I’m confident he’s not…though that is the issue that most have in trying to reconcile His existence that leads them to unbelief.
Me too. I can reject God for many reasons, though judgment is generally the source, I did not consider myself a god in doing so.
I agree with this, you cannot prove non-existence, so trying is a waste of time. However, you can disprove an unproven theory of existence.
I suspect you are in disagreement with most Christians in that:
https://carm.org/is-god-personal
Also, if I am not mistaken, didn’t we have a lengthy discussion in which you tried to convince me that you have a personal relationship with God? One cannot have a personal relationship with a non-person.
This is the analogy I was giving. I guess if you view a fetus as more similar to a biological parasite than a biological human then our analogy breaks down.
Prove that. You just said he doesn’t have a body. You’re comparing God to the same type of being you are. How do you know God is human?
This is a distinction without a difference. If you had said you don’t know then you wouldn’t be making a logically fallacy. Now you are.
Well, at least you’re consistent if you don’t believe God exists and you have plausible reasons to believe so. I’m not sure what they are besides the God of the Bible is genocidal.
@Faizal_Ali actually after thinking about it, our analogy didn’t break down. You said destroying a fetus is OK because it is of a different type than human mother - it’s a parasite. So God can kill us because we are a different type too. But instead you argued that God would be the same type as us.
No, that’s not a reason for not believing in God. It’s a reason for being happy that he doesn’t exist. Big difference. But what about you? You believe God exists and you believe that he actually caused a worldwide flood. You have carefully avoided taking a position on genocide. Do you think that genocide is a good thing or not?
Ok, I still do not have your reasons the God’s existence is less probable than not.
I’m not sure how you have thought that based on my comments.
So here goes:
Humans killing humans is wrong if it’s murder (not legitimate war, self-defense or punishment for crime).
There’s still the fact that your own analogy appears to lead to the conclusion that parents should be allowed to kill their children. But I’ll leave that for you to deal with.
This is interesting. Both you and @Mark10.45 seem not to understand what it means to describe your god as a person. I gave Mark this article, so I will share it with you as well. This is coming from a perspective that I suspect is quite close to yours:
https://carm.org/is-god-personal
Actually, there is a difference, a very simple one. To not believe something is true is not the same as knowing it is not true.
Is that enough explanation, or do you need more?
That’s not what we were talking about. The main reason is the same as the reason I don’t think there’s a hippopotamus in my bedroom: if there were one, I would expect to see clear signs of his presence.
That was a weaselly statement, for sure. The question was about divinely caused genocide. Was killing almost all humans and other animals in the Flood a good thing or not?
Exactly. And whether the character exists can have no bearing on its goodness or wickedness, which must be judged in relation to the story, not to some metaphysical whizbang that claims that if it exists, it somehow becomes good by definition.
Notice the article says God as cause would be immaterial, have immense power, and be personal. Humans are obviously not immaterial or strong enough to create a universe.
I haven’t seen you give reasons for why God is more plausible yet other than that there is no way to Investigate God. So I’m not sure why you’re saying you believe Christianity is not true when your earlier statements seem to indicate you think it can’t be investigated, which would mean that you just don’t know.
I was making an argument that by the moral standards of those who say abortion is moral because the fetus is of a different type dependent on the woman who created it, then it’s inconsistent to say that a Creator killing humans is immoral since they are a different type dependent on their creator also.
Of course my morals are different than that, so this argument does not apply to me. Just pointing out it may show hypocrisy.
Yes.
(That was not the same question you asked earlier.)
Yes it was, though you had apparently lost sight of the subject. OK, so to recap: genocide is good if God does it or commands it. What is your justification for that idea?
Being an immaterial and powerful person does not entail being moral, never mind being the only possible standard or morality.
Didn’t I already explain that to you?
I’m not. Please read again.
Also not something I said.
Yes. Your morals are that God can kill humans with impunity because of he is our creator, so the logical conclusion from that is that parents should be permitted to kill their children.
Pro-choicers do not generally conclude that parents should be able to kill their children. But, like you said, your morals are different from theirs.
Yes, I know you are not actually in favour of parents killing their children. But you seem unaware that this is the logical entailment of the line of argument you are following here. So you probably should stop using that argument, because it makes you look really bad.
I have a personal relationship with Jesus, who was/is a person. Though Jesus is God, God is not Jesus and is not a person.
I’ll leave you to settle that disagreement with your fellow Christians who believe otherwise. From my standpoint, it is obvious that the Christian god is a personal being.
Sigh. Not even close to what I was trying to argue at all.
OK, you’re saying you do not KNOW Christianity is not true, you just do NOT BELIEVE it is true.
Just as flat earthers do not KNOW the earth is not flat, they just do NOT BELIEVE it is true. How could they KNOW with certainty when they have another hypothesis that makes sense (even though they haven’t proved it to be more plausible)?
Claiming to know the person of God, to me says that that person does not understand the bible. Unless that person is Jesus, then sure. Jesus was our example, God in person, someone that we could understand. The creator of the universe is beyond our understanding, therefore not a person as we understand a person to be. I read the article, I don’t agree with him.
OK. What is your argument?
Yes.
No, not at all. Many, if not most, of them believe they have positive scientific evidence to show the earth is flat.
It’s always curious to watch people write on and on about something they admit is beyond their understanding. If you don’t even understand what you are talking about, why are you making so many claims about it that you defend with such vigour?
Don’t you do the same?..you see a comment that is just off and you comment. I understand that claiming to understand something that is not possible of being understood discounts that persons credibility. If you said to me, “I can count to infinity” I would think you didn’t understand what infinity was. Same goes for “I understand the person of God”…no, you don’t.