How would You Paint God?

[MarkBastable]

You can end the show whenever you want, God gave you the choice to leave when you please. So not so much of a valid argument.

...not much of a valid argument for what?

[Alexander III]

...not much of a valid argument for what?

That if there were a god, he is a cruel one...

that is what you were saying no?

[MarkBastable]

That if there were a god, he is a cruel one...

that is what you were saying no?

No.

Mazur said this:

If God was bad he could have brought an end to this whole show in a jiffy!

which may be true or may not be true, but is certainly no truer or not true than the opposite:


If God was bad he'd let this show go on.


So I was simply making as unsupportable a claim as Mazur's in order to illustrate the uselessness of both as proofs of the goodness or badness of God. I was saying that my claim was no more or less a support for God's nature than Mazur's.

Sometimes, Al, I think you read only about one in five of the words typed here.

[Alexander III]

No.

Mazur said this:

If God was bad he could have brought an end to this whole show in a jiffy!

which may be true or may not be true, but is certainly no truer or not true than the opposite:


If God was bad he'd let this show go on.


So I was simply making as unsupportable a claim as Mazur's in order to illustrate the uselessness of both as proofs of the goodness or badness of God. I was saying that my claim was no more or less a support for God's nature than Mazur's.

Sometimes, Al, I think you read only about one in five of the words typed here.

But that is different.

By saying that by letting it go on, you are implying that the world is not a nice place, and thus the just thing to do would be to end it.

Since Mazhur was saying if God was truly bad he would end it, the fact that he does not end it does not show anything, you are just playing with semantics here. I am sure there is a technical logical term for this.

But Just because if X then Y

Does not mean If Y then X.

To put it bluntly.

[MarkBastable]

But that is different.

By saying that by letting it go on, you are implying that the world is not a nice place, and thus the just thing to do would be to end it.

Since Mazhur was saying if God was truly bad he would end it, the fact that he does not end it does not show anything, you are just playing with semantics here. I am sure there is a technical logical term for this.

But Just because if X then Y

Does not mean If Y then X.

To put it bluntly.

No, the argument was...

If you can say, unsupportedly, that A implies K, then I can say unsupportedly that -A implies K.

It's not semantics, although they are important. It's logic. Or, as I was trying to show, complete lack of it.

[Alexander III]

No, the argument was...

If you can say, unsupportedly, that A implies K, then I can say unsupportedly that -A implies K.

It's not semantics, although they are important. It's logic. Or, as I was trying to show, complete lack of it.

But it is semantics because A and K were put in a manner which is open to subjective interpretation.

As in what you saw in A and K is not what everyone else see's necessarily.

[cafolini]

Alexander you keep going in circles and missing the point.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

As much as I'm loathe to agree with cafolini, he's right. Mark's got you here, Alex.

[Varenne Rodin]

If I were to paint God, I would paint myself. I've created and destroyed. I steered the course of my small life and the lives of others with untold and innumerable chain reactions and consequences. I grew a person in myself out of something invisible to the naked eye. I made plants grow by nurturing seeds with water and dirt and offerings of sunlight. I came out of the earth and I will go back into it. So maybe I would paint the earth instead, or my own mother. Maybe I would paint you. We all came from an abyss, so I could attempt to paint one of those, but it would take an eternity and I think I would be quite lost. I don't believe there is something so insignificant and small as a god. This whole thing could be some kind of machine, but that seems wrong and small too.

[mazHur]

hahah, that was a good reply, I think you got the better of mark there.

I do enjoy these witty exchanges.

Thanks

[Alexander III]

As much as I'm loathe to agree with cafolini, he's right. Mark's got you here, Alex.

Very well then, I shall cede.

[cacian]

Ok after reading throuhg the posts I was thinking to ask this question which may or may not help that much

Is God worth painting?
The reason I ask this is because
in the world of possessions and money driven people God's painting would perhaps create tensions where by the paintings would become as source of competitions and consequently their cost would become unttainable and would drive people to throw money at it just to own it/them.
I was just thinking of the world of celebrities where all their possessions and jewellery become a sibject of tension and ridiculous amount of money is thrown just to own them.
Would god really want that ? People fighting over something so personal and so futile at the same time?

[mazHur]

Ok after reading throuhg the posts I was thinking to ask this question which may or may not help that much

Is God worth painting?

wanna bid for Him??

[cacian]

wanna bid for Him??

Hehe...might do..when I am rich that is

[mazHur]

Who Is This God Person Anyway?

Philosophy Now Radio Show #8
Who Is This God Person Anyway?

Grant Bartley, Assistant Editor at Philosophy Now, asks “Who is this God person anyway?” with Barry Hingston promoting Christianity, Hamza Tzortzis promoting Islam, and Richard Baron promoting atheism. Who can make the best case for their belief system? Will any of them persuade you? First broadcast on 20 September 2011 on Resonance FM.

Duration: 55 mins (⇓ Download 50MB)