in this thread so forgive others if they doubt your claim about honestly seeking anything.

(You accused someone of not knowing the def of a word then totally denied doing it.)

 

[Tinker Grey]

The core confusion is equating evil with a geographic location. Evil doesn't have an address because it is not a "place" but only an action.

I believe this is the first time in our conversation that you've suggested this. I apologize if I missed it. As it happens, I would agree.

But the confusion arises from the original set of premises. Omnipresence is about geographic location. AND, so is absence. As such, if someone makes the original set of propositions, I can conclude only that those who make the proposition suppose that evil occupies space--to which I would have eventually raised an objection.

So good. We are beyond that objection.

If however you are maintaining the use of those terms, then you aren't using them the way I am.

Thus, God is still in those 4 rooms, remaining omnipresent,

Ok. So it appears that you and I use omnipresent similarly.

but God is not inside the people that are committing the evil.

... but, what could this possibly mean?

Are there not geographic locations inside people? Does the boundary of objects define where God may or may not exist? Does our existence limit God's?

Perhaps you should define "inside". I would think that a God that is truly omnipresent is not limited by physical boundaries and would actually be inside all physical matter including inside the brain of a person about to commit or in the act of committing evil.

How is God absent? You said just above that it didn't having anything to do with physical location.

We are separate entities from each other and God, that is why I pointed out your conclusion assumes God's omnipresence is exclusive.

Again, I have claimed only that omnipresence and absence are mutually exclusive.

I think you can get around that only if you mean "omnipresent in a certain way" OR "absent in a certain way."

What that "way" is, you've yet to explain.

Evil comes from the actions of people and not a location. Omnipresence is being in all places at once. People are not "places."

I certainly do occupy space and therefore I am a place. Perhaps you mean not "merely" a place.

I can only guess what you might mean by "merely" if you were to agree with the above statement.

Do you mean that, in fact, because we are sapient beings God may not occupy the space that I occupy? (In which case, he is not omnipresent.)

Do you mean that the quality of being human is not something defined by the physical, and therefore even though God is inside us, he is not "inside" us (or at least an evil-committing person)? Hence the request: Please define what you mean by "inside" and by "absent".

 

[SiderealExalt]

Tickets! Get your tickets! There's the first few steps of a million. You accused me of posting something contradictory to the def of omniscience and that I don't know what it means.....so I respond by pointing out I clearly knew what I meant and your response is to cry ad hom? Cuuulllllassssssuc folks!!! Go ahead and have the last word on the matter. This stuff is so stupid trite and I learned long ago there are some peeps who will never admit a mistake so why waste the time?

It's not my fault you contradicted the definition in your statement.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

It's not my fault you contradicted the definition in your statement.

If I have erred in the accusation please link or state the post number where I "contradicted" the definition. (Take note: there is no request for a portion of a particular post. Just simply state the post number. )

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I believe this is the first time in our conversation that you've suggested this. I apologize if I missed it. As it happens, I would agree.

But the confusion arises from the original set of premises. Omnipresence is about geographic location. AND, so is absence. As such, if someone makes the original set of propositions, I can conclude only that those who make the proposition suppose that evil occupies space--to which I would have eventually raised an objection.

So good. We are beyond that objection.

If however you are maintaining the use of those terms, then you aren't using them the way I am.

Ok. So it appears that you and I use omnipresent similarly. ... but, what could this possibly mean?

Are there not geographic locations inside people? Does the boundary of objects define where God may or may not exist? Does our existence limit God's?

Perhaps you should define "inside". I would think that a God that is truly omnipresent is not limited by physical boundaries and would actually be inside all physical matter including inside the brain of a person about to commit or in the act of committing evil.

How is God absent? You said just above that it didn't having anything to do with physical location.

Again, I have claimed only that omnipresence and absence are mutually exclusive.

I think you can get around that only if you mean "omnipresent in a certain way" OR "absent in a certain way."

What that "way" is, you've yet to explain.



I certainly do occupy space and therefore I am a place. Perhaps you mean not "merely" a place.

I can only guess what you might mean by "merely" if you were to agree with the above statement.

Do you mean that, in fact, because we are sapient beings God may not occupy the space that I occupy? (In which case, he is not omnipresent.)

Do you mean that the quality of being human is not something defined by the physical, and therefore even though God is inside us, he is not "inside" us (or at least an evil-committing person)? Hence the request: Please define what you mean by "inside" and by "absent".

The post is a bit confusing. The first part it seems like what I was saying was understood but further down in the post you said some things the hinted it wasn't really understood. As for omniscience, it appears you are claiming if God is omniscient then God is in everything, physical or not. Ie. God is in us, ice cream, stars, Jimi Hendrix, boots, etc etc. That is not what omniscient means and why I said a long time ago God's omniscience is not exclusive. By your use of the term if God is omniscient then that means the only thing that truly exists is God. Iam trying to highlight that is not what omniscient means.

From my example above with the house and ten rooms, by your claim if God is omniscient then God is the ONLY thing that is in all ten rooms. Iam saying God being omniscient doesn't mean NOTHING else exists.

Let's try a backwards approach. If God is not omniscient then where is God? If God has a specific location then we must be able to state that location. How do we find it? Is there a "Manna Mapquest" or "Holy Google?"

As for people and locations...they are mutually exclusive properties. If you stand on Mt Rushmore you do not become the location of Mt Rushmore...you're simply visiting the location. Our bodies occupy space but our bodies are not "locations."

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

Closing for staff review and cool down

MOD HAT OFF