Why do theists tout the absurd idea that an omnipotent omniscient deity requires humans to communicate its message and create and enforce its laws?

First topic message reminder :

This has always struck me as something of an absurdity. Especially when you can't fail to notice that the laws always reflect the ignorance superstition wishes desires and prejudices of those claiming this divine authority, which surely is too much of a coincidence for any halfway intelligent and objective observer to ignore.

I haven't contradicted myself at all, you have. You say god can do anything then say his hands are tied. Which is it?

I pointed out that this satanic fantasy of yours could only be a choice for an omnipotent being. It chooses to be bound by this. That's not benevolent is it? As it results in untold suffering.

Dr, Sheldon,
If God can do anything he can tie his hands by choice.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                If God can do anything he can tie his hands by choice.

If he chooses to allow suffering then he's not benevolent.

Apropos the thread title here, does anyone think Paul or Augustine missed a trick in not making up a story that the ten commandments were delivered to them by an angel engraved on gold tablets? 

I mean if s third rate conman like Joseph Smith can get away with such guff then surely the richest organisation on the planet could have falsified such a claim, even producing said gold tablets retrospectively? 

I mean their happy to milk all manner of fake relics for the cause after all. The Turin shroud still gets the papal seal of approval dspite being shown unequivocally to be a medieval forgery. The more I think about this the more convinced I am the left footers have missed out on a potential gold mine. Pun intended.....

For the more gullible out there this of course raises another interesting question.  If having deduced how much gravitas gold tablets delivered by an angel can lend your superstition, then why not take better care of them?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                If God can do anything he can tie his hands by choice.

So his hands are not tied then, he simply chooses to allow evil and suffering.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained several times why God has had to take action that you do not obviously understand and why he cannot [through the circumstances] presently do anything others.

How can a being that can literally do anything have to do something in one specific way as you keep insisting? 

Either it's omnipotent or it's not.

Post by polyglide Today at 2:51 pm
I have explained several times why God has had to take action

So he's not omnipotent then? He has to? He has no choice?

Or is God choosing to have no choice, again?  

dear oh dear, either he has limitless choice (omnipotence) or he does not. Do try and grasp what your religion claims your deity is, in fact try and understand what you are claiming your deity is, and decide if you really are a Christian or not.  

Dr, Sheldon,
You have little understanding of the use of words.

Had to in this respect means under the circumstances, God, because of the circumstances had to take action, the circumstances not being of his creation. his choice, to do or not to do etc;

I know it is hard to understand just get someone to explain.

Had to implies he had no choice. This obviously contradicts your earlier bombast about him having limitless choice. You not only don't understand theodicy, you clearly are not able to grasp that you don't understand it. I'll not bother mirroring your petulant insult and suggest you get someone to explain it to you as this would be a waste of both their and your time. 

Nor can I dumb down theodicy any further for you um afraid.

by polyglide Today at 4:52 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
You have little understanding of the use of words.

Quite a few posters seem to experience this problem when reading the supercilious guff you post, odd that isn't it? If only we could pin down the common denominator for this confusion.    

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)

I'm guessing you think that Epicurus is having the same problem understanding this as I am then? Well I can only be flattered to be in such company, and as I have said previously this is as good a summation of the argument from evil as I have seen. You've yet to address it honestly or cogently, I'm not holding my breath either tbh.

So is god unable to stop and therefore have to allow ubiquitous suffering? Or is God able to stop it but choosing to allow it?

Inaction must surely imply acquiescence in most circumstances.

oftenwrong wrote:Inaction must surely imply acquiescence in most circumstances.

I would say it does, and if the being in question has limitless power and therefore choices, and limitless knowledge as well, then I'm not sure how anyone could logically suggest otherwise. Nor do I see how people can fail to see the obvious contradiction in justifying inaction from such a being by limiting it's choices in any way, whether it be Satanic myths or notions of preserving human free will. Limiting such a being's choices quite obviously contradict the idea that has limitless choices, and thus cannot by definition be omnipotent.

This image encapsulated my thread topic perfectly I feel.

Dr, Sheldon,
I had to get up early, this does not mean I was forced to but because of the circumstances involved, I could very easily not have got up, I had a complete choice with no restrictions other than the circumstances.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I had to get up early, this does not mean I was forced to but because of the circumstances involved, I could very easily not have got up, I had a complete choice with no restrictions other than the circumstances.

Fascinating, but irrelevant. It's truly astonishing that despite innumerable attempts to explain it, you can't grasp the simple concept that human choices are limited by circumstance, as your puerile analogy demonstrates, but an omnipotent being's choices SIMPLY CAN'T BE LIMITED IN ANY WAY, or it would not be omnipotent by definition.

Does god choose to allow evil and suffering or not? If he chooses then he's malevolent, if he doesn't then he's clearly not omnipotent.

Dr, Sheldon,
If I had unlimited choice I could still choose, the same applies to God, his choice is unlimited.

There are few references in the Bible to God being either omnipotent or malevolent etc;

God has always acted in the best way possible under the circumstances, the problem is we do not understand the circumstances.

God looks on mankind as his children and I would do ANYTHING to protect mine.

Again you are entirely missing the point. Omnipotence grants limitless choice,  so a being that possessed such power could avoid suffering and evil. The fact we see ubiquitous suffering therfore means either such a being CHOOSES to allow it and is malevolent, or such a being doesn't exist.  

The bible repeatedly shows your deity committing murder infanticide and genocide,  both directly and indirectly.  How can murdering every living thing on earth by drowning them in a flood with the exception of one small family and a small boat load of animals be as you claim "acting in the best way possible?" That's absurd.

How is murdering every man women and child indicative of a deity that loves humans like they are its children? Again this is absurdly irrational. One does not murder ones children out of love. Especially if that being has limitless choice.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, God looks on mankind as his children and I would do ANYTHING to protect mine.  

So you'd murder any by drowning them if they didn't behave as you'd hoped? That's an interesting take on paternal love. Personally I find that as repulsive as the myth in the bible, perhaps more so.

Dr, Sheldon,
If my children were in danger I would do anything to protect them, nothing would be out of the question, perhaps you could explain what you would not do to save your children.

God has given mankind a chance to live life as he intended, when humans go against all that he has provided for them he has a right to defend those who are prepared to accept his advice and who chalenge his authority by any means he chooses.

Once again you do not understand the meaning of omnipotence, if a being has unlimited powers and unlimited choice then it is within his powers to pick and choose, he is not forced to do anything but can do anything he wants, if one defies God and puts his obedient people at risk then those responsible deserve all they get.

by polyglide Yesterday at 3:28 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
If my children were in danger I would do anything to protect them, nothing would be out of the question, perhaps you could explain what you would not do to save your children.

Murder them, as you're claiming God did and did so in their best interests. The claim is as asinine as any you've made. Are you seriously saying you'd murder most of your children if they mis-behaved, as this would be in the best interests of the remaining children? That's repulsive, amoral, and deeply worrying.

Polyglide wrote:Once again you do not understand the meaning of omnipotence, if a being has unlimited powers and unlimited choice then it is within his powers to pick and choose,

Once again you have repeated a shameless lie as I have never claimed there is anything an omnipotent being couldn't do, only that it's irrational to claim a benevolent omnipotent being exists. In fact it is you who has repeatedly claimed god can't do certain things, here's your most recent claim that god is not in fact omnipotent:

by polyglide on Fri Sep 04, 2015 2:51 pm
Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained several times why God has had to take action that you do not obviously understand and why he cannot [through the circumstances] presently do anything others.

So there it is, your post where you claimed that an omnipotent being had to do something, and that it can't do something, both directly contradicting your claim it's omnipotent, and yet you persist with this lie that it is me who doesn't understand the definition of omnipotence. You clearly can't see the contradiction but it's laughably absurd to keep making up this shameless lie that I don't understand the definition of omnipotence, as I haven't posted the dictionary definition of omnipotence repeatedly in the hope you could learn, but you either won't or can't.

Dr, Sheldon,
Your understanding of logic is only lacking less than your inability to read with any understanding.

How on earth do you reach a conclusion that I would ever hurt my own children? You are stupid beyond belief.

God's hands are tied [ for the 100th time] because he CHOSE to allow Satan a free hand for a particular amount of time to turn all humans against him. An omnopotent can do as he wishes.

God will deal with Satan when his time runs out.

Get someone with just a minimum of common sense who will know doubt understand the implications and explain them to yopu.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Your understanding of logic is only lacking less than your inability to read with any understanding.

Thank you, I can think of no higher validation than that.

Polyglide wrote:How on earth do you reach a conclusion that I would ever hurt my own children? You are stupid beyond belief..

It was your analogy when I questioned the biblical claim your deity committed global genocide, you claimed your god was acting in the best interests of humans that he regarded as his children, when I questioned how it could possibly be his "children's interests to murder them" you claimed that you loved your and that there was nothing you wouldn't do for yours. Your claim was of course moronic beyond measure, but it's not me who is making this assertion, it appears you didn't understand the consequences of what you were claiming, which is no surprise really. You can drop the childish insults as well, as it's abundantly clear to all that any cogent discussion is way beyond you, as is any degree of civility. It is however a very elucidating glimpse of what your beliefs foster, deeply unpleasant.  

Polyglide wrote:God's hands are tied [ for the 100th time] because he CHOSE to allow Satan a free hand for a particular amount of time to turn all humans against him. An omnopotent can do as he wishes.

So you're claiming your deity is omnipotent, possessing limitless choice, literally able yo do anything, but unable to do something. You seriously see no contradiction there? Wow!
 
(nonsensical irrelevant, and un-evidenced claim deleted)

Polyglide wrote:Get someone with just a minimum of common sense who will know doubt understand the implications and explain them to yopu

So you're claiming you don't possess "just a minimum of common sense"? Is that why you're unable to explain this with that explanation being contradictory asinine nonsense? Either a deity possesses omnipotence and can do literally anything or it doesn't, if it does then not acting to stop suffering (a choice) would make it malevolent. Whereas being unable to act FOR ANY REASON would mean it couldn't be omnipotent by definition. The fact you seem unable to comprehend this is no one else's fault, after all you think ignorance is desirable and have said so on here, and I have to say that shows in your bizarre posts.

Dr, Sheldon,
Me thinks you are being purposely obtuse or are realy are ignorant.

If I was able to do anything then I would also have the choice not to do somethingthe choice would be mine.

If I agreed with you, through choice, that I would allow you to have a week in which to prove me wrong and you could use any methos to do so, then this in no way would meen I was not able to do anything I wanted.

If you use henious methods in order to prove me wrong then I could not interfear because I HAD MADE AN AGREEMENT, through choice.

I know it is hard to understand just look at the four examples you gave on another post relating to understanding etc; They should do you some good.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 Me thinks you are being purposely obtuse or are realy are ignorant. 

OK, but you still can't spell really, even after it's been explained to you innumerable times. You also think a being can possess omnipotence, do literally anything, but be unable to do something, and amazingly see no contradiction.

Polyglide wrote:If I was able to do anything then I would also have the choice not to do somethingthe choice would be mine.

Of course, and if that choice was made in the certain knowledge (omniscience) that it would cause ubiquitous suffering then you'd be utterly malevolent, and not remotely benevolent. So again you've come full circle yet seem unable to understand why or how, astonishing.

Polyglide wrote:I know it is hard to understand

It's not hard to understand at all actually, which makes your inability to grasp it quite remarkable. Epicurus summed it up very eloquently and eruditely long before humans had created your god and religion.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270

Dr, Sheldon,
The above is not based on what Christians base their concept of God.

Were God not challenged by Satan then the above may apply, the fact that he is, destroys all the above.

You cannot leave Satan out of a Christians understanding of God.

The Bible explains where evil came from.

You cannot expect heathens to come to the same conclusions as Christians in particular when they do not take Satan into account.

You're missing the point again. You claim your god is omnipotent, benevolent, and yet simultaneously claim it has created a world with ubiquitous suffering. Then claim he can do anything,  but is tied to a deal, then claim he's not tied at all but is free to choose......but still allows suffering......but still could stop it. .....but is still benevolent. 

Bonkers