Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti God argument

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is an argument I concocted up a while ago, I've just been fiddling around with it though, and now I'm wondering what people think of it. It is an address of natural evil specifically. That is, huntington's, cystic fibrosis, hurricanes, malaria, earthquakes, etc.

(Predicates are that God is Judeo-Christian, with characteristics including, but not limited to, omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence, omnipresence)

(P1) God is completely good, infering not evil. Or, he loves human beings.
(P2) God is completely powerful, inferring no weakness; no lack of power; no lack of power in earthly domain.
(P3) The World is inefficient
(P4) God created the world/everything
(L1) If God is all powerful, then he does not require to satisfy any of his own needs from a party other than himself.
(L2) If God is all powerful, he does not create inefficient objects
(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency
(L4) If God is all powerful, he can make perfection. As per L1, God does not require imperfection. As per L1, he would not require inefficiency. As per P4, God created everything, therefore does not allow inefficiency to remain.
(L5) The world contains inefficiencies, which contradicts L4 substantially.
(C1) God's nature is conflicting with the current makeup of existence
(C2) Either God is nonexistent, or is lacking his most defining properties.

Rebuttals to common arguments:
Free will is irrelevant, as I refer to matters that do not exist within free will. If people insist that free will somehow created cystic fibrosis, as I am referring to inefficiencies in general, ruminant animals, homosexual animals, and general animal disadvantages are inefficient and independent of sin.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 2:57:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sorry, for the double-post, but I think I forgot to mention that I'm looking for criticisms/comments/queries. Also, I realise the argument is slightly inefficient, and if anyone wants any further explanation on any of the points, simply ask.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:05:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe the first problem I see is a semantic.
Most Thiestic theologians would phrase God to be maximally supreme rather than today's paradoxical view of omni.

By saying God is "all" you are then saying he must do "all".

Maximally supreme is defined as supreme with no necessity of "all".

Swap that out in your formula and see how it works.
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:40:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Or better yet:

1) Whatever has contradictory properties cannot exist.
2) God has contradictory properties.
3) Therefore, god does not and cannoT exist.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:41:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:05:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I believe the first problem I see is a semantic.
Most Thiestic theologians would phrase God to be maximally supreme rather than today's paradoxical view of omni.

By saying God is "all" you are then saying he must do "all".

Maximally supreme is defined as supreme with no necessity of "all".

Swap that out in your formula and see how it works.

Add predicates: Perfection is achievable; perfection is something that can exist (whether humans can reach it is irrelevant); it is within the maximal scope.

(P1) God is completely good, infering not evil. Or, he loves human beings.
(P2) God is maximally powerful, inferring no weakness; no lack of power; no lack of power in earthly domain.
(P3) The World is inefficient
(P4) God created the world/everything
(L1) If God is maximally powerful, then he does not require to satisfy any of his own needs from a party other than himself.
(L2) If God is maximally powerful, he does not unwillingly create inefficient objects.
For example, a perfect carpenter is one who can makes the perfect chair systematically (as opposed to by chance).
(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency
(L4) If God is maximally powerful, he can make perfection. As per L1, God does not require imperfection. As per L1, he would not require inefficiency. As per P4, God created everything, therefore does not allow inefficiency to remain.
(L5) The world contains inefficiencies, which contradicts L4 substantially.
(C1) God's nature is conflicting with the current makeup of existence
(C2) Either God is nonexistent, or is lacking his most defining properties.

Referring to maximal supremity and "omnipotence", I cannot personally see a flaw in the substitution (that is, a flaw solved or created from the change of the terms). However, it does bring up the predicate (although commonly accepted) that perfection is achievable. Some Aquinas followers would disagree, saying it can be only achieved in the next world. I reply that it is not humans that are to make perfection, just a deity, or specifically, God.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:40:04 PM, kohai wrote:
Or better yet:

1) Whatever has contradictory properties cannot exist.
2) God has contradictory properties.
3) Therefore, god does not and cannoT exist.

Premise 2 is the point of discussion here.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
kohai
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 4:48:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:45:19 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:40:04 PM, kohai wrote:
Or better yet:

1) Whatever has contradictory properties cannot exist.
2) God has contradictory properties.
3) Therefore, god does not and cannoT exist.

Premise 2 is the point of discussion here.

Correct. And I will utilize point 2 in my current debate.
1) Whatever has contradictory attributes does not exist.
2) The Biblical God has contradictory attributes.
3) Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:11:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Maximally supreme does not indicate contradictory properties.

Additionally for your formula you are still causing a definitional problem not a problem in practice.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 5:26:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:41:58 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/10/2011 4:05:02 PM, Gileandos wrote:
I believe the first problem I see is a semantic.
Most Thiestic theologians would phrase God to be maximally supreme rather than today's paradoxical view of omni.

By saying God is "all" you are then saying he must do "all".

Maximally supreme is defined as supreme with no necessity of "all".

Swap that out in your formula and see how it works.

Add predicates: Perfection is achievable; perfection is something that can exist (whether humans can reach it is irrelevant); it is within the maximal scope.

(P1) God is completely good, infering not evil. Or, he loves human beings.
I love my children yet if my child turned out to be a murderer my actions toward executing him would be considered "not loving" by you?
(P2) God is maximally powerful, inferring no weakness; no lack of power; no lack of power in earthly domain.
Maximum would not indicate such a definition as absolute. Nothing in a contradictory sense.
(P3) The World is inefficient
Assumption. It could be incredibly efficient for its intended purpose.
(P4) God created the world/everything
Creating something does not necessitate control.
(L1) If God is maximally powerful, then he does not require to satisfy any of his own needs from a party other than himself.
Again assumption that is how God should be defined.
(L2) If God is maximally powerful, he does not unwillingly create inefficient objects.
For example, a perfect carpenter is one who can makes the perfect chair systematically (as opposed to by chance).
Again assumption as in P3. Unless his desire is to create a chair that causes people to get out of the resturant faster so they can sell more food by freeing up the seat... etc.
Again you are assuming your purpose is the only purpose. You are assuming God must create a chair that would be comfortable etc...

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency
Again assumption.

(L4) If God is maximally powerful, he can make perfection. As per L1, God does not require imperfection. As per L1, he would not require inefficiency. As per P4, God created everything, therefore does not allow inefficiency to remain.
Again built upon a flawed premise of assumption

(L5) The world contains inefficiencies, which contradicts L4 substantially.
assumption.

(C1) God's nature is conflicting with the current makeup of existence
assumption.

(C2) Either God is nonexistent, or is lacking his most defining properties.
As you personally try to define them. Again a maximally supreme being does not indicate any properties that contradict itself.


Referring to maximal supremity and "omnipotence", I cannot personally see a flaw in the substitution (that is, a flaw solved or created from the change of the terms). However, it does bring up the predicate (although commonly accepted) that perfection is achievable. Some Aquinas followers would disagree, saying it can be only achieved in the next world. I reply that it is not humans that are to make perfection, just a deity, or specifically, God.

The reason we point to a difference is to help you understand that you have a definition problem not that God has a practical problem.

You are putting the concept of God in a presumptive box rather than allowing God to define himself to you. Hence the theologians word usage to try and teach such concepts to people who do not get it.

If you cannot see how the words have different meanings then you are creating the definitions. It is a practical lesson to teach you that you do not define words but that words are defined in the context of the authors.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:39:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency

You've hidden the premise that efficiency is morally good... which is by no means a given at all.

Take, for example, prevention of the spread of an infectious disease. Maybe it starts in one hospital and quarantine methods aren't working.... carpetbombing the area to kill the disease (i.e. human culling, as it were) and prevent the infection is highly efficient, but most probably would not describe it as morally good.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 6:54:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 6:39:58 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency

You've hidden the premise that efficiency is morally good... which is by no means a given at all.

Take, for example, prevention of the spread of an infectious disease. Maybe it starts in one hospital and quarantine methods aren't working.... carpetbombing the area to kill the disease (i.e. human culling, as it were) and prevent the infection is highly efficient, but most probably would not describe it as morally good.

Coming up with an extraordinary circumstance again when the point holds that in normal everyday circumstances 99% of the time it holds and god would have to fail time and time again.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 7:11:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem with these arguments is that many Theists will simply move the goal posts or ignore you.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 8:14:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 6:54:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:39:58 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency

You've hidden the premise that efficiency is morally good... which is by no means a given at all.

Take, for example, prevention of the spread of an infectious disease. Maybe it starts in one hospital and quarantine methods aren't working.... carpetbombing the area to kill the disease (i.e. human culling, as it were) and prevent the infection is highly efficient, but most probably would not describe it as morally good.

Coming up with an extraordinary circumstance again when the point holds that in normal everyday circumstances 99% of the time it holds and god would have to fail time and time again.

Notwithstanding that the above isn't actually a sentence... Since Bozo is apparently too dumb to see how this would apply to normal circumstances, I'll make one of those special just for him.

For some crimes, it is highly efficient to prevent recidivism by means of execution. But there many, many people who argue against this on moral grounds.

In healthcare - it would be a far more efficient use of resources to let old sick persons (or young vegetables) simply die. But there are few who would describe this as moral.

I can probably come up with more, but I figured I'd give it the bare minimum. Unlike Bozo, my bare minimum is actually productive.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 10:35:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is an argument I concocted up a while ago, I've just been fiddling around with it though, and now I'm wondering what people think of it. It is an address of natural evil specifically. That is, huntington's, cystic fibrosis, hurricanes, malaria, earthquakes, etc.

(Predicates are that God is Judeo-Christian, with characteristics including, but not limited to, omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence, omnipresence)

(P1) God is completely good, infering not evil. Or, he loves human beings.
(P2) God is completely powerful, inferring no weakness; no lack of power; no lack of power in earthly domain.
(P3) The World is inefficient
(P4) God created the world/everything
(L1) If God is all powerful, then he does not require to satisfy any of his own needs from a party other than himself.

I don't believe that God is all powerful I will reply nevertheless.

You would need to know the nature of God for this, which is impossible to understand.

I don't see any reasons why an all powerful God wouldn't want to create humans to satisfy Him. You seem to lay the false premise that God needed to create us. He didn't need to, He wanted too. Again Gods nature is in-understandable so we can't fully discuss why God would want to create us.

(L2) If God is all powerful, he does not create inefficient objects
(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency
(L4) If God is all powerful, he can make perfection. As per L1, God does not require imperfection. As per L1, he would not require inefficiency. As per P4, God created everything, therefore does not allow inefficiency to remain.
(L5) The world contains inefficiencies, which contradicts L4 substantially.
(C1) God's nature is conflicting with the current makeup of existence
(C2) Either God is nonexistent, or is lacking his most defining properties.

Which is one reason why I don't believe God is all powerful.

You have succeeded in arguing that an all powerful God is contradictory or could not exist. But that's only what some people believe.

Rebuttals to common arguments:
Free will is irrelevant, as I refer to matters that do not exist within free will. If people insist that free will somehow created cystic fibrosis, as I am referring to inefficiencies in general, ruminant animals, homosexual animals, and general animal disadvantages are inefficient and independent of sin.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2011 10:45:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 4:40:04 PM, kohai wrote:
Or better yet:

1) Whatever has contradictory properties cannot exist.
2) God has contradictory properties.
3) Therefore, god does not and cannoT exist.

No defense?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 12:17:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 8:14:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:54:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:39:58 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency

You've hidden the premise that efficiency is morally good... which is by no means a given at all.

Take, for example, prevention of the spread of an infectious disease. Maybe it starts in one hospital and quarantine methods aren't working.... carpetbombing the area to kill the disease (i.e. human culling, as it were) and prevent the infection is highly efficient, but most probably would not describe it as morally good.

Coming up with an extraordinary circumstance again when the point holds that in normal everyday circumstances 99% of the time it holds and god would have to fail time and time again.

Notwithstanding that the above isn't actually a sentence... Since Bozo is apparently too dumb to see how this would apply to normal circumstances, I'll make one of those special just for him.

For some crimes, it is highly efficient to prevent recidivism by means of execution. But there many, many people who argue against this on moral grounds.

In healthcare - it would be a far more efficient use of resources to let old sick persons (or young vegetables) simply die. But there are few who would describe this as moral.

I can probably come up with more, but I figured I'd give it the bare minimum. Unlike Bozo, my bare minimum is actually productive.

productive at making you look like a retard. There are far fewer people who believe it is actually a viable option for a doctor to just let a child die of cancer. Strange how you have to come up with out there, ridiculous examples to satisfy your belief in god. No, tarzan I don't believe you are intelligent enough to be an atheist, not for one minute.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 2:50:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 12:17:14 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:14:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:54:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:39:58 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency

You've hidden the premise that efficiency is morally good... which is by no means a given at all.

Take, for example, prevention of the spread of an infectious disease. Maybe it starts in one hospital and quarantine methods aren't working.... carpetbombing the area to kill the disease (i.e. human culling, as it were) and prevent the infection is highly efficient, but most probably would not describe it as morally good.

Coming up with an extraordinary circumstance again when the point holds that in normal everyday circumstances 99% of the time it holds and god would have to fail time and time again.

Notwithstanding that the above isn't actually a sentence... Since Bozo is apparently too dumb to see how this would apply to normal circumstances, I'll make one of those special just for him.

For some crimes, it is highly efficient to prevent recidivism by means of execution. But there many, many people who argue against this on moral grounds.

In healthcare - it would be a far more efficient use of resources to let old sick persons (or young vegetables) simply die. But there are few who would describe this as moral.

I can probably come up with more, but I figured I'd give it the bare minimum. Unlike Bozo, my bare minimum is actually productive.

productive at making you look like a retard. There are far fewer people who believe it is actually a viable option for a doctor to just let a child die of cancer.

Herp derp moron - that just illustrates my point that efficient does not mean good.

Strange how you have to come up with out there, ridiculous examples to satisfy your belief in god. No, tarzan I don't believe you are intelligent enough to be an atheist, not for one minute.

Which also illustrates the point that many of us have been (successfully) making for about a month now - that you are a complete and utter dolt.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 8:09:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 2:50:56 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/11/2011 12:17:14 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 8:14:21 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:54:13 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/10/2011 6:39:58 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency

You've hidden the premise that efficiency is morally good... which is by no means a given at all.

Take, for example, prevention of the spread of an infectious disease. Maybe it starts in one hospital and quarantine methods aren't working.... carpetbombing the area to kill the disease (i.e. human culling, as it were) and prevent the infection is highly efficient, but most probably would not describe it as morally good.

Coming up with an extraordinary circumstance again when the point holds that in normal everyday circumstances 99% of the time it holds and god would have to fail time and time again.

Notwithstanding that the above isn't actually a sentence... Since Bozo is apparently too dumb to see how this would apply to normal circumstances, I'll make one of those special just for him.

For some crimes, it is highly efficient to prevent recidivism by means of execution. But there many, many people who argue against this on moral grounds.

In healthcare - it would be a far more efficient use of resources to let old sick persons (or young vegetables) simply die. But there are few who would describe this as moral.

I can probably come up with more, but I figured I'd give it the bare minimum. Unlike Bozo, my bare minimum is actually productive.

productive at making you look like a retard. There are far fewer people who believe it is actually a viable option for a doctor to just let a child die of cancer.

Herp derp moron - that just illustrates my point that efficient does not mean good.

Strange how you have to come up with out there, ridiculous examples to satisfy your belief in god. No, tarzan I don't believe you are intelligent enough to be an atheist, not for one minute.

Which also illustrates the point that many of us have been (successfully) making for about a month now - that you are a complete and utter dolt.

Letting children die is not an efficient design, and the point of the argument holds despite if you can think of 1 stupid example that isn't even a good comparison as the god we are referring too is able to do any option possible, compared to a limited god.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 11:39:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/10/2011 2:56:25 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
This is an argument I concocted up a while ago, I've just been fiddling around with it though, and now I'm wondering what people think of it. It is an address of natural evil specifically. That is, huntington's, cystic fibrosis, hurricanes, malaria, earthquakes, etc.

(Predicates are that God is Judeo-Christian, with characteristics including, but not limited to, omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence, transcendence, omnipresence)

(P1) God is completely good, infering not evil. Or, he loves human beings.
(P2) God is completely powerful, inferring no weakness; no lack of power; no lack of power in earthly domain.
(P3) The World is inefficient
(P4) God created the world/everything
(L1) If God is all powerful, then he does not require to satisfy any of his own needs from a party other than himself.
(L2) If God is all powerful, he does not create inefficient objects
(L3) If God is completely good, he would not allow inefficiency
(L4) If God is all powerful, he can make perfection. As per L1, God does not require imperfection. As per L1, he would not require inefficiency. As per P4, God created everything, therefore does not allow inefficiency to remain.
(L5) The world contains inefficiencies, which contradicts L4 substantially.
(C1) God's nature is conflicting with the current makeup of existence
(C2) Either God is nonexistent, or is lacking his most defining properties.

Rebuttals to common arguments:
Free will is irrelevant, as I refer to matters that do not exist within free will. If people insist that free will somehow created cystic fibrosis, as I am referring to inefficiencies in general, ruminant animals, homosexual animals, and general animal disadvantages are inefficient and independent of sin.

What an origional argument.
Like no one has ever asked why bad things happen to good people.
I really don't understand why people must make old simple questions complex and "new".
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
truthseeker613
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 11:41:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are those who give various answers, but my approach is this:
<a>http://www.debate.org...
http://www.nydailynews.com...

royalpaladin: I'd rather support people who kill spies than a nation that organizes assassination squads (Kidon) to illegally enter into other nations and kill anybody who is not a Zionist. Who knows when they'll kill me for the crime of not supporting Israel?

Koopin: LOL! I just imagine Royal sitting in here apartment at night, when suddenly she hears a man outside speaking Hebrew as sh
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 12:41:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 8:09:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Letting children die is not an efficient design, and the point of the argument holds despite if you can think of 1 stupid example that isn't even a good comparison as the god we are referring too is able to do any option possible, compared to a limited god.

Really? NOT wasting resources saving people who will die anyway is not efficient? I'm curious what you think efficient is then?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 2:53:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 12:41:33 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/11/2011 8:09:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Letting children die is not an efficient design, and the point of the argument holds despite if you can think of 1 stupid example that isn't even a good comparison as the god we are referring too is able to do any option possible, compared to a limited god.

Really? NOT wasting resources saving people who will die anyway is not efficient? I'm curious what you think efficient is then?

Really, just read what you wrote, you can't really be that stupid.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 3:30:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 2:53:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/11/2011 12:41:33 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/11/2011 8:09:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Letting children die is not an efficient design, and the point of the argument holds despite if you can think of 1 stupid example that isn't even a good comparison as the god we are referring too is able to do any option possible, compared to a limited god.

Really? NOT wasting resources saving people who will die anyway is not efficient? I'm curious what you think efficient is then?

Really, just read what you wrote, you can't really be that stupid.

Rule 1 (Izbo10 logic): When you can't answer a question or respond to an argument very well, try to use personal insults to hide such inadequancy....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 3:51:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 2:53:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/11/2011 12:41:33 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/11/2011 8:09:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Letting children die is not an efficient design, and the point of the argument holds despite if you can think of 1 stupid example that isn't even a good comparison as the god we are referring too is able to do any option possible, compared to a limited god.

Really? NOT wasting resources saving people who will die anyway is not efficient? I'm curious what you think efficient is then?

Really, just read what you wrote, you can't really be that stupid.

Wake up and use your brain... what do you think efficiency is? Do you think that efficiency has any moral import whatsoever?

I'll just wait for your addled little mind to catch up... maybe then you can rejoin the conversation.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 3:52:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:41:21 AM, truthseeker613 wrote:
There are those who give various answers, but my approach is this:
<a>http://www.debate.org...

addressed :P
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 4:52:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 3:51:11 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/11/2011 2:53:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/11/2011 12:41:33 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 10/11/2011 8:09:51 AM, izbo10 wrote:

Letting children die is not an efficient design, and the point of the argument holds despite if you can think of 1 stupid example that isn't even a good comparison as the god we are referring too is able to do any option possible, compared to a limited god.

Really? NOT wasting resources saving people who will die anyway is not efficient? I'm curious what you think efficient is then?

Really, just read what you wrote, you can't really be that stupid.

Wake up and use your brain... what do you think efficiency is? Do you think that efficiency has any moral import whatsoever?

I'll just wait for your addled little mind to catch up... maybe then you can rejoin the conversation.

I see the problem you aren't up to speed on what this conversation is even about, efficiency needs a point of reference and if you are creating a world with the intent of creating it for beings you love, then yes efficiency is very relevant. Learn something.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 5:41:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 4:52:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:

Wake up and use your brain... what do you think efficiency is? Do you think that efficiency has any moral import whatsoever?

I'll just wait for your addled little mind to catch up... maybe then you can rejoin the conversation.

I see the problem you aren't up to speed on what this conversation is even about, efficiency needs a point of reference and if you are creating a world with the intent of creating it for beings you love, then yes efficiency is very relevant. Learn something.

Actually, it was Kinesis who said something about efficiency being relevant - not me. Learn to read.

Anyway, what do you think efficiency is? In your own words... what is it? Because I'm curious what you think it is if you think that NOT wasting resources is NOT efficient...