God's purpose

16.5 said:
Make one? No thanks, as there is no need.



Yes there is a Rule of So, it has been discussed at lenghth on this website. Please endeavor to research it.

/your PC "mindless privilege" thing gave me the giggles, tho.
Click to expand...


So you have nothing. Figures.

And I don't care how much hot air has been expended on trying to redefine the perfectly useful conjunction "so" into a fallacy. That is simply smoke to derail dialogue, and give a false sense of superiority to the person using it.

Every time someone invokes this nonentity of a spanner in the works, they lose respect from me.

That's the real rule of so, come to think of it. Anyone who invokes it invalidates their own objection to whatever they are complaining about.

Just as when someone uses the term "political correctness" they are flagging up their own reactionary irrelevance to progression towards a better society. They object to the concept of progress, just as the rule of so is objecting to the progress of a discussion.

Laugh all you want. You just show how callous to others you really are.
 
Giordano said:
There is no doubt that there is a "Rule of So" as a term. Whether it is an accurate logical formulation or not is a totally different matter. I have argued that the "rule" (which was originally meant tongue in cheek) is an enormous exaggeration, and in common with asydhouse, I believe that it has become a method for certain people to dismiss entire arguments not based on their logic but on the bases of a single "trip" word.
Click to expand...

well, I can assure you that is certainly not the intent...

Lets make some progress on God's purpose!
 
16.5 said:
I cling to what?

I think if you endeavor to research the issue that certain words and phrases become part of the community's lexicon, and Rule of So is just such an example. If you don't agree, that is fine, of course but please do not mistake your unfamiliarity with the shorthand phrase as a substantive attack on the merits.

Her comment was also a Gish Gallop. Do I need to explain that concept as well?
Click to expand...



You are now redefining gish gallop. You are wrong about that as well.
 
16.5 said:
The purpose would have been achieved by now? Well you are going to have to explain then what you think the purpose is, because from what I know based on the Scriptures, your comment makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Can we assume that God is good and seeks good outcomes? And thus given God is omnipotent, this good outcome would have been achieved by now?

Or are we already solidly in the "We cannot fathom the mind of God" phase of the argument, which of course by definition cannot be addressed logically.

Or do we believe (my own suspicion) that the God of the Bible is the evil entity and, through usingHis public relations department, has convinced people that He is good and Satan is bad, when the opposite is true. How would you know? God could simply be lying to us. Certainly His performance up to date, but any logical analysis, would suggest otherwise. Whereas "knowledge" which is what makes people special animals, was denied to us by God and came instead from Satan's intervention.
 
asydhouse said:
Just as when someone uses the term "political correctness" they are flagging up their own reactionary irrelevance to progression towards a better society. They object to the concept of progress, just as the rule of so is objecting to the progress of a discussion.

Laugh all you want. You just show how callous to others you really are.
Click to expand...

You are the only one who mentioned "political correctness" and it has nothing to do with the discussion.
 
Giordano said:
Can we assume that God is good and seeks good outcomes? And thus given God is omnipotent, this good outcome would have been achieved by now?

Or are we already solidly in the "We cannot fathom the mind of God" phase of the argument, which of course by definition cannot be addressed logically.
Click to expand...

By "now." That suggests that the purpose is "finite" which you have failed to establish, or even explain.
 
logger said:
Why is it so hard for you atheists to accept this answer?

This answer is clearly taught in the Bible. How about we are to serve at his good pleasure. :)
Click to expand...

Just to be absolutely clear, are we talking about the very same Bible that illustrates God as an entity willing to use deception in order to fulfill his desires?
 
16.5 said:
By "now." That suggests that the purpose is "finite" which you have failed to establish, or even explain.
Click to expand...

If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately. And even if their goal was to achieve that for a future infinite time, they could maintain that "good" state all that time by modifying their actions as circumstances changed. Why would they need to allow an intermediate subpar situation to exist for any length of time? And also remember- they are omnipotent and omniscient, so they can prevent circumstances from changing in an undesirable manner by a simple thought. Why would they even have to react to any changes in the universe (natural or supernatural) when they can direct or prevent any such changes by just willing otherwise?
 
Giordano said:
If an omniscient and omnipotent entity wished to achieve anything, something such as goodness, they could do so immediately. And even if their goal was to achieve that for a future infinite time, they could maintain that "good" state all that time by modifying their actions as circumstances changed. Why would they need to allow an intermediate subpar situation to exist for any length of time? And also remember- they are omnipotent and omniscient, so they can prevent circumstances from changing in an undesirable manner by a simple thought. Why would they even have to react to any changes in the universe (natural or supernatural) when they can direct or prevent any such changes by just willing otherwise?
Click to expand...

If He is, as you say, an omniscient and omnipotent entity His Acts and existence are all things at once, and the sequential timeline which you and I exist on would not apply to Him. You see, you are clearly applying your frame of reference on an entity which you have conceded is omniscient and omnipotent and therefore not bound by your frame of reference.

QED
 
16.5 said:
If He is, as you say, an omniscient and omnipotent entity His Acts and existence are all things at once, and the sequential timeline which you and I exist on would not apply to Him.
Click to expand...

Please illustrate how this follows. Thanks!
 
RogueKitten said:
Yea. You said Paul said god does such and such for his purpose, and I said, what is the purpose. You don't have to answer of course, I thought maybe you just missed it.

Eta BTW what book does your user name refer to?
Click to expand...

Book?

His purpose for us, well I like to start with Ephisians:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.
Click to expand...

I Am The Scum said:
Please illustrate how this follows. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Well as I have just described his argument that His purpose would have already been fulfilled if God was omniscient and omnipotent entity does indeed not follow
 
16.5 said:
Book?

His purpose for us, well I like to start with Ephisians:





Well as I have just described his argument that His purpose would have already been fulfilled if God was omniscient and omnipotent entity does indeed not follow
Click to expand...

I thought your name referred to a chapter and verse of a book of the bible? Am I incorrect?

Eta if our purpose is to "love" him/them, that still doesn't describe his/their purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom