What to do about ISIS

[-Cynthia-]

No, they are smarter than you think. Their actions, while seem to be insane, brought together a large force who are ready to fight. Their tactics and strategies are totally sane. Their real goal is not to create the caliphate but to drag America to a brawl. To do that, they have to create enough chaos for the America to interfere. However, with the dead of many of the first generation of ISIS leaders, it's hard to say what is the goal of the current leaders want.

Also, no one will raise a hand unless they are directly affected by the action of ISI and said action must be more devastating than killing some Frenches, think about the 9-11. Nobody cared when Hitler was having fun with the Jews, they only took part in the war when Hitler show his real ambition. Vietnam didnt care when Pol-pot was slaughter his own people and only fight when Pol-pot started raiding their border.

Btw, what does God do in this topic? Why dragging religion into every topic? God is going to turn all of ISIS into salt or something like that?

I think it's a bit of USA-centric world view to assume that's what the goal of ISIS is or was (if their primary goal was to attack Americans, they'd be trying to act in the United States).

[Yojinbo]

The first step to deal with IS would be to deal with those that helped them to become so powerful in the first place - that would be their financiers in Saudi-Arabia first and foremost who support them with cash, ideology and weapons [which they mainly buy from german producers].

IS isn't a direct threat to Israel. Above all things IS is a threat to Iran, to Syria and to the Kurds which is why the likes of Turkey and Saudi-Arabia don't actually interfere with the plans of IS. To a certain extent they are the same.

Edited April 28, 2015 by Yojinbo

[blah the Prussian]

No, they are smarter than you think. Their actions, while seem to be insane, brought together a large force who are ready to fight. Their tactics and strategies are totally sane. Their real goal is not to create the caliphate but to drag America to a brawl. To do that, they have to create enough chaos for the America to interfere. However, with the dead of many of the first generation of ISIS leaders, it's hard to say what is the goal of the current leaders want.

Also, no one will raise a hand unless they are directly affected by the action of ISI and said action must be more devastating than killing some Frenches, think about the 9-11. Nobody cared when Hitler was having fun with the Jews, they only took part in the war when Hitler show his real ambition. Vietnam didnt care when Pol-pot was slaughter his own people and only fight when Pol-pot started raiding their border.

Btw, what does God do in this topic? Why dragging religion into every topic? God is going to turn all of ISIS into salt or something like that?

Question 1: What exactly makes you think that ISIS aims to drag America into a conflict? You have provided no evidence to that effect.

Question 2: Your guess is as good as mine.

The first step to deal with IS would be to deal with those that helped them to become so powerful in the first place - that would be their financiers in Saudi-Arabia first and foremost who support them with cash, ideology and weapons [which they mainly buy from german producers].

IS isn't a direct threat to Israel. Above all things IS is a threat to Iran, to Syria and to the Kurds which is why the likes of Turkey and Saudi-Arabia don't actually interfere with the plans of IS. To a certain extent they are the same.

It's actually Qatar that is doing most of the supplying. And IS is a threat to Israel as long as they continue their advance. And no, as bad as SA is, it is nowhere near as bad as ISIS. ISIS openly has sex slave markets. And Turkey is pretty much just your generic dictatorship.

[dondon151]

I think it's a bit of USA-centric world view to assume that's what the goal of ISIS is or was (if their primary goal was to attack Americans, they'd be trying to act in the United States).

i'm not sure if ISIS's ideological leaders are serious about expanding their dominion to the west (because it's absolutely unrealistic), but "death to america" is a common mantra there.

[Yojinbo]

And no, as bad as SA is, it is nowhere near as bad as ISIS. ISIS openly has sex slave markets.

SA sentences all dissidents to death - that is 'non-believers' as in those who don't believe that the Qu'ran should be followed word by word.

IS kills all dissidents - that is 'non-believers' as in those who don't believe that the Qu'ran should be followed word by word.

SA publibcly decapitates all those that refuse to follow.

IS decapitates all those that refuse to follow and puts videos of it on the internet.

SA operates violently against shiites that live in SA or in one of their neighboring countries such as Jemen or Bahrain.

IS operates violently against shiites that live in Iraq and see their neighboring countries such as Iran or Syria as their main enemy.

SA considers Iran and Syria its main enemies in the region.

IS considers Iran and Syria its main enemies in the region.

[btw SA and Al-Quaeda also both consider the Huthi rebels in Jemen their main enemies in that region - coincidence?]

SA expands its ultra-conservative ideology by funding salafist/wahhabi hatemongers in Europe, Pakistan and Indonesia.

IS tries to expand the exact same ultra-conservative ideology through propaganda in Europe, Pakistan and Indonesia [among others].

SA doesn't consider Israel their enemy despite hatred against Israel being a very common things among many arabs in the region.

IS doesn't consider Israel their main target despite hatred against Israel being a very common things among muslims in the region.

I don't know how much more obvious it can possibly get where the root of the problem actually lies.

[Rapier]

but god is omnipotent. he created the laws of this universe. he can do whatever the hell he wants with them.

What I'm saying might make less sense than what I've said so far, but if God were to break the laws he himself made (supposing he exists, of course), would it not be bad for the universe? If logic can be broken just like that, then the universe loses some of its consistency. If God can invert the laws of physics and magnets, because lol magic, and we're suddenly pushed to the orbit of Earth instead of being pushed to its center, it's obvious that it'd be catastrophic.

The way I imagine it, is like a game designer developing his own game. It needs good mechanics and physics to be consistent and playable. A game whose mechanics and physics are bugged can hardly be enjoyed, sometimes not even played.

Hence why I believe God does not break the laws he himself gave the universe, even though he -could-. For the sake of consistency.

[Blaze The Great]

To Chiki, good job, you won this debate. I'm spent for the moment. You haven't changed my beliefs, but I acknowledge your points, and I plan to study up more on this concept. Though why does every thread in the entire history of the Internet regarding something vaguely tied to religion turn into a heated discussion about the Christian God?

Besides that part, I actually do want to keep discussing ISIS, because that was the original reason I came on this thread. So I'll still be around here giving comments and trying to provide knowledge.

[-Cynthia-]

i'm not sure if ISIS's ideological leaders are serious about expanding their dominion to the west (because it's absolutely unrealistic), but "death to america" is a common mantra there.

Well they clearly wouldn't have any qualms about killing Americans, but given what they've done so far I believe that their primary goal is to secure their own power in the Middle East. The planned regions for their caliphate are still completely unrealistic though, as shown below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html

[Blaze The Great]

Well they clearly wouldn't have any qualms about killing Americans, but given what they've done so far I believe that their primary goal is to secure their own power in the Middle East. The planned regions for their caliphate are still completely unrealistic though, as shown below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2674736/ISIS-militants-declare-formation-caliphate-Syria-Iraq-demand-Muslims-world-swear-allegiance.html

I agree with you on that. They could MAYBE pull that off in 10+ years if they faced no resistance from NATO or other peacekeeping organizations and just from the natives/national military. Of course, as soon as they entered Europe, the might of many European countries would be going against them, and Khurasan seems to be getting too close to China and Russia for them to sit idly by. If ISIS completely controlled Iraq and Syria, I find it likely that then the world would wake up and realize "We really need to do something about this, and not just air strikes and a couple of countries with ground troops."

[Chiki]

What I'm saying might make less sense than what I've said so far, but if God were to break the laws he himself made (supposing he exists, of course), would it not be bad for the universe? If logic can be broken just like that, then the universe loses some of its consistency. If God can invert the laws of physics and magnets, because lol magic, and we're suddenly pushed to the orbit of Earth instead of being pushed to its center, it's obvious that it'd be catastrophic.

The way I imagine it, is like a game designer developing his own game. It needs good mechanics and physics to be consistent and playable. A game whose mechanics and physics are bugged can hardly be enjoyed, sometimes not even played.

Hence why I believe God does not break the laws he himself gave the universe, even though he -could-. For the sake of consistency.

Maybe you should read my reply to eclipse? Laws of logic are not laws of nature.

1. Laws of logic: Laws like "nothing can be a square and not a square at the same time. 1+1=2" and so on are considered to be laws of logic. You can't imagine a possible world in which there are squares which are also round. That is impossible.

2. Laws of nature: Laws like "nothing can go faster than the speed of light. The entropy of a system approaches constant value as temperature approaches absolute zero." These are not laws of logic: we can easily imagine a possible world in which objects can go faster than the speed of light, etc.

Theists think that God can't touch the laws of logic. He can't make round squares. But he can do whatever the hell he wants with the laws of nature. So omnipotence is defined as: maximally powerful within the laws of logic. Meaning he can make objects teleport, make them go in and out of existence, etc. because doing these things to not violate the laws of logic.

To Chiki, good job, you won this debate. I'm spent for the moment. You haven't changed my beliefs, but I acknowledge your points, and I plan to study up more on this concept. Though why does every thread in the entire history of the Internet regarding something vaguely tied to religion turn into a heated discussion about the Christian God?

Besides that part, I actually do want to keep discussing ISIS, because that was the original reason I came on this thread. So I'll still be around here giving comments and trying to provide knowledge.

Trust me, no matter how much you read or study up on it, you'll never find a good reply. There isn't one.

Keep in mind that if there is no reply, that just means you're wrong.

[Yojinbo]

They could MAYBE pull that off in 10+ years if they faced no resistance from NATO or other peacekeeping organizations

Did you just call the NATO a peacekeeping organization?

[Rehab]

Question 1: What exactly makes you think that ISIS aims to drag America into a conflict? You have provided no evidence to that effect.

Question 2: Your guess is as good as mine.

It's actually Qatar that is doing most of the supplying. And IS is a threat to Israel as long as they continue their advance. And no, as bad as SA is, it is nowhere near as bad as ISIS. ISIS openly has sex slave markets. And Turkey is pretty much just your generic dictatorship.

The U.S. in particular may not be necessary, but apparently they refer in their propaganda to a literally apocalyptic narrative where the "armies of Rome" (now that the pope doesn't have an army the meaning of this is up to interpretation, but could mean anything from Constantinople/The Eastern Roman Empire/modern-day Turkey & Istanbul to any infidel/Christian forces, like maybe that of the U.S.) meet defeat at their hands, get pushed back to and out of Constantinople, then come back and force the 5,000 remaining Muslim warriors to hole up in Jerusalem, where Jesus will return and lead them to victory, and then *apocalypse* or something (lack of actual expertise showing here), and it's complicated, supposedly. (Ctrl+F "Rome" on that page.)

That, and when some of their guys tweeted stuff like one of their dudes thought he saw an American soldier fighting... somewhere around there in the area, some months ago, their social media hype machine apparently went into overdrive, like "first of many!" and all that.

What move they actually want anybody to make and what their propaganda puffs about may not necessarily line up, of course, but they sure did put a lot of effort and celebration into gaining hold of territory in Dabiq, a farmland region of questionable-at-best strategic value, which is where they'll supposedly beat "Rome."

Neither I nor the article are a primary source, of course, so, y'know. Go figure. I don't have a hard time imagining they're at the least eager to wring out all the symbolic weight they can out of... just about everything, though.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Rehab

[Blaze The Great]

Did you just call the NATO a peacekeeping organization?

What I meant by that was that NATO has taken part in peacekeeping operations in the past. I guess I should have clarified that point.

[Chiki]

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/isils-sex-slaves-recount-horrific-stories-of-rape-abuse.aspx?pageID=238&nID=81689&NewsCatID=352

Also, keeping sex slaves is justified in the Quran:

"O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Quran 33:50

Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. Quran 4:24

Those (people) whom your right hands possesses = sex slaves.

More details here: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam

Edited April 29, 2015 by Chiki

[blah the Prussian]

SA sentences all dissidents to death - that is 'non-believers' as in those who don't believe that the Qu'ran should be followed word by word.

IS kills all dissidents - that is 'non-believers' as in those who don't believe that the Qu'ran should be followed word by word.

SA publibcly decapitates all those that refuse to follow.

IS decapitates all those that refuse to follow and puts videos of it on the internet.

SA operates violently against shiites that live in SA or in one of their neighboring countries such as Jemen or Bahrain.

IS operates violently against shiites that live in Iraq and see their neighboring countries such as Iran or Syria as their main enemy.

SA considers Iran and Syria its main enemies in the region.

IS considers Iran and Syria its main enemies in the region.

[btw SA and Al-Quaeda also both consider the Huthi rebels in Jemen their main enemies in that region - coincidence?]

SA expands its ultra-conservative ideology by funding salafist/wahhabi hatemongers in Europe, Pakistan and Indonesia.

IS tries to expand the exact same ultra-conservative ideology through propaganda in Europe, Pakistan and Indonesia [among others].

SA doesn't consider Israel their enemy despite hatred against Israel being a very common things among many arabs in the region.

IS doesn't consider Israel their main target despite hatred against Israel being a very common things among muslims in the region.

I don't know how much more obvious it can possibly get where the root of the problem actually lies.

Saudi Arabia does not wage wars of aggression against their neighbors. They also don't execute foreign non believers. I'm not saying they aren't the best argument against monarchy ever, but they're no ISIS.

[eclipse]

The difference is that omnipotence/science is a mathematical term but cold is not. Cold is subjective term because it's a sensation and it cannot be defined accurately. Omniscience can be defined as: maximal possible knowledge within the laws of logic. So God literally knows everything that is true.

Sorry, ran out the door before I could answer this.

Looks like the thing that you're missing is that the laws of logic are defined from man. My stance is that attempting to define God in terms of things that we humans use is pointless - we're talking about the one that supposedly created a bunch of plants and animals. So what you're doing is rationalizing God's actions (or lack thereof) using an incompatible framework. All that tells me. . .is that God's logic isn't the same as human logic. That means that God either doesn't exist, or exists in a state that humans can't wrap their minds around. Since I'm not arrogant enough to think that humans have all the answers (because if they did, I'd know why my body thinks that a bunch of otherwise edible food is poison), I've concluded that the latter isn't impossible.

The more I learn about the world, the less certain I am of my own knowledge.

Similarly I know what an infinity is since I can just define it as neverending. But I don't really know what neverending feels like. So what if I don't know what it's like to be omniscient or neverending? I can describe it perfectly, so I can understand it.

There's a difference between understanding, and thinking that you understand something. The realization that the former is actually the latter comes with life experience and age.

if you admit that humans "can't comprehend god," then maybe we shouldn't bother with the stone age holy texts that claim to be divinely inspired (or to be the direct word of) god. if we cannot possibly understand that nonsense, then it is futile to try to do so, and we would be better off pretending that it didn't exist altogether.

if in fact we cannot comprehend god, then the conclusion is that we don't understand anything about him. we can cast in doubt his injunctions, his commandments, and his characteristics because they are fundamentally unknowable.

Whether the guys writing the book are telling the truth about its origins or not is one thing, but I think that sentiment is a good one to live by. I think it's also got a good amount of interesting tidbits about how people lived during that time - what they saw as valuable, how their society ran, what they thought were good names for their kids, some amusing practical/philosophy, etc. Even if you can't see the spiritual value of it, there's plenty of secular things that can be gleaned from it. Why deny some perfectly good historical text?

. . .unless you think that every author, across time, lied about their society. Then, it should be kept for all eternity as the biggest troll in history - I'd be too impressed to be mad.

I think that treating everyone with respect is a good way to live. The last thing I want are people stating that they don't have to treat others well because they don't treat themselves well, which is why I paraphrased it like that. If I was fully secular, I'd come to the conclusion that despite the gigantic time difference, I'm not so different than whoever wrote that, and that's a really neat thing.

It's actually Qatar that is doing most of the supplying. And IS is a threat to Israel as long as they continue their advance. And no, as bad as SA is, it is nowhere near as bad as ISIS. ISIS openly has sex slave markets. And Turkey is pretty much just your generic dictatorship.

HOWEVER, saying "well they're not as bad as the ISIS" isn't a glowing point in Saudi Arabia's favor. I doubt that Saudi Arabia is the best place to live on this planet (speaking from the biased standpoint known as "being a woman").

I'm very opposed to human trafficking, and my emotional side wishes some very un-Christian fates on them. However, the logical side of me says that ISIS is a symptom of a bigger problem, and until that problem is remedied, it'll reform with another name.

[dondon151]

Even if you can't see the spiritual value of it, there's plenty of secular things that can be gleaned from it. Why deny some perfectly good historical text?

the bible is not even a good historical text. there is very little evidence to corroborate many major events in the old testament (the exodus is actually completely bullshit; the jews were never enslaved in egypt), and much of the new testament was not written until decades to centuries after jesus's death. the gospel accounts of jesus's life and resurrection contain numerous contradictions between themselves. keep in mind that this historical text claims that the universe came into existence roughly 6000 years ago.

at best the bible is the equivalent of a fable with some messed up content. if you want to defend the value of the bible as a teaching tool, you could learn just as much, if not more, from reading aesop's fables or confucius's analects and spare yourself the morally backwards stuff.

Edited April 29, 2015 by dondon151

[eclipse]

the bible is not even a good historical text. there is very little evidence to corroborate many major events in the old testament (the exodus is actually completely bullshit; the jews were never enslaved in egypt), and much of the new testament was not written until decades to centuries after jesus's death. the gospel accounts of jesus's life and resurrection contain numerous contradictions between themselves. keep in mind that this historical text claims that the universe came into existence roughly 6000 years ago.

at best the bible is the equivalent of a fable with some messed up content. if you want to defend the value of the bible as a teaching tool, you could learn just as much, if not more, from reading aesop's fables or confucius's analects and spare yourself the morally backwards stuff.

I think you missed the point. By a mile.

You're thinking of the big things. I'm looking at the smaller things - the Old Testament laws, for example, tell us that slavery was A Thing, that they valued stuff like red/purple/gold, and that the chick at the end of Proverbs either didn't exist, or she was so amazing that her husband trusted her with the family's money. . .and apparently people ate veal simmered in milk or something (since there's some law stating "if you're gonna do this, don't simmer the baby in its mother's milk, that's just tasteless"). That's the history I'm interested in.

[dondon151]

but that's not history

the bible is a bad historical document

thucydides was a good historian. the hands who compiled the bible and altered it countless times by effectively playing a game of telephone are not.

Edited April 29, 2015 by dondon151

[Naughx]

I'm very opposed to human trafficking, and my emotional side wishes some very un-Christian fates on them. However, the logical side of me says that ISIS is a symptom of a bigger problem, and until that problem is remedied, it'll reform with another name.

Like... Why there are so many westerners fighting with them? (I really think it's the symptoms of many problems.)

I don't think there is a sole root cause...

Edited April 29, 2015 by Naughx

[eclipse]

but that's not history

the bible is a bad historical document

thucydides was a good historian. the hands who compiled the bible and altered it countless times by effectively playing a game of telephone are not.

It's a record of the past, so either a bunch of people changed super-minor details (because who would go through all of the likes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy just to change the color "blue" to "red" every time some fancy-schmancy garment was mentioned), or it's a glimpse of what life was like back then. There's a bunch of books that aren't in the Bible most people know and love, and at least one seems to be written by some guy with a vendetta; however, the existence of the book remains, and that's what matters.

Of course, if you're convinced that the Bible is bad for everything, right down to the small little details that make writing interesting, then you're in the wrong place - perhaps an atheist-oriented forum would be more appropriate for your views. I'm not here to validate your ideas about religion, especially in the ISIS thread.

Like... Why there are so many westerners fighting with them? (I really think it's the symptoms of many problems.)

I don't think there is a sole root cause...

There's unrest here, too, but it's much less violent. The riots in Baltimore are one example of what happens when it boils over. If a car bomb goes off in America and it kills people, it's national news, not another day of the week.

The second factor is that there's a lot more information out in the open, and it's really easy to obtain. Thus, the odds of someone finding an ideal that agrees with them is higher, even if it's foreign.

Third, there's a lot more people in the world, period. It would be noteworthy if 25 people from the same town of 50 went over to the ISIS. If it's 25 people from a heavily-populated state, no one's going to care. Hell, compare the number of Americans fighting with them with Vestige's figure of 2 million American Muslims (for comparison, it would take 20,000 people from America to equal one percent of the Muslim population), and you'll find that it's probably really low. Yes, it looks like a lot of people, but in reality, they don't represent the majority of anything.

So, take someone who isn't satisfied with their conditions, give them a drastic way of making a difference, and make it such that getting there isn't nigh-impossible, and the result will be some people immigrating solely to serve in the ISIS.

[Naughx]

If we -as humans- didn't depend so much on oil, ISIL would have an harder time to sustain itself financially.

[blah the Prussian]

HOWEVER, saying "well they're not as bad as the ISIS" isn't a glowing point in Saudi Arabia's favor. I doubt that Saudi Arabia is the best place to live on this planet (speaking from the biased standpoint known as "being a woman").

I'm very opposed to human trafficking, and my emotional side wishes some very un-Christian fates on them. However, the logical side of me says that ISIS is a symptom of a bigger problem, and until that problem is remedied, it'll reform with another name.

That is absolutely true. I never said the Saudis were good; I actually hate them. However, comparing them to ISIS is too far. The question of the day, of course, is what exactly is that problem.

It's a record of the past, so either a bunch of people changed super-minor details (because who would go through all of the likes of Leviticus and Deuteronomy just to change the color "blue" to "red" every time some fancy-schmancy garment was mentioned), or it's a glimpse of what life was like back then. There's a bunch of books that aren't in the Bible most people know and love, and at least one seems to be written by some guy with a vendetta; however, the existence of the book remains, and that's what matters.

Of course, if you're convinced that the Bible is bad for everything, right down to the small little details that make writing interesting, then you're in the wrong place - perhaps an atheist-oriented forum would be more appropriate for your views. I'm not here to validate your ideas about religion, especially in the ISIS thread.

There's unrest here, too, but it's much less violent. The riots in Baltimore are one example of what happens when it boils over. If a car bomb goes off in America and it kills people, it's national news, not another day of the week.

The second factor is that there's a lot more information out in the open, and it's really easy to obtain. Thus, the odds of someone finding an ideal that agrees with them is higher, even if it's foreign.

Third, there's a lot more people in the world, period. It would be noteworthy if 25 people from the same town of 50 went over to the ISIS. If it's 25 people from a heavily-populated state, no one's going to care. Hell, compare the number of Americans fighting with them with Vestige's figure of 2 million American Muslims (for comparison, it would take 20,000 people from America to equal one percent of the Muslim population), and you'll find that it's probably really low. Yes, it looks like a lot of people, but in reality, they don't represent the majority of anything.

So, take someone who isn't satisfied with their conditions, give them a drastic way of making a difference, and make it such that getting there isn't nigh-impossible, and the result will be some people immigrating solely to serve in the ISIS.

So basically your saying thayt free speech/press is the problem? I mean, I might agree with that, bunt do you?

[Magical CC]

Question 1: What exactly makes you think that ISIS aims to drag America into a conflict? You have provided no evidence to that effect.

Question 2: Your guess is as good as mine.

Simple. Their tactics and strategies are obviously good. They are no pushover. They are not some simple mindless zealots. However, their declaration and their rule over the lands during the first years were very short term and not productive at all. Why? The only answer is that they had no intend to actually creating the Caliphate but something else. What is the point of making a big mess and then declared ridiculous things other than to attract the world's attention? They are certainly looking for a fight. And guess who is the one they want to fight most? Certainly not France or Japan.

Now, America government certainly arent keen on fighting them on ground so ISIS had to change their tactics. Boko Haram becoming their branch is one of the new steps.

[Chiki]

Looks like the thing that you're missing is that the laws of logic are defined from man.

We don't just make these laws up. We just have our own language of describing the laws of logic, which are true.

My stance is that attempting to define God in terms of things that we humans use is pointless

Actually, in the problem of evil argument, we're using God's own definition of evil from the Bible. We know what is evil and what is not from what God told us.

Now that I think about it, your argument is beautifully circular. I had missed this when I first made this post. The reason you're saying that defining God in terms of things human use is pointless is simply because he is omnipotent (you said he can make plants out of nothing, so yeah). And you said that we don't know what omnipotence is. But your reason for saying it's pointless is because you know he's omnipotent. But if you don't understand omnipotence at all, then how can you use it as a reason for saying it's pointless?! You presupposed that you knew what omnipotence was when you said that.

All that tells me. . .is that God's logic isn't the same as human logic.

So can God make square circles? Can something be round and not round at the same time?

There's no theist philosopher out there today who thinks that God's logic is different from.. human logic. The consensus is that there's only one set of rules of logic which everyone, including God, obeys. Even Descartes, maybe the most famous philosopher in the past millenium, doesn't agree with you and he was a hardcore theist. He thought that God had to obey the laws of logic.

The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim (that God doesn't obey '"human logic").

There's a difference between understanding, and thinking that you understand something. The realization that the former is actually the latter comes with life experience and age.

Come on, don't give me wishy-washy replies like this. I don't merely think I understand Snowy's happiness when he gets a girlfriend. I understand what it means for someone to be happy completely.

Edited April 29, 2015 by Chiki