Mr. Impossible Man

This is for Kharakov, Jatom and the Christian mafia who continue to try and shift the burden of proof on the atheist, use illogical arguments (fallacies), and attempt to goad (Kharakov, not Jatom on this one) with generalize statements, manipulated definitions and their own "interpretations" of the "God" of Christianity.

Mr. Impossible Man is your omni-max deity whom I doubt and inquire of your claims about. Defend your faith! I have none. I am atheist. You are the one with a "faith". Defend it. I am just arguing from a layman's stance, and asking reasonable questions.

Answer me, if you can, without grasping for straws.

These are the attributes you claim of your "God".

OMNISCIENCE is : ALL-KNOWING. In other words, knowing everything, past, present, future. All things, all events, all persons, all thoughts, and all THINGS TO COME.

OMNIPOTENCE is : ALL-POWERFUL. In other words, having the power TO DO ANYTHING. Not just the power to control what we know to exist, but the power to manipulate laws of nature, laws of logic, etc. A power UNBOUND...even by logic.

OMNIPRESENCE is: ALL-PRESENT. In other words, being everywhere, all the time.

OMNIBENEVOLENCE is: ALL-GOODNESS (perfection, even). In other words, the EPITOME of all that is good. Things for example that the Bible teaches are mercy, love, compassion, humility, etc.

Now, "God" is all these things COMBINED. Which means that "he" (does god have a penis?) KNOWS everything (past, present and future), CAN DO ANYTHING (including violate the laws of logic--"he" created them, right?), IS EVERYWHERE (even beyond space and time) and is even THE VERY DEFINITION OF GOOD (love, mercy, compassion, kindness, etc.)

First, I'll have to say that such a being would necessarily have to "transcend" the bounds of nature, would it not? And since nature is all we know of to objectively exist (unlike emotions which are subjective) then wouldn't it be reasonable to ask of this claim some OBJECTIVE evidence? If there is any in nature, let's hear it.

If not, I would push back a step and ask for some evidence of the "transcendency" itself (i.e. the supernatural). What are the evidences to even consider this in the first place?

But, as for the logical--REASONABLE argument, it is a simple layman's argument. I would first argue from a common, layman, or even "alien" perspective.

To have all these attributes poses problems that MUST be addressed.

If God is omniscient, then "he" knows what will happen in the future as well as he knows what happened in the past and what is happening in the present. If "God" who created ALL THINGS truly KNOWS some event will happen, he knows everything about it. Why, Where, How, When, What...etc. EVERYTHING. He knows EXACTLY how it will happen and there is NO changing it. It WILL happen the way he KNOWS it will. It will happen like this because "God" doesn't assume, guess, or anticipate-- he KNOWS.
Many will argue that this isn't a causal knowledge-- "Just knowing it doesn't mean he caused it". But, if "God" is in control, knows all, sees all, knows the future as well as the past, and not a hair falls from our head lest he WILLS it, then any reasonable person would conclude that "God" DOES indeed CAUSE the all things that he KNOWS will happen. After all if "God" holds ALL-POWER, then he even controls what we finite creatures think--which ironically controls our actions.

This, of course, violates "free will" that Christians spout off about so much. However, such an omni-max deity is, at best, INCONSISTENT and, at worst, CONTRADICTORY to "free will". We, as finite creatures, can hold no knowledge or power apart from "God" and thus, no "will". Besides, it is evident that the reward-punishment, pain-pleasure setup shows "free will" for what it truly is-- consequential choice. But, not really even our choice--since "God" KNOWS what we will choose and holds our power to choose.

Even if "God" wanted to relinquish that power, he still would have it, because he has ALL-POWER. And ANY power is a part of ALL power. Thus, his "omnipotence" puts him in a bind by itself, but combined with "omniscience" is really a tough knot.

We haven't even tackle "omnipresence" yet. If "God" is everywhere, all the time, then he will fill up every possible space in existence. Everything would either be a part of "God" it would seem. Pantheism could make a hell of a good argument here, but that's not the Bible, is it?

No, the Bible is monotheistic and presents "God" as a personage with feelings (anger, sadness, jealousy, etc.) who is "offended" by finite creatures who refuse to acknowledge his superiority or even his existence. This doesn't sound like much of an omni-max entity, logically, does it? How could "God" who exists outside the bounds of time and space, knows what exactly will happen and how it will happen actually experience such humanistic emotions? It would seem as if he were playing a role in a soap opera. He knew this would happen and he would get mad, kill a few people, and began again with some kind of crazy law or ritual (which ironically has nothing to do with the "sin" in the first place)?

Besides if "God" takes up all the space, then we are part of "God" and thus when "God" punishes us, he punishes himself. However, if "God" is NOT THE UNIVERSE (pantheism) but "transcendent" of it--then we are back to square one and my first series of arguments: Prove the "supernatural" is even a considerable option.

Finally, my long-winded and half-assed attempt concludes with all-goodness. If "God" is the very definition of "good", then MERCY, COMPASSION, LOVE would be everywhere, all the time and have complete power--there would be no room for hatred, cruelty, incompassion, etc. They would be obsolete. However, it would be very irrational and kind of odd for someone to argue that these things do not exist. Because, it appears to most thinking and feeling people (most people who are alive) that these things exist in abundance.

And if goodness IS what we've been taught by "God" and his so-called "word" and his so-called "messengers", then are we not right in questioning his "goodness" by having the power and knowledge beforehand to stop these things from happening and either FAILING to do so, or REFUSING to do so? And remember he CREATED, KNOWS, CONTROLS and WILLS everything that happens.

Just a few inquiries. Perhaps you could assist me?

 

maybe...if god is everywhere and is all things then we're god...and we're just blinded by our ignorance...that would imply that ignorance is the root of all evil..and maybe jesus really Knew

'And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.' luke 17:20

 

You know tiki, I don't have any problems with considering a "metaphoric" and even "ethical-poetic" philosophy of the Bible, but it's this literalist-fundamentalist horseshit that I am directing my comments to.

I can see "God" being us and everything--only, as Hikky would say--I call it nature. But, the invisible sky daddy concept has to go.

 

I agree, I'm not a big fan of the bible but scattered through-out, some stuff has the ring of truth to me

 

As do most all things, if you look deep enough.

 

Can I refute you too?

Tough, I'm doing it anyway.

I want to take a shot at being the other side.

Yep. He is boundless, in every way.

The only thing we know objectively is that people can have subjective experiences that induce a feeling of "contact" of sorts with a being percieved as "almighty."

We also know objectively that people can misinterpret (or rather percieve differently) experiences, as being either "almighty" or not.

Thus, it seems suggestive that we have no real control over how we percieve these experiences (using the idea of a deterministic universe Christianity, since Christianity DOES dictate that God has power over all in the universe as He sees fit.), that they are God-controlled.

That being said, the free-will issue was one explained to me by a Christian a little bit like this:

We do have a choice. We make choices all the time. Consequential choices. However, God (in his omniscience) is so smart that he can always guess what we're going to do.

If you think about it like that ... we do have free will; just because God can figure out what we're going to do doesn't mean that time isn't still flowing, choices aren't still being made, both good and bad, etc. Even though God transcends it all, and has power over it all, that doesn't mean that he USES that control. Kind of like an apartment owner, he rents out his rooms, and doesn't much care what happens with the rooms, though at any time he can enforce virtually any restriction on its residents. In that sense, the apartment owner (God) is infinitely wise, and is capable of perfectly predicting who is going to rent out an apartment, who is going to not pay the rent, but he is still kind enough to give everyone he meets a room (on Earth, so to speak) even if they don't pay their rent sometimes (in which case, that is a *consequential choice* which could anger God, or the apartment owner, and cause eviction; eviction, then, (or a state of unsavedness) is a self-brought thing, because God won't evict you unless you don't pay the rent by having faith).

From this perspective, it almost seems like God created logic and physics in order to govern the Universe automatically, so that HE doesn't have to, and he can focus on something else (whatever that else might be, we as mortals are too limited in construction to begin to comprehend what that something else might be).

Anyway, I guess my original point was, having subjective experiences in a subjective world (whether you are subjected to automatic handling -- or "consequences" -- or divine intervention -- "miracles") seems to insist that both are possible.

In addition, Nature does not offer any objective evidence FOR God, but it also doesn't offer any objective evidence FOR non-God. Which means, despite the fact that you, as a logical positivist, demand complete coherency, reason, and logic, that doesn't mean that either case is not equally probable.

You, however, are dwelling on the "default" case. That because there is no OBJECTIVE evidence, the default (the concept of "God's existance" not even arising) must be assumed. That being said, this is how you handle subjective evidence:

There is no objective evidence that insists that subjective things are necessarily deterministic, or necessarily non-deterministic. So, you assume they are not, as the default case. Again, we see that, sticking with the default, is willingly "turning a blind eye" to possibility, simply because the possibility defies logic.

The concept of a being that can defy logic defies logic. That means, logic cannot describe the being. That being said, logic cannot help us understand such a being. If logic cannot help us understand God's essence, if logic DOES NOT APPLY, it seems reasonable to say, that you CANNOT logically assume a "default" base case, such as non-deity, because the universe (logically structured) was created by something beyond logic. Such logic as found in the universe (deduction, induction, logical positivism) is rendered unable to be applied to the concept of God, or the concept of that which is beyond-logic. Therefore, since one cannot logically assume a base case of non-God, we must always keep ourselves open to all ideas, without assuming anything as true to begin with (on a matter of logical truth vs. possible truth, since logic does not apply to beyond-logic possibilities, logic cannot be used to choose one or the other, since the possible truth is not governed by logic).

If you made it this far, congratulations. Grab some refreshments. This is intermission.

-----

Okay ... so, since logic does not apply to non-logical concepts, logic also does not apply to making a choice regarding logical subjectivity vs. divinely-caused subjectivity; the "scope" of the argument follows a sort of "denomenator" rule.

For example ... to subtract 2/x by 2/xy, you must first convert to the same denomenator. You would do this by adding y to top and bottom, to get 2y/xy and 2/xy. These can be added to get (2y-2)/xy. But, look at the result of the evaluation: it contains both x and y, even though one side only has x to start with.

If you substitute "logical subjection" for x, and "divine subjection" for y, you have to remember, that because beyond-logic CONTAINS logic (i.e. God, the unbound, created the Universe, which is bounded, within the unboundedness, and contained within), in order to compare both factors within the same terms, you have to "promote" the "bound-only" x factor into a "bound and unbound" xy factor, and logic cannot be applied to assume that a "bound only" factor IS ALWAYS going to be the default case (because it's simpler, in terms of x only and not x and y; the principal of parsimony, or Ockham's Razor, is mainly the method by which you choose the default case).

Does ANY of that make sense to you? I'm starting to lose track of it myself.

Anyway, my point is, when considering that which is beyond-logic in logical terms, you have to "promote" logical terms to a beyond-logic state, and because of that, you can't use logic and the principal of parsimony to deduce a default case.

NOW THEN ... the ultimate point of this entire "bound/logical subjective vs. unbound/beyond-logical subjective" thing, is to show that simply because there is no objective logical evidence doesn't mean that you can presume atheism as the default case (since beyond-logic applies, and the principal of parsimony (a logic-only construct) does not), to suggest that the simpler of the two should be assumed as true)

It means that saying "because there is no objective evidence" to justify a lack of belief can't apply to a belief that isn't purely logical.

So, you must consider both options, completely and pragmatically (without previous prejudice -- that is, forgetting all that you know, and starting from scratch), and you go with whichever one you choose; remember, one of the possibilities is, you have free will, so you can choose it, but other things will help you shape your choice, including divine subjectivity (divine experience), as experienced, or not experienced.

It really breaks down to, you can believe in the impossible, or you can believe in only the sensical, and neither choice can be considered more or less valid than the other for ANY reason, since the scope of the choice is beyond reason and reason does not apply. Your choice IS affected by subjective experiences. Therefore, subjective evidence MUST be taken in account when making a choice (to believe or not).

Which means, God has the power to subject you to feelings of the Almighty, the divine, but he doesn't have to subject you to them (so you might end up not believing in them).

This is the concept of original sin, and relates to omnibenevolence. God doesn't have to subject you into faith, and those who have sinned against him, have chosen to reject him, and for that, with our best interests in mind, he allows evil to affect the world, in order to show us WHY good is better than evil (through demonstration), so that we (with free will) can learn on our own, and be worthy of heaven.

We, as imperfect beings, are allowed subjection to sin, because we may one day see why sin is bad, and accept Jesus, and be worthy of acceptance into heaven. By accepting Jesus into us (and having faith, knowing that sin is bad, and repenting), we become worthy, and therefore, forgiven. It would be impossible to be worthy (accept Jesus) if one also does not desire to not sin.

It's the Refiner's Fire; God throws us impure lumps of coal into the fire, and though we get burned, through the heat and scorch, we are tempered into diamonds, which shine with a brilliance worthy of heaven and salvation. The fire of the Refiner's Fire, the fire which refines us and makes us worthy, IS sin. That is why sin is allowed in this world, even with an omnibenevolent God. Certainly, to call one omnibenevolent, you must have a "free" object which a being can be omnibenevolent to, otherwise its omnibenevolence is irrelevant. Since we have free will (even from a deterministic approach, we experience what is perceived as "free will"), God's omnibenevolence requires demonstrating upon us both sides of the story, and allowing us to choose either side, saving those that choose the right side, and allowing those that choose wrongly to stay in the Refiner's Fire until they come around.

Does THAT make sense? That's what I might say if I was a Christian.

Again, subjective evidence influences each person's individual decision, and thusly, one should not criticize such a decision, since subjective evidence DOES apply (as objective evidence is bound, and subjective is without bound, so you must promote objective logic into accepting subjective evidence for this case, since it involves beyond-logic).

Phew!

Bedtime!

Edit: [Insignia of the English Zealotry Syndicate]

2nd Edit: Kharakov ... do you love me more now? Lol! Libertine ... feel free to tear my guts apart here. What will you say?

 

The Christian mafia lol! Can I be the big boss?

No this actually isn’t Omnipotence. Omnipotence simply means possessing all-power in infinite quantity. Being all powerful does not mean that one can do anything. That’s a violation of the definition. Power can only do that which power can do, power cannot do “anything.” How much power does it take to make 2 + 2 equal 5? That of a stick of dynamite? The power of a M1A1 main battle tank? A nuclear bomb? Obviously power has nothing to do with things such as logic. Therefore God cannot do “anything.” In fact I’m really beginning to wonder just where this whole idea came from. I certainty don’t think that this came from Christians since the Bible even mentions some things which God cannot do. Hebrew 6:18, for example, says that God cannot lie. God is holy or morally perfect. A lie is moral imperfection. If God were to lie He would be contradicting His nature, therefore He cannot lie. Sounds like that is grounded in logic does it not?

I guess this can be considered correct, although I think the way you intend it is incorrect.

That’s a category error. We are talking about the nature of God, not man.

No He didn‘t create them, rather they are a reflection of His character and nature. And as the Bible points out, He cannot violate His own nature.

Which is the same as saying that He is immaterial. But even then, being beyond time isn’t essential to being immaterial.

Or rather His character--His holiness--defines what is good. But you’re forgetting other attributes involved in holiness. Attributes such as justice, judgment, and wrath.

Why would He necessarily have to transcend the bounds of nature? Nothing in the attributes you gave suggest this. The only way omnipresence entails God transcending nature is if you first posit a realm that exist outside of nature. Otherwise to be omnipresence only means to be present everywhere in nature.

What does it mean to objectively exist? And how do you know that “nature” objectively exist?

What is “objective evidence,” i.e, what constitutes “objective evidence,” and why can it only be found in nature?

You mean examples of things which do not have physical properties? How about the laws, such as logic? How about concepts such as the concept of a circle? How about thoughts? How about propositions? How about subjective 1st person experience? Take your pick.

What does it mean to “reasonable”?

Right…ok

But that doesn’t follow. We could say that God is all-knowing and that He therefore knows all that will happen, but it doesn’t follow from Him simply knowing to Him causing. These are two completely different things. If you want to argue that because He is all powerful He must somehow control all things, then this is something different as well. It is one thing to say that God is omnipotent, but it is another thing entirely to say that He controls everything. For it is not necessary that one be omnipotent in order to control everything, nor is it necessary for one who is omnipotent to control everything. Perhaps God only created the universe and that’s it. Maybe after creation he retreated back into his residence, never to interact with the universe again.You must show how you’ve arrived at the conclusion that God controls everything. Why do you think that He must manipulate all things in such a way that you have no freewill? Could it be perhaps, that God created you as a free agent capable of sustaining within yourself the ability to cause events independent of antecedent causes? That you have a sort of freewill even though God foreknows what you will do?

First off, not all Christians believe in freewill, nor is this essential to Christianity. Many within the Calvinist school of thought (of which I fall under for the most part, although I do believe we have freewill to an extent) reject to the notion of freewill. Second, I will maintain that given your world view, freewill isn’t even possible. Given that any effect must depend on prior event causes which regress far back into the past. You don’t think or act the way you do because you want to, but rather because you were caused to, and that cause was caused by a cause before it, and that by a cause before it, and so on back to the beginning of time. The causes of your thoughts and actions regress back to causes that are before your existence, and ultimately out of your control. So for you, I think this whole freewill business is a nonissue.

Why not, how, in your opinion, should He act?

Or, how does having these qualities preclude Him from being this way?

And…?

God does not take up space. If He did He would not be immaterial, but physical since extension into space is a physical property.

And thats takes us right back to the God and Proof thread see ya there

 

Enough to violate the laws of physics (which God transcends, right?)

Does it? Or, is power, as we know it, limited; is human power, mortal power, limited to a certain kind of power, and there is another divine power that God has?

Problem is, God did lie. Several times.

"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets." - 2 Chronicles 18:22

"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet." - Ezekiel 14:9

"O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived." - Jeremiah 20:7

He didn't create logic?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." - Genesis 1:1

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." - Genesis 1:2

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." - Genesis 1:3

"And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness." - Genesis 1:4

So ... he didn't create all of the things which he said he created? When he created the Earth, it was *without form,* which obviously means without bound, and then he applied boundary to it. Boundary meaning logic, physics, restriction.

So, justice, judgment, and wrath are all good things?

If God's nature defines what is good, and God is wrathful and judgmental, and then Jesus comes down to Earth, claims to be God, and says that wrath and judgment are sin ... what does that say about God?

Because, in the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth.

This is the very beginning here, Nature doesn't even exist yet. He obviously must transcend that which He can create.

It can be proven. I.e., it is not subjective, you can change it, alter it, revisit it, experiment on it, etc.

 

Thanks for the arguments on both sides, Hikaru.

Jatom, to be fair now, I have presented a "claim" and you have presented your weak "rebuttal". I found it to be a lot of assuming, manipulating terminology to fit your little box and typical apologetic rhetoric. However, you have introduced the idea that "God" cannot do ANYthing (but much like C.S. Lewis' "anything that can be done") which would lead one to believe that "God" is bound by logic and that some things were NOT created by "God" and that "God" may be just sitting back and not intervene in the world--WOW! Are you Christian or a Deist?

Now, what is your evidence of the EXISTENCE of this character you call "God" in the first place? Let's hear you defend your faith. Why do you believe what you believe?

It is time for the claimant to finally bear the burden of proof (which was, ironically, his to begin with).

I will respond to your "rebuttal" later on. But, I am not going to defend a "non-belief" system as if it is a religion, because I could just sit quitely and it would be a defense. I could merely say, "I don't believe it." That is my defense. I have no faith to defend.

However, you are called to defend your faith. So, present your case...

PS. Either your "God" knows, controls, wills all things or "he" does not. You never tackled these issues head-on. Why not?

 

Should make it easier for you to dismiss it. Right?

 

That's funny. As a layman, an "alien" here I just gathered that the dictionary was correct when it described omnipotence as "all-powerful; possessing infinite ability" which ironically lead me to infinite "having no boundaries or limits." So, "God" CAN'T do ANYthing? He can, as C.S. Lewis put it, only do "that which can be done". That would mean that he couldn't do the impossible, right?

So, "his nature" is perfect. Why would a perfect, all-knowing being experience humanistic emotions? You failed to confront this earlier. And what do you mean "morally perfect", if not those things we as humans describe as moral? Kindness, Mercy, Love, Compassion, Humility are all traits we describe as moral, right? You added "justice". What do you mean by that? Retributive vengeance? (Which is, ironically, going on a lot in the Bible) You mentioned "wrath". Ok, I am a little confused here--since when is WRATH (one of the deadly sins) a virtue of perfection?

You talk about "power" as one-dimensional. Hasn't "God" the ability to change his own creation? And if this "perfection" is "his nature" and he is everywhere, all the time, and in control of everything, wouldn't this perfection be everywhere, all the time, and in control? However, you say "God" is immaterial and then use "ideas" and "concepts" as examples. So, is "god" nothing but a mere "concept" or "idea"?

The attributes of "all-power" leads one to conclude that all power that exists would be in "his" control, would it not? And "all-knowing" would lead that what ever he "knows" will happen...will happen--no excuses. But, of course, he "knows" it because he "controls" it and nothing happens "lest he wills it".

I just love the Bible and these attributes. They are the very rope with which the theist hangs himself and his gobbledy-gook, square-peg-in-a-round-hole apologetic arguments each and every time.

 

God didn’t lie here but if He did, what was the lie?

God did not lie here either. But if He he did what was the lie?

The Hebrew word here (Pathah) is probably better translated persuade or entice. Set aside from that the section you're quoting is poetry.

He only created logic here if you happen to believe that logic is a contingency of the universe. And if you believe that I would really like to hear your argument!

“Form” and “void” here used together forms an expression and simply signifies waste and emptiness. But even when “form” (tohuw) is taken by itself, it is offentimes synonymous with non-existence, and nothingness (Isaiah 40:17; Isaiah 40:23; Isaiah 49:4).

At anyrate, Jesus is often considered the inbodiment of Wisdom. In fact the “Word” (logos) spoken of in John 1:1-2;14 has to do with a unifying and governing principle. And eventhough this logos is not synmonous with “logic” is does have a lot to do with it. And this logos is said to have already existened in the beginning.

Not by themselves they aren't, but they are essential to God's holiness

Where does He say this, and what is the context?

LOL, well if you use the Bible I guess so, however Libertine’s argument was based in the attributes he mentioned.

Cool! But I asked what constitutes objective evidence, and why it can only be founding nature.

 

"Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets."

"And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

Deception is lying.

lie (2)

n.

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v.

1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.

The lord decieved that prophet. Lying is the method through which deceit is instilled willingfully. Lying is, presenting false information with the intention of deceiving.

Hence, God did lie.

And I answered you.

Anything that can be proven, tested, validated, or derived, and thusly is not subjective, must be objective.

It can only be found in Nature, because only Nature (as far as we understand) contains logic that allows objectivity to apply.

 

I think it will be interesting to see how Jatom Lane Craig will squirm his way out of the "Lie That God Told".

I so don't miss those ol' days of deceiving myself to deceive others.

Btw, Happy Birthday, HZ!

 

Jeremiah 20:7 ~ Some translations say Enticed. Depends which you use.
2 Chronicles 18:22 ~ Did God lie or the Spirit God placed on the Prophets?
Ezekiel 14:9 ~ Same as Jeremiah, depends on the translation.

Lets not get into word games on something like this to trival and everyone can always say "But this means this in such and such" etc etc we've all heard and read simillar arguments.

 

Fuck the "translations".

Let's just go to the ORIGINAL TEXT: the Hebrew and settle this.

The term used in these passages comes from the Hebrew "hathal" meaning to "cheat; deal deceitfully".

Dealing deceitfully? Cheating?

Hmmm....sounds a hell of a lot like... LYING!

But, I guess the Modern Versions have to water it down with their apologetic and DECEITFUL language.

Fucking apolgetics. This shit is worse than George W. Bush's spin doctors. Oh wait! They are the same thing!

 

Hathal also means to Mock

And mocking sounds nothing like LYING to me

 

Your also not using the correct word for that verse .

Jer 20:7 Isn't using Hathal, its Pahtah

1. to be spacious, be open, be wide
   1. (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
   2. (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
2. to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
   1. (Qal)
      1. to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
      2. to be enticed, be deceived
   2. (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
   3. (Piel)
      1. to persuade, seduce
      2. to deceive
   4. (Pual)
      1. to be persuaded
      2. to be deceived

Eze 14:9 and is the same thing. I won't touch on 2 chron because it didn't say God directly "decived" or "lied" to anyone.

 

more definetions for Pahtah.

pathah
paw-thaw'
a primitive root; to open, i.e. be (causatively, make) roomy; usually figuratively (in a mental or moral sense) to be (causatively, make) simple or (in a sinister way) delude:--allure, deceive, enlarge, entice, flatter, persuade, silly (one).

 

also some verses that use the word Hathal 02048 hathal JOB-13:9 mock

02048 hathal JUD-16:10 mocked
02048 hathal JUD-16:13 mocked
02048 hathal JUD-16:15 mocked
02048 hathal 1KI-18:27 mocked
02048 hathal JOB-13:9 mocketh
02048 hathal EXO-8:29 deceitfully
02048 hathal JER-9:5 deceive
02048 hathal GEN-31:7 deceived
02048 hathal ISA-44:20 deceived

Now I read these Verses in my bible, and unless I skiped one it dosen't talk about God lying to anyone .