Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem with the PoE

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 8:43:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Because God is defined a certain way such as being morally perfect. Being a dick contradicts being morally perfect thus God by THAT definition doesn't exist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.
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
10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...
"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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.
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
10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?
"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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?

Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
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.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:36:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All the omnibenevolent sh!t is a load of BS. Like the OP said, read the bible. That ignored, God gave us free will. If he didn't allow mistakes and suffering, then we wouldn't have free will.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:39:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:36:06 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
All the omnibenevolent sh!t is a load of BS. Like the OP said, read the bible. That ignored, God gave us free will. If he didn't allow mistakes and suffering, then we wouldn't have free will.

so that whole concept of heaven is bs right?
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
10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...
"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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
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.
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:46:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:39:47 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:36:06 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
All the omnibenevolent sh!t is a load of BS. Like the OP said, read the bible. That ignored, God gave us free will. If he didn't allow mistakes and suffering, then we wouldn't have free will.

so that whole concept of heaven is bs right?

What does heaven have to do with God's actions in response to our collective behavior in this life?
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:49:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:46:56 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:47 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:36:06 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
All the omnibenevolent sh!t is a load of BS. Like the OP said, read the bible. That ignored, God gave us free will. If he didn't allow mistakes and suffering, then we wouldn't have free will.

so that whole concept of heaven is bs right?

What does heaven have to do with God's actions in response to our collective behavior in this life?

well if heaven exists, it is a place without suffering an mistakes, so therefore either we have no free will there, or get this suffering and mistakes are not a prerequisite for free will when we have a loving god, and all it is is a bs excuse, that makes you feel good as long as you don't think about it for the whopping 5 seconds it takes to come up with this paradox.
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.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 9:57:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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
10/28/2011 10:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.

Oh I see, Izbo10, perhaps clarifying your comment would do a great service to the readers...they do not have to decipher your works with a perspicacious eye.
"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
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:15:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.

Oh I see, Izbo10, perhaps clarifying your comment would do a great service to the readers...they do not have to decipher your works with a perspicacious eye.

anyone with an iq above 1 would figure that out, guess I should know my audience better. You certainly don't meet that criteria.
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
10/28/2011 10:19:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:15:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.

Oh I see, Izbo10, perhaps clarifying your comment would do a great service to the readers...they do not have to decipher your works with a perspicacious eye.

anyone with an iq above 1 would figure that out, guess I should know my audience better. You certainly don't meet that criteria.

Interesting...a bunch of jangled words searching through the field for an idea.
"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
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:44:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:36:06 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
All the omnibenevolent sh!t is a load of BS. Like the OP said, read the bible. That ignored, God gave us free will. If he didn't allow mistakes and suffering, then we wouldn't have free will.

It depends on how you define free will. Obviously God if he exists placed numerous restrictions on our abilities i.e. we cannot breathe underwater, a large amount of our behavior is now being shown to be caused not by free choice but by things such as genetics, conditioning, etc. Also, there is also the problem of heaven as Izbo pointed out. If Heaven is indeed a perfect place devoid of suffering, than God must change basic human nature(thus depriving us of free will), which then becomes a self-refuting argument on it's own terms.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2011 10:46:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God isn't omnibenevolent.

God is all good, and this is not in the traditional moral sense.

God is good in that God is right, true. God's law is the way things are. Whether or not you accept it is irrelevant. This is the way things are.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 1:43:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

God is defined as the omni being, the problem of evil in my opinion shows us that God defined as such can't exist.

Of course the problem is what prat defined God in such a way, and why?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 1:47:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:15:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.

Oh I see, Izbo10, perhaps clarifying your comment would do a great service to the readers...they do not have to decipher your works with a perspicacious eye.

He is the greatest philosopher that has ever lived, he does not need to explain himself to anyone... so really we don't actually ever need to reply to him or even acknowledge his presence. We should just passively allow his wisdom to rain down on us like the stream of a piss from a drunk tramp onto a dead dog.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2011 8:09:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/29/2011 1:47:53 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:15:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.

Oh I see, Izbo10, perhaps clarifying your comment would do a great service to the readers...they do not have to decipher your works with a perspicacious eye.

He is the greatest philosopher that has ever lived, he does not need to explain himself to anyone... so really we don't actually ever need to reply to him or even acknowledge his presence. We should just passively allow his wisdom to rain down on us like the stream of a piss from a drunk tramp onto a dead dog.

I know you guys are fuckin retards but this is simple logic and should be able to be grasped by the genera public, so please move on as you are really too retarded to grasp that 1+1=2.
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.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 8:14:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

Problem of Evil doesn't disprove God, it shows that, if a god exists, it cannot exist and be omnipotent, omniscient, AND omnibenevolent. That one or more of those must be false.
lotus_flower
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 9:06:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 10:17:26 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 10:15:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:44:40 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:57 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:35:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:31:34 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:29:36 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:20:09 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:19:31 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

I have always said the problem of evil destroys the god christians describe, yet leaves the biblical god standing.

And I'm sure science would probably destroy the god of the Hebrews and Bible...Izbo10...

yes it does as does a historical look at the way the bible came to be.

Okay..and what of the Deist god?


Interesting, but that whole burden of proof thing is a b!tch.
Asking questions=/=assigning a burden of proof...
Here we go again...

If you weren't such a fvcking idiot you would have realized that i meant for deists the burden of proof thing is a b!tch.

Oh I see, Izbo10, perhaps clarifying your comment would do a great service to the readers...they do not have to decipher your works with a perspicacious eye.

anyone with an iq above 1 would figure that out, guess I should know my audience better. You certainly don't meet that criteria.

in Man-is-good's defense, I sometimes find your comments to be hard to understand, because you never punctuate correctly, and you type like a 12 year old.
"Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."
- Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
*******************************************************
http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 2:39:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 8:37:10 PM, Wnope wrote:
I've always had a rather large problem with the argument "if god exists, why doesn't he do something about suffering?"

Some people act like this proves god cannot exist.

At most, it only proves that God can be a total d!ck at times.

People like to bring up the term "omnibenevolent" which I also find incredible. How can you have read the Old and New Testament and come up with the conclusion "if god exists, he wouldn't let bad things happen." You think the Philistine's liked being sacked?Egyptians first born? Possibly billions killed in a flood JUST because God thought humans weren't behaving well.

So how, exactly do you go from "god is a d!ck" to "god doesn't exist?"

It's a "ought-is" problem as opposed to "is-ought."

Is doesn't try to prove that there is no god. It only proves that there is no god that has the characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence. It still says that there could be a god, but he is either not very powerful or a total dickbag.

Saying that the PoE is trying to address any and all gods is strawmaning the argument.
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 2:42:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/28/2011 9:46:56 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:39:47 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 10/28/2011 9:36:06 PM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
All the omnibenevolent sh!t is a load of BS. Like the OP said, read the bible. That ignored, God gave us free will. If he didn't allow mistakes and suffering, then we wouldn't have free will.

so that whole concept of heaven is bs right?

What does heaven have to do with God's actions in response to our collective behavior in this life?

The whole BS thing for heaven is that you pretty much lose your free will. You are either forced or brainwashed to just sit there and worship the mightiest dickhe@d in the universe.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 2:48:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Evil is completely arbitrary concept humans use to describe acts they find to be really not to their fancies.

Human ethic is flimsy. Death and genocide, rape and coercion are all morally neutral - as such there is no evil and ergo, no problem.

Good and Bad are human inventions.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 2:55:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 2:48:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Evil is completely arbitrary concept humans use to describe acts they find to be really not to their fancies.

Human ethic is flimsy. Death and genocide, rape and coercion are all morally neutral - as such there is no evil and ergo, no problem.

Good and Bad are human inventions.

You're basically saying that "evil" is just some subjective moral word that we can arbitrarily throw onto anything that we don't "fancy." But the same is true for "benevolence" it is also just some subjective arbitrary word. But even though both words are subjective, they are still opposites. So you cannot logically have an omnibenevolent and omnipotent thing.

Just like you can take a map of island, and arbitrarily assign a "top" of the map, but the "bottom" of the map will be the opposite of the "top".
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 3:34:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 2:55:23 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/31/2011 2:48:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Evil is completely arbitrary concept humans use to describe acts they find to be really not to their fancies.

Human ethic is flimsy. Death and genocide, rape and coercion are all morally neutral - as such there is no evil and ergo, no problem.

Good and Bad are human inventions.

You're basically saying that "evil" is just some subjective moral word that we can arbitrarily throw onto anything that we don't "fancy." But the same is true for "benevolence" it is also just some subjective arbitrary word. But even though both words are subjective, they are still opposites. So you cannot logically have an omnibenevolent and omnipotent thing.

Just like you can take a map of island, and arbitrarily assign a "top" of the map, but the "bottom" of the map will be the opposite of the "top".

Under the theory of Divine Command, what is benevolent is what God says it to be. Think of it as a being who can write his own laws as he does around. Human thoughts are worthless, what he says is law (Why? because he is God, the ultimate veracity).

As for paradoxical positions. I don't see how it's relevant but I will answer it anyway. It should be said that a omnipotent being has within itself the ability to defy the laws of being, even the laws that make him himself omnipotant. An omnipotent being can make west west and north also west, he can make a monotoned object have two tones, he could be omnipotent but have the potency to make himself not omnipotent.

He could create a rock he cannot lift AND THEN lift it.

It really depends how you define omnipotent, true omnipotency is only found when you can do literally do anything, there is no query you cannot object to. If you are limited by the normal laws of reality, the normal laws of being, you're not omnipotent.

I think people underestemate what it is to be a god.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Diagoras
Posts: 187
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2011 4:02:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/31/2011 3:34:02 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/31/2011 2:55:23 PM, Diagoras wrote:
At 10/31/2011 2:48:59 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Evil is completely arbitrary concept humans use to describe acts they find to be really not to their fancies.

Human ethic is flimsy. Death and genocide, rape and coercion are all morally neutral - as such there is no evil and ergo, no problem.

Good and Bad are human inventions.

You're basically saying that "evil" is just some subjective moral word that we can arbitrarily throw onto anything that we don't "fancy." But the same is true for "benevolence" it is also just some subjective arbitrary word. But even though both words are subjective, they are still opposites. So you cannot logically have an omnibenevolent and omnipotent thing.

Just like you can take a map of island, and arbitrarily assign a "top" of the map, but the "bottom" of the map will be the opposite of the "top".

Under the theory of Divine Command, what is benevolent is what God says it to be. Think of it as a being who can write his own laws as he does around. Human thoughts are worthless, what he says is law (Why? because he is God, the ultimate veracity).

That is completely circular logic and so, not logical at all.


As for paradoxical positions. I don't see how it's relevant but I will answer it anyway. It should be said that a omnipotent being has within itself the ability to defy the laws of being, even the laws that make him himself omnipotant. An omnipotent being can make west west and north also west, he can make a monotoned object have two tones, he could be omnipotent but have the potency to make himself not omnipotent.

No, one can't. You can't make West west and make north west. You can't set forwards and backwards to be the same direction. Therefore, if god tells us what is good and moral, then he also tells us the opposite is bad and immoral. Otherwise he is doing nothing but commiting a special pleading fallacy. If he tells us what love is, then he fails to engage in the love that he described, then he is not omnibenevolent. Case Closed.


He could create a rock he cannot lift AND THEN lift it.

Of course. When presented with a logical proof that refutes god, the best answer is that of a 4 year old, basically saying "nu uh" he can do anything.


It really depends how you define omnipotent, true omnipotency is only found when you can do literally do anything, there is no query you cannot object to. If you are limited by the normal laws of reality, the normal laws of being, you're not omnipotent.

I think people underestemate what it is to be a god.

Law of identity. If he is able to lift the rock, then it is not too heavy for him to lift.