I never stated that either more government or no government were bad or good,

I wasn't attacking you, I was just stating my personal opinion.

As a centrist myself I will say yes but I would like to point out that this is a misleading diagram because it shows government influence rather than an actual big government. Though I understand they can be congruent however not always.

I have no problem with the size of government. Just the motivations behind the government.

I believe it is the Slippery slope fallacy.

This is when you start with A then though a series of steps (B, D...) you make equalize A and Z. The argument ends up being if A is true then Z must be true also.

Conclusions like these can be true but does not make it true.

I invite you to tally all the contradictions that arise from these all being accepted - not to speak of how they can apply to an existing being!

Omnipotent: "can" implies the ability to thus he may not do it but still has the ability to do it and yes he can make a rock so big he can't lift it, it is called hell because hell is a place were God has no power.

Omnipresent : Thus if he can do anything he can be always everywhere without interfering with the order universe.

Omnibenevolent: actually omnibenevolent means infinite benevolence and benevolence means. the quality of being well meaning; kindness.

So we're are the contradicts because I haven't seen them.

then perhaps you can give us some indication of both his powers and his limitations. You, because there's no other source of that information.

Well He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent.

However even though he dose have one limitation that most don't know of and it is he is a static being. That is his nature/personally cannot change. Thus he cannot do something that would different from his own nature.

you're affirming what cannot reasonably or rationally be confirmed. And that's why Christians, if that's what we're talking about, do not so affirm.

We're both intelligent people and we both look at the evidence. We have already made our conclusions. We could not convice each other if we whated to.

Also yes it is Christians that is why "g" is upper case

this God that you claim exists, in the sense that a brick or any other thing exists, and expressly not in the sense that an idea exists, are you quite sure you want that God to exist as you claim He does?

The answer is yes, and if should say I'm Wesleyan to avoid confusion with other denominations.

well I don't normally because to many people make me a straw man but because you asked.

I start by saying follow your conclusion to its end. (Alexmander)
Using this method I start with God's existence instead of end with this. If it contradicts reality then it must be false.
Because if this I only need to make one assumption, instead for the 2 atheism makes.
Octomes rasor (may have spelt this wrong)

And feal free to find contradicts with really because I haven't seen any yet but this could be just me

Are you affirming that God is a real thing in the world? Or an idea that you presuppose?

I am affirming.

You believe that a real something is real? What, exactly, do you mean by "believe." It might help also if you make clear what you mean by "real."
Your answers matter because the how makes all the difference.

In this context for believe I'm using this definition: accept (something) as true
As for real I'm using the definition: actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed

the difference is Canada is a contry will God is an entity. A county is created by recognition, there for it only exist because we believe it exsits. God if real (wich I do believe it does) is an entity and therefore should leave a trace of its existence some trace of it exists in some way, shape, or form. Atheist simply denied there is a trace of its existence.

good and evil are suggestive to who is taking. Some people we would call evil my think what there doing is good, and other may agree. After all the reason a muder is dangerous is not because they killed some, but rather because they somehow reasoned in there head that it was good.

I'm not catholic, but yes there is a mandate for mine to.

God gave us dominion over there earth and told us to do with it what we wich. So it is a mandate that would need to be proclaimed by the church. (Two exception I know of are the sabith day and the the sabith year)

I like the way St. Patrick explain the trinity. A shamrock has 3 leaves each separate from the other but together they make one.

Strikethrough and bolding are my suggestions. Moral issues are often politicized to promote a particular party or ideology. Things like abortion and capital punishment are used by politicians to whip-up support for themselves or their party, without really caring about the moral issue. Unfortunately, it's typical for this to be more about gaining and maintaining wealth and power than it is for promoting human flourishing.

Yes, I know the government don't care about morals, and people try to manipulate people with there morals. That is were I expect that contracteinsm is a thing but there are examples of times it not the case because contracteinsm says you get someting in return.

and maybe some deities care about all life. Maybe their purpose is to nurture life, not to nurture humans at the expense of all other life? Wouldn't that make more sense?

True
I'm just saying that we need to realize that there are several religion's and it hard to prove them wrong or right.

one question because some of what you said confused me are we talking about classifying live?, what makes us human?, or what does it mean to be alive?

I say one it is 4 to 6 years. Secondly depending on the democracy, it may be theredical possible to hold the position as long as you live.

However the point your trying to make is that the party will came they made a "good" policy even if it wasn't there policy that made it the result happen. On that point I can agree.

That frase is an Idea of that came from ethical monotheism (Most often drived from christianity). then others adopted the Christian moral system and got rid of God. Replacing it with there own reasons.

The original resoning (that came from ethical monotheism) when like this
Were all created by one God, who is the objective standard of morality.
Thus because we're created by the same God were all equal.

Of course this resoning only works if you believe in only one god and they haven't said anything contradictory.

An addiction has several meaning depending on the context. Then some people don't know the difference between addiction and obsession.

In all definition of addiction however, it has to do with something interfering with someone ability to function "normally".

That is not the biblical definition.

You don't need a biblical definition, if the meaning of the world changes we will do our best to find the closest definition we can. That is why we have both the New King James and the New International Version. In fact if you want the exact definition from the bible you need to know Ancient Hebrew.

So when you say, for instance, that you love your dog, are you really putting your dog above yourself, or are you loving the dog as a possession, a pet and a loyal companion? If your dog suddenly turned on you, would you continue to love it - putting it above yourself - or would you determine that it no longer fulfilled your narrow view of its potential?

Intresting question I will admit.

First can we agree that people think love and passion (strong and barely controllable emotion) are interchangeable when they should not be.

Secondly if you truly love something you will never see it as a possession because you will respect it.

Third that last one is up to the individual. Some can continue to love and others will not. However, even
a person that remains to love the dog may see thay they need to do something they may not want to do, but know it is for the better of both of them and the dog.

The God debate is built upon a number of assumptions which seem to require inspection.

Some may, I don't. I make one assumption and it is that God exists. Then I follow it is its conclusion I haven't found any contradiction yet.

But exactly how does the “social construction” of money work?

It works because we believe it works, it is literally as simple as that.

Does Jesus/Yahweh love us or is he stalking us?

Your answer is yes. He does both

But I'm not understanding your argument because
The definitions I have
1. Love (to put something above you're self)
2. stalking (unwanted surveillance)
3. faith (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.)

Could we do away with money?

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but by money your refuing to the paper money, if we did away with it the only consequences is the economy would shrink.

However if you did away with the Idea of money entirely you would not be able to have an economy function beond a small group of people.

Money is a universal "Good" by wich all "Goods" are extanged without it we would need to barter, wich has many problems.

Look up the history of paper money for more

I get it but some people come here just to ask questions, wich requires a new thread.

I think our moral compass is set by what we regard as our community - we do things that are acceptable (=moral) as defined by our community.

Then explain how some people develop new moral on there own, because if you are correct morals set and no new ones can be created.

it also makes some human actions unexplained specific the rise of atheism because theism for the longest time was a crime.

Your idea is good but when I use this Idea

We are taught that we need to continue our species’ existence - it is NOT inherent,

I run into the problem were the first learn it from, after all life seems pointless in the light of reason alone. Sure people my say we learn it from a deity but some of them (if they were really) don't seem to care about human life.

How can we say that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a factor in causing WW1?

Because it was the immediate point on wich the war was built on. It was because of the assassination the Austro-Hungarian's sent a letter with demands that is not meant threatened war.

Also be more specific assassination of Franz Ferdinand was only the Immediate cause, it was not the only reason the war happened (Most people do leave "immediate" out when telling the story so I can understand if you didn't get that).

That we do, does not imply that we ought.

Correct like I, said I, I believe we start with that then make our own. I consider into my thesis that we may reject " the need to continue our species existence." in the future.

Also ought implys "should", and as in my first statement "I'm not asking for what is right or wrong".

true, but when I use only those I begin to wonder why they feel those emotions in the first place.

doesn't that mean each Pope is thinking of a different concept of God?

I understand what your saying, if two people write different things about God are they the same God.
This is were the story of the green and red Hat comes to play, just because two people see something different doses mean only one or the other is true. They both might be.

Here is the fact the Nicene Creed in its word described the God of the christians including the Catholic Church. as long as there is no deviations from it, it is the same God. That is how the theology works.

Pope is writing about a different God?

No, as long as they stick to the Nicene Creed there the same God. However the Catholic Church has the problem were every Pope can change the doctrine as he sees fit.

“entity” impossible to objectively define.

Because I this is monotheism, and your "g" was up case your talking about the Christians God, wich has a definition. "The best thing you can imagine but better"

unfathomable, yes.
impossible to objectively define, no.

Yes, God warns about false prophets and they can do harm if believed.

I would say no we can't, you only see anger as a deterrent. However it can also be a modivator.

Would you be willing to kill what you think is evil if you lost your humanity in the process?
Even if you can justify murder, are you will to pay the price.

I agree, this is why I prefer to use other questions instead.

I say that we want to be content, not happy. Happiness always flees, Contentedness can remain.

I see no chapter or verse.

I don't need one, it came out of the dictionary.

The rest of what you put ignored Job 2;3 and god admitting to be an evil sinner. Why?

Because I have no clue what your talking about. What version did you read.
1. God was praising Job
2. "shuns evil."
3. Apparently in the verse satin was telling God to "incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.". Then God refuse (and yes I know he let's satin. Yes I see how you can make an argument around that).
,