Why do atheists insist on pretending God is some kind of person?

If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then we exist because of the infinite. There is no reason to believe the infinite isn't sentient just because it presumably doesn't have a brain like ours. So far it's not unlikely.

Subjective meaning objectively exists. Subjective meaning is a type of meaning. Therefore meaning objectively exists. If meaning objectively exists, it was caused by something, which was itself caused, ad infinitum. Therefore the only thing that could have caused the meaning is infinity. Only a sentient being can cause meaning. Therefore the infinity is a sentient being. A sentient, infinite being is what is meant by "God." So far God exists and caused our existence.

All causes are forced or done willingly. If a cause is forced, it is one thing acting on another. If it's one thing acting on another, they are distinguishable even if only by any kind of position. If they are distinguishable, both don't have a property the other has. If something doesn't have any property, it is not infinite. Therefore God can't be forced to do anything. Therefore God caused us willingly. If a being wills, it expects. If it expects, it cares. Therefore God exists and He cares.

If God cares about us, it stands to reason He would want us to know His will, so the question becomes not "Is a religion true?" but "Which religion is true?" If Christianity is true and Jesus/the Christian God lives, then so does objective Evil, who deceives people away from God any way it can, so we would expect to see many religions, atheism, etc. Obviously this isn't a reason Christianity is the correct religion, but it's a reason not to assume you can't see the evidence because it isn't there.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus
youtube.com/watch?v=hSq4B_zHqPM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>tfw radical Traditionalist who embraces perennial faith
>literally incapable of believing in God

Suffering.

OP please resume taking your meds.

Well Jesus is God too and he is a person.

"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Judges 17:6

Subjecting oneself to an authority isn't something most people want to do. They want to "find themselves" and form their morals. The world today is seen by most as a subjective place, post-modernism abounds, nothing matters, life is what you make it.

Most atheists do what they do because they are ignorant of what God is, and what he is not. This isn't entirely their own fault, but they have the resources to learn if they wish (especially in the western world). Our world is ruled by the Evil one, he has control of the physical realm and loves to lead us astray. It's a really simple game plan for him, convince people that the material is all that matters, and they're "forced" to appeal to him to have any "worth". In our world, Evil and Sin leads to short term gain, unless you think this life is all you have, in which this short term gain is all you can ever imagine getting.

>If God cares about us, it stands to reason He would want us to know His will

Its much simpler than that.

A caring god would show up and prove without a shadow of a doubt he was real on our modern earth rather than let his creations kill each other over their various ideas about his nature from old books.

That he doesn't shows that there is no caring god, or day I type it, no god at all.

I'd suggest Cosmic Codes by Chuck Missler for anyone who'd like to believe in God, but just can't. It details the various proofs that the Bible is the revealed word of God. Fascinating once you grok it!

What Jesus did is the solution to what Satan did.

>Chuck Missler
Amazing man, speaks with such intelligence but keeps it simple enough to understand. His ministry truly blessed me, thank you for sharing him :)

The question whether God exists is not the crux of the matter, but whether Christ is God. If God is non-personal he might just as well not exist at all.

>Therefore God caused us willingly. If a being wills, it expects.
Doesn't really follow.

To me proof of God is life itself, the excellence of a Christian life vs. wretchedness of non-Christian lives. You must take the plunge, you must accept that it is in theory possible for Christ not to be God, and yet you must firmly believe it. BELIEVE IN CHRIST, this is the test of faith.

>Why do atheists insist on pretending God is some kind of person?
If you're talking about the Abrahamic God, then all you have to do is read the Bible. Biblical God's bipolar and moody af.

>the people who enslaves us said so
But Kikes and Africans enslaved them, and neither are Christians.

So much heresy user

Become Orthodox.

>heresy
Deism is heresy, but pondering Divine nature isn't. God escapes our comprehension, so it does leave a lot of room for pondering.

im not even religious but when i hear some retard atheist say, "but they literally believe in an old man in the sky." I want to fucking go berserk

it fucking retarded
if you're going to be this fucking arrogant, at least know what the fuck you are talking about

>A caring god would show up and prove without a shadow of a doubt he was real on our modern earth
>implying a caring god wouldn't have made us able to doubt him
>implying a caring god wouldn't have given us free will
What atheist idol is your only source?
What makes you think your imperception of the evidence that would releave your doubt is a consequence of its nonexistence? You are assuming there can't be evidence beyond your recognition, or that if God were caring, He would force you to recognize it. But then you wouldn't have free will and thus wouldn't be truly alive. The omnibenevolent thing to do was to create and save life despite its ability to doubt. Your disagreement with that is irrelevant.

tl;dr God has provided us with sufficient evidence for His existence. You just reject it as non-evidence like a whiny babby.

Why don't you ask yourself if a non-person can have those attributes?

how come christian retards dont think aliens are real, but god is infinite and mysterious?

I swear to god theres so many fucking fallacies with your religion, its laughable. The bible itself, along with any abrahamic religious text, is filled with nonsense, incoherent babble, and stories whos metaphors are irrelevant or pointless.

I say this as a man who grew up with a very religious background. I can understand trying to be a good person, but how can any of you people honestly be pointed towards the deeper end of christianity without being just straight up uneducated in general?

take some acid

>how come christian retards dont think aliens are real
I don't know if aliens are real, and there isn't anything in the bible denying it. Where's your argument now, faggot?

>"Why do atheists insist on pretending God is some kind of person?"
>Unintelligible rant.
> "If Christianity is true and Jesus/the Christian God lives, then so does objective Evil, who deceives people away from God any way it can, so we would expect to see many religions, atheism, etc."
Christ was God on earth. Repent heretic.

T. Fedorafag

Gas yourself, leftist scum.

>why do atheists insist on pretendin that god is some kind of person

because that is what 99.999% of religious people think god is, and your highly intellectualised abstract view of god is shared by almost noone in the community of religious believers

t. former catholic

furthermore, in many places the god of the old testament acts just like "some kind of person". in fact he specifically acts like an ancient king, with the prophets acting as visiers/intermediaries on behalf of humanity

you cant complain about atheists strawmanning god when most religious people believe in a straw god to begin with

>Unintelligible rant.
>I'm stupid

>Christ was God on earth. Repent heretic.
>implying Christ having been God on earth implies He wasn't resurrected?
>because that is what 99.999% of religious people think god is
This just isn't true. Christians understand that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, transcendent, perfect, infinite. This isn't a conception of a person.
>t. former catholic
welp catholics are retarded
>he specifically acts like an ancient king ...by doing stuff.
I don't think Christians would associate God with a human king just because He carried out stuff a "God" would do. Catholics teaching about God as if He's a person isn't surprising.

Even if it were the case that that's how most Christians see God, it's irrelevant. How atheists see "god" isn't based on how Christians see God. How atheists see "god" is however's convenient for them to keep believing their atheism is rational. It is a consequence of stupidity or dishonesty, as evidenced by their refusal to admit God could be anything but a man in the sky.

This is like reading critical theory, false premises everywhere. It's just mindless statement non stop

m8 you can't just imply premises are unsound without explaining why and think you've said anything of value

OPs logic is totally fucked up

even if only by any kind of position

lol

OP says it was true because it must be true. Gosh, OP is genious.

I guess "Jesus is God, he is a person" is what you are left with after your whole society goes down the shitter

>Chuck Missler
Kill yourself kike

>OPs logic is totally fucked up
unsound? invalid?
>even if only by any kind of position
This was predictive of the inevitable retarded contention that there can be more than one indistinguishable thing, which is contingent on these things having different positions in the universe or however else.
>lol
>i don't have an argument so i'll just appeal to ridicule
>OP says it was true because it must be true.
Well ya

Ok I'll give you an example
>If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then we exist because of the infinite
This is a good example, the exact opposite could be state as true
>If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then it exists because of us

and you have no real basis for picking your version over another (there's other conclusions you can draw, such as an infinite sentient's existence and us existing being independant).

Basically you don't know how to reach a conclusion without skipping important critera

Q: How did Joseph really feel about being cucked and raising his bastard offspring who grew up to be a famous celibate cult leader?

A: Obviously Joseph wasn't too intelligent; he apparently believed some really crazy lie told by his wife, when in fact she was probably knocked up by a Roman.

God is a person though, or rather the Father / Son / Holy Spirit are persons who are all equally God.

God wants us to talk to him, to fellowship with him, that's why it's NEVER about religion, but about relationship with a real person.

Jesus saves, right? The person Jesus, saves, not religion. It's who saves, not what saves!

Christian: We call God that which creates all things and sustains them in being.
Atheist: lel then what created God?
Christian: God is, by definition, uncreated, holding all things in being. *creatio continua*
Atheist: but what created God?
Christian: Well, God isn't a thing among other things, but, as Augustine and Aquinas and all the great teachers taught, being itself, or to-be itself (Cf. Exodus 3:14)
Atheist: lel but what created God
Christian: I don't think we're getting anywhere.
Atheist: THEISTS BTFO

Chuck Missler literally works for the DoD to spread Christian Zionism and theology conducive to American foreign policy. He should be executed for treason.

>Why do atheists insist on pretending God is some kind of person?

No idea but I wish they would stop talking about me behind my back.

>"implying Christ having been God on earth implies He wasn't resurrected?"
The majority of Christians believe that Christ was God on Earth.

Source:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus
>Accepted by:
>Eastern Orthodox Church
>Oriental Orthodoxy
>Roman Catholic Church
>Anglican Communion
>Lutheranism
>The Council of Ephesus was a council of Christian bishops convened in Ephesus (near present-day Selçuk in Turkey) in AD 431 by the Roman Emperor Theodosius II. This third ecumenical council, an effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom, confirmed the original Nicene Creed, and condemned the teachings of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who held that the Virgin Mary may be called the Christotokos, "Birth Giver of Christ" but not the Theotokos, "Birth Giver of God". It met in June and July 431 at the Church of Mary in Ephesus in Anatolia.

>If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then we exist because of it
Wrong.
If the body is sentient, and we exist inside the body, then we exist because of the body. Wrong, dildos.

>There is reason reason to believe the infinite isn't sentient
Double negative, you mean There is reason to believe the infinite is sentient, this is wrong we don't even know the Infinite is a thing (you also havent defined it)

Subjective meaning doesn't objectively exist.
Subjective meaning doesn't mean objective meaning exists, Objective and Subjective Meaning are two similar thing NOT a subset of the other.
Subjective meaning as we know it, is caused by someone, but Objective Meaning can be different, we'd need to discover an Objective Meaning and it's cause to prove that.

Ad infinitum doesn't mean infinity dumbass. It means you fucked up. it's a logical fallacy.

God making us willingly doesn't mean he cares. He could have done it because it's easier to make a Universe than it is to exist in the Nothingness. Also it assumes God exists which you didn't prove above.
It also means he wanted the Universe to exist, NOT because he cares about our wellbeing. Maybe he wants to harvest our suffering, or we are a side-effect from him making Stars and Galaxies.

Yes, if God exists the question isn't 'is religion true' because you Assume that God exists and thus Religion is True.

TL;DR: Go back on your meds moron

Good

>If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then it exists because of us
m8 you can't just reword stuff willy nilly and think that negates a proposition. The negation of your consequence is possible. It is possible the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, and it doesn't exist because of us. The inference that "If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then we exist because of the infinite," is from the obvious implicit premises "If the infinite is sentient and we exist in the infinite, then it allows us to exist," and "Allowing to exist is equivalent to causing to exist."
Come to think of it, the premise isn't unsound but I shouldn't have included "sentient" because the relevance of that implies the infinity has the power to do anything about our existence. Nonetheless, if a thing exists in infinity and all things are caused, then that thing must have been caused by something in that infinity which is equivalent to being caused by the infinity.

>Basically you don't know how to reach a conclusion without skipping important critera
It isn't possible to include all implicit premises in any argument. I just have to trust you not to be an idiot. Oops

...

>The majority of Christians believe that Christ was God on Earth.
And what's wrong with that? Your point isn't implicit.
>If the body is sentient, and we exist inside the body, then we exist because of the body.
A body isn't accurately analogous to an "infinite." If a thing exists in infinity and all things are caused, then that thing must have been caused by something in that infinity which is equivalent to being caused by the infinity. Please ignore the "sentience" part.
>Double negative
lol this isn't not a non-fallacy
>There is reason to believe the infinite is sentient
No, that is not what I mean. "There is no reason to believe the infinite isn't sentient," does not mean the same thing as "There is reason to believe the infinite is sentient." Are you trolling? because that is a profoundly stupid objection.
>Subjective meaning doesn't objectively exist.
If anything doesn't objectively exist, it doesn't exist. That's what "objective existence" means. What are you doing here, kid?
>Ad infinitum doesn't mean infinity dumbass.
It means "to infinity."
>it's a logical fallacy.
Uh, no it isn't. What are you, 16? I feel like I'm arguing with a pseudophilosopher in high school.
>He could have done it because it's easier to make a Universe than it is to exist in the Nothingness.
This presupposes God isn't omnipotent and thus "God" doesn't exist. You can't presuppose your implicit conclusions.
>Maybe he wants to harvest our suffering
Presupposes that's possible, but sure I guess. But this still implies caring.
or we are a side-effect from him making Stars and Galaxies.
Presupposes that's possible, but sure I guess. But this still implies caring.
>you Assume that God exists and thus Religion is True
You haven't shown where in any premise this is true.
>Go back on your meds moron
You're butthurt because you're afraid, and you should be.

>God i hate these atheist threads.

>And what's wrong with that? Your point isn't implicit.

When you say "Why do atheists insist on pretending God is some kind of person?" you imply that atheist somehow are being dishonest when they refer to God as a person, you then completely disregard the fact that atheist don't believe in God and that the Consensus among the majority of Christians is that GOD WALKED THE EARTH.

So you are saying Jesus having once been a man implies God is currently a man?

I think it's hilarious how much religious people in-fight when it comes to their subjective interpretations about "God". You're literally a reskinned Muslim except not a total barbarian.

>people who believe in something fight over the details
>thinking it is subjective at all and not that they are all fighting over objective claims

>"So you are saying Jesus having once been a man implies God is currently a man?"
Like it or not the Abrahamic God is a patriarchal war God and is explicitly referred to as "HE" in the Bible. No amount of politically correct screeching from faggot loving NeoChristians will change it. Also, according to the Christian belief Christ will return again.

I take it Sup Forums is working again?

How did you reply?

I just can't grasp the whole religion-thing. Got literally no idea what it's supposed to be about, it doesn't feel like anything. I suppose I'm just unspiritual or something.

Lord of the Northern Sky,
Come forth behind Draconis,
The Great Black Dragon,
God of the cold and barred.

Rush forward Conqueror,
From the Shadows of Winter.
Lord of Beasts and Serpents,
Bearer of blackened Light.

Illuminated by the 7 Stars,
The Embracer of Storms,
Bring Your Blessing,
Of Darkness leading to the End.

A Day of Death,
A Day of Gloominess,
A Day of Graves,
And thick Darkness.

The Headless Cherubs fall,
Their Wings cut and broken,
Personification of Black Radiance,
The Apocalyptic Triumphator.

>How did you reply?
Wot.

>Like it or not the Abrahamic God is a patriarchal war God and is explicitly referred to as "HE" in the Bible.
Did you just "patriarch" at me as if this is at all relevant?
>No amount of politically correct screeching from faggot loving NeoChristians will change it.
Seriously, wtf are you talking about? Get yourself together man.
>Also, according to the Christian belief Christ will return again.
Ok, so you've established God was a man and possibly that He will be a man again. How does it follow that God is a person? Are you braindead because you're a female?

...

It is very relevant. Faggot.
>A REeeeee U A C H A T B O T ? !

Probably not here but does it detail come-true prophecies in the bible or does it just illustrate a model of how it's conceivably true?
You're were trying to argue that God is a person, and you're talking about how God is a part of the patriarchy and how faggot-loving Christians can't change that...
8/10

>"You're were trying to argue that God is a person"
No i'm arguing that the Abrahamic God was a person for a short while and that the Abrahamic God is a He not a she, it, or they.
>"and you're talking about how God is a part of the patriarchy and how faggot-loving Christians can't change that"
Abrahamic religions are all patriarchal. That is an irrefutable fact. Pick up any of their holy books and see for yourself.
>HA REeeeee U_ A C H A T B- O T ? !

>Abrahamic religions are all patriarchal. That is an irrefutable fact. Pick up any of their holy books and see for yourself.
Great, so how is that relevant to your argument other than your acting like a whining feminist? So your whole argument is "God is a he; only people can be a he; therefore God is a person"?
You couldn't just say that? Are your thoughts so jumbled? I'd ask you to support the second premise.

>A caring god would show up and prove without a shadow of a doubt he was real on our modern earth rather than let his creations kill each other over their various ideas about his nature from old books.
I'm atheist, but it's naive to think we would ever be able to understand the reasoning of a higher being, or that it should lower its thinking to our level. It's a poor argument.

>I'm atheist
Hi, I'm a-atheist (I lack belief God doesn't exist). Are you one too?
>yes
Then why didn't you say so?

>"So your whole argument is "God is a he; only people can be a he; therefore God is a person"?"
No, the Abrahamic God made MAN (Adam) in HIS image. The Abrahamic God then proceeded to make WOMAN (Eve) out of MAN'S (Adam) RIB. The Abrahamic God gave MAN dominance over WOMAN, It is written.
It was prophesied that the Abrahamic God would arrive on Earth as a MAN not a Woman. Christ had a penis and also was circumcised, It is also written. See and read with your own eyes.
>B GONE JEWGLE
>HA REeeeee U_ A C H ACHACHA T B- O T ? !

God as described in the bible does not exist. Simply look at how God is described: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and good. Yet, God does not interfere with the lives of men and allows Evil to exist. The idea of Hell too is flawed, as God would know before he makes you if you will be evil or not. Therefore God is either sadistic, lacks the notion of good and evil or simply does not care.

>God made man in his image, therefore God is a person
>irrelevant gibberish about man, woman, and patriarchy
It is conceivable "making man in God's image" doesn't mean image includes God's alleged personhood.

>God is all powerful and all knowing
>Thinks God somehow would not be able to know what you'll do before you do it.
>Doesn't understand freewill does not exist from the point of a God
>Thinks a all powerful being would take a roundabout method like writing a fucking book even when he knows most people won't believe it instead of just saying "hi"

>It is conceivable "making man in God's image" doesn't mean image includes God's alleged personhood.
You continue to willfully disregard the fact that the Abrahamic God chose to be born as a MAN(Male) NOT A WOMAN(Female). You also willfully continue to disregard the fact that the Abrahamic God prefers to be addressed as HE.
>BIGGOTED
>R
>HuE a
>J
> E
> W
> G
> L
> E
>C h @ b-o t?

A definition of "free will" that is incompatible with omniscience or determinism is not necessarily true, e.g. Christians, whose conceptions of God and free will are allegedly inherently contradictory, don't define free will as the ability to make choices independent of God's knowledge or cause, nor as achievable only by breaking the physical laws of the universe. Free will is only epistemic, i.e. it is contingent only on our knowledge -- it is not subject to atheistic definition. Therefore, it is compatible with God's existence.
>Thinks a all powerful being would take a roundabout method like writing a fucking book even when he knows most people won't believe it instead of just saying "hi"
lol I bet you think this is so smart. Which atheist idol's words are you regurgitating?
God isn't interested in just getting people to believe that He exists. He wants to bring people into a loving, saving relationship with Himself through Jesus, who did say "hi." People are given adequate, but not coercive, evidence for His existence. You really have to work not to believe in God. It is the natural ontology as evidenced by history.
>You continue to willfully disregard the fact that the Abrahamic God chose to be born as a MAN(Male) NOT A WOMAN(Female).
Because I don't see the relevance, you idiot. That has nothing to do with whether God's a person.
>You also willfully continue to disregard the fact that the Abrahamic God prefers to be addressed as HE.
I addressed this and you said it wasn't your argument, idiot. This also has nothing to do with whether God's a person, you fucking schizophrenic.

Your religion clearly frames him as a person, or at least with very human characteristics.
The conceited idea that the creator of everything is anything like a person is proof enough that your religion is false afaic

TELL your NIGGERJEW tranny faggot programmers to stop huffing on Jizz. you will never pass the Turing test.
>SAGED

Because atheists, for the most part, are the same kind of dim-witted and mid-witted materialists and literalists as the Evangelical fundamentalists they argue against. They're incapable of conceiving of complex theology and philosophy and the Ineffable, they can only conceive of the spiritual in wholly material terms.

>>tfw radical Traditionalist who embraces perennial faith
>>literally incapable of believing in God
You're a midwit: you're smart enough to see the value of religion and to question the standard commoner view of God, but you're too dumb to conceive of high order abstractions or develop the chain of reasoning that allows for one to believe in God.
Although, I would also tell you that having "belief" in God isn't so much as important as having faith in God, and by having faith in God I being being faithful, loyal, to the concept of God and the virtues God represents and blesses in traditional Western culture.

>A caring god would show up and prove without a shadow of a doubt he was real on our modern earth rather than let his creations kill each other over their various ideas about his nature from old books.
That would defeat the entire purpose of creating the universe and a race of beings in God's likeness with reason and free will. Also, God is not "caring", God transcends the wholly subjective concept of "caring" as you would define it.

>I'd suggest Cosmic Codes by Chuck Missler for anyone who'd like to believe in God, but just can't. It details the various proofs that the Bible is the revealed word of God.
So, you worship a book and the people and institutions that created it, edited it, and gave it canonical status? The god that be contained in a book is not the Eternal and Living God.

I wouldn't say they are incapable of contemplating the nature of God, just they approach it from a different perspective.

I believe that what theoretical science is trying to prove is exactly the same as the faith that religious people hold. They just can't accept the concept of God on faith, but must try and prove it by deconstructing the natural law of the universe.

One day science and religion will both reach a point where each says to the other "you were right".

>I don't think Christians would associate God with a human king
You've never heard of Christ the King? It's a common theme in medieval art, philosophy and theology.

I think it's hilarious how much non-religious people think they're superior to religious people when they fight just as much as religious people except over which version of materialist utopia they believe their retarded ideological religion will usher in once they finally cut off every dick and legalize pederasty.

I'm Catholic, so I worship the NeoPlatonist Monad, not Yahweh. Plato and Aristotle > sola scriptura faggots

I mean, the entirety of the universe and every being in it is merely an emanation from the Nous of the Ineffable God.

A god cannot be omniscient, omnipotent and onnibenevolent, those points contradict themselves because of the existence of evil

>>God is all powerful and all knowing
>>Thinks God somehow would not be able to know what you'll do before you do it.
Are you implying God can't choose not to know what you're going to do? Do you not understand the implications of "God made man in His own likeness"?
>Thinks a all powerful being would take a roundabout method like writing a fucking book
That's the dumbest part of Christianity, worshiping a literary idol whose creation and development is pretty much laid bare in the historical record and is rather worldly and politicized.

Evil is man's will, not God's.

What we perceive as evil is nothing but a moral code that we created to explain away things we don't understand.

You mean there's no sky daddy watching me masterbate at night?

Is it Christ the King or Christ the human king?
If God is not necessarily equivalent to His 'emanations," then any of their properties doesn't imply God has that same property.
Omnibenevolence only implies doing the best and most moral thing, e.g. saving people with free will. It is possible it is logically impossible to do the best and most moral thing and there not be evil. If "omnipotence" implies the ability to perform the logically impossible, it's possible God has created this world with no evil. The contention "But that's logically impossible; there is evil," is invalid if the ability to perform the logically impossible is implied by "omnipotence."

Because God isn't real.

What do you mean by God? You're probably thinking of an all-powerful popeye the sailor man or some such forced non-sense, so go ahead and describe this thing that doesn't exist.

>cosmic codes
more like cosmic chodes, amirite?

Probably because the bible claims man was made in gods image... just a thought... try it sometime.

The god described under judeo-christian thought.

>check out this fag who knows if god is real
seriously, your ego can't even open pussy walls with that level of thinking
youtube.com/watch?v=hSq4B_zHqPM
how do you deny, what you don't even have the capacity to understand? do you think it makes you sound smarter?

Because in taking action He has shown agency.

Wow I didn't think of that. Read the thread, idiot.
uhuh, and this God's properties are?...

>uhuh, and this God's properties are?...

undifined, like the story of a life you live, you pen your own novel,

>undifined
Sup Forums is 18+, spic

>Are you implying God can't choose not to know what you're going to do?
user, that's like writing a program and then forgetting what it does. The blame for creating a being that would commit sin falls on God. Choosing not to know what the fate of man is while being all knowing would also be a contradiction as then God would not be all knowing. I'm not saying God does not exist, but rather humans are pretty arrogant in a how they falsely believe they know or understand God.

> Free will is only epistemic, i.e. it is contingent only on our knowledge -- it is not subject to atheistic definition. Therefore, it is compatible with God's existence.
You fail to see my point. God knows everything that will ever happen, hence he knows if you will be a good Christian or not before he even made you. The fact that there are people going to hell means God made them to go to hell.

>lol I bet you think this is so smart. Which atheist idol's words are you regurgitating?
I'm not an Atheist nor do I parrot Atheists

>God isn't interested in just getting people to believe that He exists. He wants to bring people into a loving, saving relationship with Himself through Jesus
That ego. You truly believe you are able to understand a being like God?

> You really have to work not to believe in God. It is the natural ontology as evidenced by history.
People have believed in different Gods since we were capable of thought, and different Gods/prophets have preformed different miracles. This is no argument that God as described in the Bible is the real God. Even if it is you'd have to be foolish to believe God has to stay the same and adhere to the same principles.

>The fact that there are people going to hell means God made them to go to hell.
Sorry I didn't infer that this was your point and not that there necessarily is no free will. My answer is, so what? You're presupposing people who go to hell have any redeeming qualities, which implies God is wrong, which implies God, by definitions of omniscience and omnibenevolence, doesn't exist -- an implicit premise that seems to be your conclusion -- therefore, this contention begs the question. "People" who deny God and go to hell are truly evil and thus deserving, by God's objective definition.
Personally, I don't think atheists are even alive, so I have no problem with it. They think they are but they've never been. If God doesn't exist, nothing actually matter, and thus going to hell doesn't actually matter. Thus any argument against God involving hell is self-refuting. Thus, the very act of whining about hell is evidence of awareness of the existence of God.
>You truly believe you are able to understand a being like God?
Whether I implied that depends on your definition of God. If you believe God wants the impossible, or that God can't cause that understanding, then you're doing the exact opposite of exalting God as greater than us.
>This is no argument that God as described in the Bible is the real God.
And when did that even become the topic? like you're just reaching for a contention.
>Even if it is you'd have to be foolish to believe God has to stay the same and adhere to the same principles.
If you're not talking about the Christian God, or theists' universal generalization of God, then you're just babbling about something completely irrelevant and undefined, and equivocating it with "God."

Theists are broad minded fools
Atheists are narrow minded fools

Neither one knows anything

>Whether I implied that depends on your definition of God
Whether I implied that depends on your definition of understand*

today i learned that:
>attempting to reason and philosophize proof of god

is just as cringe worthy as:

>attempting to disprove god within the limits of human understanding

>Sorry I didn't infer that this was your point and not that there necessarily is no free will. My answer is, so what? You're presupposing people who go to hell have any redeeming qualities, which implies God is wrong, which implies God, by definitions of omniscience and omnibenevolence, doesn't exist -- an implicit premise that seems to be your conclusion -- therefore, this contention begs the question. "People" who deny God and go to hell are truly evil and thus deserving, by God's objective definition.
Would you say God is good for creating Evil people or creating people just to torment them for eternity?

>Whether I implied that depends on your definition of God. If you believe God wants the impossible, or that God can't cause that understanding, then you're doing the exact opposite of exalting God as greater than us.
Not saying that God can't cause people to Understand them, but to believe you understand God or that he himself blessed you with this Understanding is simple arrogance. If the same is true for you, it could be for me too.

>And when did that even become the topic? like you're just reaching for a contention.
I was assuming you were talking about God as written in the bible due to your previous post.

>If you're not talking about the Christian God, or theists' universal generalization of God, then you're just babbling about something completely irrelevant and undefined, and equivocating it with "God."
I'm arguing for a entity that would be both Good and Evil: While having no clear reason to do anything God can simply be the embodiment of Good one moment and Evil the next.

I do not pretend to believe I know what God in its Entirety is. The concept of God is something that could be undefined as God is everything and yet sometimes its not. Thinking about what God is or what he truly wants is a zero sum game in the end and I doubt we will understand unless God himself tells us.

>There is no reason to believe the infinite isn't sentient just because it presumably doesn't have a brain like ours.
>There is no reason to believe X isn't sentient just because it presumably doesn't have a brain like ours.
>There is no reason to believe a rock isn't sentient just because it presumably doesn't have a brain like ours.
Do you see the problem here?