Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[MG 2.0]

That's too bad, MG. I was looking forward to engaging you, if only you'd been willing to meet me half way.

You demand that others make the effort that you yourself are not willing to make.

C’mon. I asked you first. Common courtesy would dictate you take up the challenge.

Turning the tables, are we?

Pi A.I.:

There could be several reasons why some people might avoid engaging in an argument or challenge, including:

- Fear of being wrong: People may worry that they don't have enough knowledge or evidence to support their position, and fear that they will be proven wrong or embarrassed in front of others.
- Emotional discomfort: Arguments can be emotionally charged and uncomfortable, and some people may simply prefer to avoid these types of situations.
- Confirmation bias: People may be more likely to seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, and avoid engaging with arguments or evidence that challenge those beliefs.
- Lack of confidence: Some people may not feel confident in their ability to articulate their thoughts or defend their position, and therefore avoid engaging in arguments.
- Defensive behavior: People may become defensive when their beliefs or values are challenged, and may respond by avoiding or dismissing the argument altogether.

Again, I’ve been asking for participation since pg. 53. Then you go and try and avoid the challenge by turning the tables.

Cheap trick?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

How do billions of children dying in poverty as children prove this life is such a great chance to "learn and grow" -- that they all have a loving father up there? It makes no sense. You can believe it. Anyone and come up with all kinds of reason God needs to let small children starve, get kidnapped and tortured, and in huge numbers that makes it okay with them.

A God who allows radical free will of mankind without constraints has to deal with blowback.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

How do billions of children dying in poverty as children prove this life is such a great chance to "learn and grow" -- that they all have a loving father up there? It makes no sense. You can believe it. Anyone and come up with all kinds of reason God needs to let small children starve, get kidnapped and tortured, and in huge numbers that makes it okay with them.

A God who allows radical free will of mankind without constraints has to deal with blowback.

Regards,
MG

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach that we have radical free will. You are misrepresenting your religion.

[MG 2.0]

You have no excuse for exonerating God of evil that isn't covered by one of the twelve officers.

I don’t exonerate evil. And there is no need to exonerate God. He is not the author of evil. Evil is the result of a natural world in which people exercise free will. But free will does have its consequences. Often horrific. Free will also brings about choices that result in beauty and goodness and joy.

It is a mixed bag.

Without a Savior to atone for sins and the pains and sufferings of mankind I would probably look at the world as you do.

I have faith and hope that all will be made right. I also think that these things that bother us so much will be compensated for and worked out in the after life. They can’t be worked out here because we do live in a natural world with natural consequences, horrific as they can be.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Okay I'll bite. I'm going to build my own God.

Thanks for playing!

It gives us one additional choice of a god to believe in.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

That's too bad, MG. I was looking forward to engaging you, if only you'd been willing to meet me half way.

You demand that others make the effort that you yourself are not willing to make.

C’mon. I asked you first. Common courtesy would dictate you take up the challenge.

Ha! "I asked you first!" only works when you're five-years-old. You are never willing to jump off the cliff, read the book, or go through the thought process that you ask others to. Your challenge to "Just hit yourself in the head with this hammer, and see if that doesn't change your mind!" is hilarious.

[MG 2.0]

A God who allows radical free will of mankind without constraints has to deal with blowback.

Regards,
MG

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not teach that we have radical free will. You are misrepresenting your religion.

Pi A.I.:

The LDS Church teaches that God gave all humans the gift of moral agency, which includes free will, and that the proper exercise of unfettered choice is important for complying with eternal laws and fulfilling God's will.

In this sense, the LDS Church's belief in free will could be considered "radical" in that it emphasizes the importance of individual choice and agency in achieving salvation.

Free will and moral agency is an anathema to non believers.

Gadianton came up with a Mormon God alternative. Your turn?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

C’mon. I asked you first. Common courtesy would dictate you take up the challenge.

Ha! "I asked you first!" only works when you're five-years-old. You are never willing to jump off the cliff, read the book, or go through the thought process that you ask others to. Your challenge to "Just hit yourself in the head with this hammer, and see if that doesn't change your mind!" is hilarious.

Predictable response.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

There it is again. Only MG 2.0 has a reasoned basis for his beliefs on free will. Those who disagree do not.

by the way, you won't leave it at that. You'll do the same thing again and again and again and again.

How many more examples do I need to point out, MG 2.0 before you understand how empty your words about respecting the beliefs of others are?

And now he's got an A.I. doing it.

[Gadianton]

This is a God of love who wants us to learn from our own experience, the good from the evil.

And if God is a loving God then the only real explanation that makes sense

Lies.

A God who allows radical free will of mankind without constraints has to deal with blowback.

More lies. "Radical free will" covers half of one situation: A child being kidnapped, and God allows the kidnappers free will. This is inconsistent with your previous definition of free will, where free will = "more choices". The child obviously doesn't have greater choice here. You give radical free will only to the worst people.

Further, all you are doing is saying God isn't accountable for evil. If evil gets in the way of showing God's love, it's because of free will, and if evil gets in the way of people "learning from experience" because they die before they turn 2, then no problem because free will. But getting God off the hook is not the same thing as demonstrating that "boots on the ground" God wants us to learn from experience.

That's why you won't answer my question. Mormonism makes up doctrines like salvation before 8 because "boots on the ground" Mormonism makes no sense.

Now, in contrast, my spider deity explains the world "boots on the ground" much better than MG's god. My spider deity doesn't care about people, he cares about the beings in his image, therefore whatever happens to people doesn't reflect on the spider. In other words, I'm covering for the stupid crap MG is trying to cover with his pathetic god.

"It takes a liar to tell a lie" -- me