A bizarre definition of morality from the guy who loves to tell us he's more moral than the God whom he supposedly doesn't believe exists

treeplanter

Well-known member
Correct. And I just responded that I'm not interested in what you claim. Still not.



So when you said "God does" you were lying about what you believe.



You are not physically incapable of removing those Krispy Kreme donuts and those Peppermint Twinkies from your bloated face and sending them to starving kids in Sierra Leone. But you just won't do it, will ya?



He doesn't need one. Let's look at that score again::

Number of people fed by God since the beginning of time: 107,000,000,000

Number of people fed by Treeplanter: 0 (zilch)
Feeding billions does not excuse doing nothing as millions suffer and die from starvation

You think that a mother of triplets is moral just so long as she feeds 2 of her 3 babies?
It doesn't matter that she starves one of her babies to death just so long as she nurtures the other two?

What's wrong with you?
Has your seething rage corrupted your conscience?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
[He says, as HE speculates the converse.]
That God being omniscient and omnipotent could bring about any outcome He wants, undermines your point.
Maybe we need some suffering. Maybe you don't have a clue as to what we need.
What we see in the world from the past till now is immense suffering. I take it you think we should stop trying to stop it because that is the precise amount of suffering that we need for some unspecified reason? Care to speculate further on what that reason might be?

Should we stop the progress of medicine because it reduces suffering from previous levels? Should we go back to the high rates of women and children dying in childbirth just in case it helps with some other unspecified aspect of our lives?
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Considering child starvation can be prevented but is not, other preventable things also fall under man's responsibility. But it is good you blame man, a first step in 🤔 clearly.

Man can prevent things but does not.

Proving yet again man is to blame.

Why do you think man is so evil? I'll fill in the blanks if necessary.
What you are ignoring is that God could stop many things that are beyond man's control, but He doesn't. That is the point here.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It is 100% true that most every human being on earth {minus the odd socio/psychopath} thinks and feels that it is immoral and evil to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon others

Looks like Lucian's response flew right over your head:
"Indeed, you’re unusual in thinking God couldn’t have a good reason to permit the evil we see in our world .........."

If He has a good reason, it is not needless to Him; only to you with your limited understanding.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
That God being omniscient and omnipotent could bring about any outcome He wants, undermines your point.

Obviously not. His omi qualities in no way preclude His having a good reason for allowing suffering. An earthly father can know everything there is to know about a situation that his kid is involved with and still have good reason to impose remedial discipline with its consequence of suffering.


What we see in the world from the past till now is immense suffering. I take it you think we should stop trying to stop it because that is the precise amount of suffering that we need for some unspecified reason? Care to speculate further on what that reason might be?

Should we stop the progress of medicine because it reduces suffering from previous levels? Should we go back to the high rates of women and children dying in childbirth just in case it helps with some other unspecified aspect of our lives?

No. Our responsibility of assuaging the suffering of others and the way doing so ennobles the soul is a secondary "good reason" for the existence of suffering, the primary reason being one that we with our limited understanding often cannot fathom.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Looks like Lucian's response flew right over your head:
"Indeed, you’re unusual in thinking God couldn’t have a good reason to permit the evil we see in our world .........."

If He has a good reason, it is not needless to Him; only to you with your limited understanding.
Looks like my response to Lucian flew right over your head:
"There is no such thing as a 'good reason' for an unlimited being to permit/cause harm because an unlimited being never, ever needs to do so"


God never, ever is required to permit/cause harm upon us in order to carry out His objective for us because He is God and, by definition of Almightiness and omnipotence, can always accomplish His objective for us WITHOUT the accompanying harm!
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Obviously not. His omi qualities in no way preclude His having a good reason for allowing suffering. An earthly father can know everything there is to know about a situation that his kid is involved with and still have good reason to impose remedial discipline with its consequence of suffering.
That you think the Black Death that wiped out a third of Europe's population alone was for our own good is hard to fathom. It certainly wasn't for those who suffered and died, nor for those who had their children die of it.

Tell me, what good comes out of a mother watching her baby die of this terrible disease, rather than the good of stopping it in it's tracks at the start, or not allowing it at all?
No. Our responsibility of assuaging the suffering of others and the way doing so ennobles the soul is a secondary "good reason" for the existence of suffering, the primary reason being one that we with our limited understanding often cannot fathom.
So we are ennobled for helping the suffering of others, where if that suffering didn't exist, we wouldn't need the ennoblement that you think trumps the suffering.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
So we are ennobled for helping the suffering of others, where if that suffering didn't exist, we wouldn't need the ennoblement that you think trumps the suffering.
Furthermore, what kind of lame and pathetic god cannot figure out how to ennoble it's creation without forcing other of it's creation to suffer?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Looks like my response to Lucian flew right over your head:
"There is no such thing as a 'good reason' for an unlimited being to permit/cause harm because an unlimited being never, ever needs to do so"

Looks like my response sailed right over your head like a Frisbee tossed by a Cy Young award winner in the vicinity of midget:

"If He has a good reason, it is not needless to Him; only to you with your limited understanding."

Declaring "there is no such thing" doesn't cut it. You have no way of knowing that.

God never, ever is required to permit/cause harm upon us in order to carry out His objective for us because He is God and, by definition of Almightiness and omnipotence, can always accomplish His objective for us WITHOUT the accompanying harm

Who said He was REQUIRED? I agree. There is nothing over Him that would REQUIRE Him to do anything. Prove He can't allow temporary harm for permanent good. In other words prove your feeble understanding is omniscient.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
That you think the Black Death that wiped out a third of Europe's population alone was for our own good is hard to fathom.

Correct. Indeed your limited knowledge makes it hard for you to fathom.

It certainly wasn't for those who suffered and died, nor for those who had their children die of it.

"Certainly?" There is no way you can be certain about that.

Tell me, what good comes out of a mother watching her baby die of this terrible disease, rather than the good of stopping it in it's tracks at the start, or not allowing it at all?

Depends on the situation.

So we are ennobled for helping the suffering of others, where if that suffering didn't exist, we wouldn't need the ennoblement that you think trumps the suffering.

Correct, but we need it, so it exists.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Correct. Indeed your limited knowledge makes it hard for you to fathom.
And your limited knowledge makes it hard for you to show there is any such good.

There has been immense suffering over the ages. Can you point to a good that balances this out?
"Certainly?" There is no way you can be certain about that.
Come on, that the black death was bad for those that died from it and those that lost their loved ones is not in question.
Depends on the situation.
So you have no credible answer, ok.
Correct, but we need it, so it exists.
You contradict yourself. You can't say I'm correct about not needing ennoblement then say we need ennoblement.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
And your limited knowledge makes it hard for you to show there is any such good.

Correct. Neither of us are omniscient. I just schooled you on that.

There has been immense suffering over the ages. Can you point to a good that balances this out?

Can you point to a bad that doesn't?

Come on, that the black death was bad for those that died from it and those that lost their loved ones is not in question.

Can you tell me the current state of all those involved?

You can't say I'm correct about not needing ennoblement ...

EXACTLY. That's why I didn't say it.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
Divine PRESTO: "Instant Ennobling," eh? LOL
Divine PRESTO: "Instant Universe," eh? LOL
Divine PRESTO: "Instant Earth," eh? LOL
Divine PRESTO: "Instant Human Beings," LOL
Divine PRESTO: "Instant Goober Peas," LOL

And yet you think that God is incapable of "Instant Ennobling"???
LOL!!!
 
Top