The latest from an arborist

[stiggy wiggy]

After I made the comment that omnipresence doesn't mean being in places that don't exist, he said:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

When I challenged this by telling him for example that I don't believe God exists in a Taco Bell on Jupiter, he told me that I worship a weak and limited God.

I was tempted to say I now don't believe He exists in his brain, but I resisted, because his brain must exist to allow the motor skills to even type such foolishness.

Any atheists here agree with the doctrine of this very silly theistic atheist?

 

[treeplanter]

After I made the comment that omnipresence doesn't mean being in places that don't exist, he said:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

When I challenged this by telling him for example that I don't believe God exists in a Taco Bell on Jupiter, he told me that I worship a weak and limited God.

I was tempted to say I now don't believe He exists in his brain, but I resisted, because his brain must exist to allow the motor skills to even type such foolishness.

Any atheists here agree with the doctrine of this very silly theistic atheist?

Yet another lie from Stiggy!

I never said that the god you worship is weak and limited because you don't believe that God exists in a Taco Bell on Jupiter

What I said is that the god you worship is weak and limited because He cannot, according to you, exist in a Taco Bell on Jupiter


"Music is the space between the notes"
Claude Debussy

God, at least according to you, Stiggy, CANNOT DO what even music - a creation of lowly man - CAN DO
Existing in space both occupied AND unoccupied

Yeah, I would say that this means that God is weak and limited...

Given that there is nothing in God's nature that would prohibit Him from creating and frequenting a Taco Bell on Jupiter - that He cannot, in your estimation - do so can mean only that He lacks the omnipotence to do so

Yep, weak and limited!

 

[stiggy wiggy]

nt

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Yet another lie from Stiggy!

I never said that the god you worship is weak and limited because you don't believe that God exists in a Taco Bell on Jupiter

What I said is that the god you worship is weak and limited because He cannot, according to you, exist in a Taco Bell on Jupiter

WRONG! I never said that God CANNOT exist in a Taco Bell on Jupiter.

The fact that you lied about that will be proven when in your response you fail miserably at producing such a quote from me.

Meanwhile we have you idiotically believing that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners.

 

[treeplanter]

WRONG! I never said that God CANNOT exist in a Taco Bell on Jupiter.

The fact that you lied about that will be proven when in your response you fail miserably at producing such a quote from me.

Meanwhile we have you idiotically believing that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners.

WRONG! I never said that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that "God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners" and the fact that you lied about that will be proven when in your response you fail miserably at producing such a quote from me!


WRONG! You DID say that God cannot exist in places that don't exist {such as a Taco Bell on Jupiter"!!

Post #264
Thread titled:
The Arborist & I: A Dialogue
Your words:
"He cannot know about things that do not exist to be known, nor does His omnipresence mean He can be in places that don't exist"

You make it soo easy, Stigs
Do you never tire of embarrassing yourself??

Pay special attention to the words {your words!} - CANNOT and BE IN PLACES THAT DON'T EXIST...

How humiliating for you...I almost feel sorry for you
Almost...

 

[stiggy wiggy]

WRONG! I never said that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that "God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners" and the fact that you lied about that will be proven when in your response you fail miserably at producing such a quote from me!

LIE! I never said that you said that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that "God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners" and the fact that you lied about that will be proven when in your response you fail miserably at producing such a quote from me.

I said you BELIEVE that, and that is obvious from this quote of yours:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

You DID say that God cannot exist in places that don't exist {such as a Taco Bell on Jupiter"!!

EXACTLY! He cannot. Because such a place does not exist. Build one on Jupiter and He can and He will. But what other stupid beliefs do you think God's omnipresence would require of Him? To be present in:

A train station in 13th century Egypt?

A Miss America Pageant in Moscow?

A SEC Curling Competition?

I feel guilty making so much fun of you, but you're just so easy.

 

[treeplanter]

LIE! I never said that you said that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that "God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners" and the fact that you lied about that will be proven when in your response you fail miserably at producing such a quote from me.

I said you BELIEVE that, and that is obvious from this quote of yours:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"



EXACTLY! He cannot. Because such a place does not exist. Build one on Jupiter and He can and He will. But what other stupid beliefs do you think God's omnipresence would require of Him? To be present in:

A train station in 13th century Egypt?

A Miss America Pageant in Moscow?

A SEC Curling Competition?

I feel guilty making so much fun of you, but you're just so easy.

LIE! I never said that you said that I said that a belief in divine omnipresence requires a belief that "God exists the bodies of six-legged reptilian Yale grad Heisman Trophy winners" - only that you said that I believe it - and the fact that you lied about this belief will be proven when in your next response you fail miserably at producing a quote from me indicating that I believe such

How much sillier can this get, Stigs???


Honestly, I don't care whether or not God is present in a 13th century Egyptian train station...

All I care about is that God, as described in scripture, is an immoral thug who is utterly unworthy of our devotion

I'll just concede here and now that you are right about what is and is not included in God's omnipresence

Now, have you anything other than God created us so He is morally free to do with us as He pleases {i.e. might makes right}
AND
God alone is capable of resurrecting us so He is morally free to do with us as He pleases {i.e. the end justifies the means}
to excuse His immoral and evil actions?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I'll just concede here and now that you are right about what is and is not included in God's omnipresence

Thank you. It's good to see you admit your error in thinking.

All I care about is that God, as described in scripture, is an immoral thug who is utterly unworthy of our devotion

If that's all you care about then maybe instead of attempting to expound upon divine attributes and thereby further embarrassing yourself, you should confine ALL of your posts (instead of just 90% of them) to merely parroting:

"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"

 

[treeplanter]

Thank you. It's good to see you admit your error in thinking.



If that's all you care about then maybe instead of attempting to expound upon divine attributes and thereby further embarrassing yourself, you should confine ALL of your posts (instead of just 90% of them) to merely parroting:

"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"
"God is an immoral thug who is unworthy of our devotion"

And if you cared at all about setting the record straight regarding God's character then maybe you wouldn't be wasting your time and energy creating threads wherein you attempt to expound upon silly and ultimately irrelevant attributes of omnipresence such as whether or not God is present at Taco Bell on Jupiter...

God is an immoral thug who is utterly unworthy of our devotion

Are you conceding that I am correct or have you something to refute my assertion?

To be clear - the reason that I maintain that God is an immoral thug utterly unworthy of our devotion is because He consciously and purposefully inflicts needless harm upon human beings and to consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm upon human beings is evil

I'll start you off, Stigs
I know how you struggle...

You have three options, basically

1. You can attempt to prove that the conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm is not evil

2. You can attempt to prove that God does not consciously and purposefully inflict needless harm

3. You can attempt to prove that God is exempt from being judged evil despite His conscious and purposeful infliction of needless harm

Pick one and give it a go, Stigs!
Either that or just concede that I am right about God!!

 

[stiggy wiggy]

And if you cared at all about setting the record straight;

There's a record??? lol

regarding God's character then maybe you wouldn't be wasting your time and energy creating threads wherein you attempt to expound upon silly and ultimately irrelevant attributes of omnipresence such as whether or not God is present at Taco Bell on Jupiter...

Hey, you're the one who said God is present at Taco Bell on Jupiter. I hope He's at least the manager, but I'll bet business is slow.

God is an immoral thug who is utterly unworthy of our devotion

THERE YA GO!

To be clear - the reason that I maintain that God is an imm...

To be clear, I don't give a damn about what you maintain or why you maintain it. Go kick an anthill, and then tell us all about how the harm you inflicted was either purposeful or needful, you microcosmic god.

 

[treeplanter]

There's a record??? lol



Hey, you're the one who said God is present at Taco Bell on Jupiter. I hope He's at least the manager, but I'll bet business is slow.



THERE YA GO!



To be clear, I don't give a damn about what you maintain or why you maintain it. Go kick an anthill, and then tell us all about how the harm you inflicted was either purposeful or needful, you microcosmic god.

I never said that God is present at a Taco Bell on Jupiter
All I did was to correct your idiotic assertion that God cannot be present at a Taco Bell on Jupiter because no such place exists

If you don't give a damn about what I maintain or why I maintain it - then stop interacting with me, you immature child!

Better yet, just get off of CARM altogether
Your, ahem..., contributions {such as they are} will not be missed!

Leave the important discussions to the grown ups

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I never said that God is present at a Taco Bell on Jupiter

Your words:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

Now tell me how that doesn't include a Taco Bell on Jupiter. WHOOPS, looks like you stepped in it again, But look on the bright side. What you stepped in makes good fertilizer for planted Trees.

 

[treeplanter]

Your words:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

Now tell me how that doesn't include a Taco Bell on Jupiter. WHOOPS, looks like you stepped in it again, But look on the bright side. What you stepped in makes good fertilizer for planted Trees.

Your words:

"Only an evil being would drown babies"

Your words:

"Yes, God drowned babies in the Flood"

Now, tell me how that doesn't equate to you having acknowledged God as evil?
WHOOPS, looks like you stepped in it again, Stigs

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Your words:

"Only an evil being would drown babies"

I never said that. You however DID say:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

Now tell me how that doesn't include a Taco Bell on Jupiter.

Shades of Sweet Virginia once again.

 

[treeplanter]

I never said that. You however DID say:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

Now tell me how that doesn't include a Taco Bell on Jupiter.

Shades of Sweet Virginia once again.

Oh, but you absolutely did, Stiggy!

You DID say that only an evil being would drown babies and you DID acknowledge that God drowned babies and we DID argue back and forth, over dozens and dozens of pages across multiple threads, whether or not this constituted you having called God evil

You stepped in it
Now you can scrape it off your shoes

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Oh, but you absolutely did, Stiggy!

You DID say that only an evil being would drown babies

Nope. Never happened. You however DID say:

"Omnipresence is the state of being everywhere at the same time
EVERYWHERE means EVERYWHERE - existent or not"

Now tell me how that doesn't include a Taco Bell on Jupiter.