Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

God is impotent, uncaring or nonexistent.

AndersonHunter
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2013 3:43:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The following two quotes are, in my opinion, proof positive that if there is a God, he is not what he's proclaimed to be and does not have the power or interest as to intervene or, and more likely to be the case, that there is no God, which would seem to be the most logical conclusion.

Quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Another version by William L. Rowe:

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
JayLewis
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2013 4:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These are classic examples of skeptical thought and are very strong quotes. However, these are strong opinions of individuals rather than "proofs". To logically prove something means that it has been tested and tried and has not been found lacking. Since there are no "proofs" for the existence/non-existence of God we should examine our own moral character before we question the attributes of a God who we believe (or disbelieve) in. Is evil in the world more of a reflection of human character or God's character?

C.S. Lewis, recalling his former life as an atheist, says two things about atheism: "I was adamant that God didn't exist, and I was mad at Him for not existing".
AndersonHunter
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2013 6:56:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/28/2013 4:48:25 PM, JayLewis wrote:
These are classic examples of skeptical thought and are very strong quotes. However, these are strong opinions of individuals rather than "proofs". To logically prove something means that it has been tested and tried and has not been found lacking. Since there are no "proofs" for the existence/non-existence of God we should examine our own moral character before we question the attributes of a God who we believe (or disbelieve) in. Is evil in the world more of a reflection of human character or God's character?

C.S. Lewis, recalling his former life as an atheist, says two things about atheism: "I was adamant that God didn't exist, and I was mad at Him for not existing".

Agreed. They hold no absolute truth value that disproves God or his intent, just as theories for God's existence and intent cannot provide an absolute truth value. That's why I stated "in my opinion" prior to the assertion. What I think the quotes do accomplish is asking very difficult and substantial questions in which certain conclusions seem more plausible than others. As a former Christian, I wrestled with these quotes mightily. I sought ought what the top theists were saying in refuting the presuppositions, assertions and contexts of the quotes. All answered however, felt lacking as to not be on par with the quotes themselves. Moreover, the answers were so incredibly diverse and wide ranging, that there was no true consensus. Ultimately, it was the problem of evil and similar issues that led me to the conclusion I had purposely avoided for quite some time. What I found led me in the opposite position that Lewis eventually held. I was adamant in my belief until I could no longer justify it in rational terms.
JayLewis
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2013 2:21:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/28/2013 6:56:41 PM, AndersonHunter wrote:
At 9/28/2013 4:48:25 PM, JayLewis wrote:
These are classic examples of skeptical thought and are very strong quotes. However, these are strong opinions of individuals rather than "proofs". To logically prove something means that it has been tested and tried and has not been found lacking. Since there are no "proofs" for the existence/non-existence of God we should examine our own moral character before we question the attributes of a God who we believe (or disbelieve) in. Is evil in the world more of a reflection of human character or God's character?

C.S. Lewis, recalling his former life as an atheist, says two things about atheism: "I was adamant that God didn't exist, and I was mad at Him for not existing".

Agreed. They hold no absolute truth value that disproves God or his intent, just as theories for God's existence and intent cannot provide an absolute truth value. That's why I stated "in my opinion" prior to the assertion. What I think the quotes do accomplish is asking very difficult and substantial questions in which certain conclusions seem more plausible than others. As a former Christian, I wrestled with these quotes mightily. I sought ought what the top theists were saying in refuting the presuppositions, assertions and contexts of the quotes. All answered however, felt lacking as to not be on par with the quotes themselves. Moreover, the answers were so incredibly diverse and wide ranging, that there was no true consensus. Ultimately, it was the problem of evil and similar issues that led me to the conclusion I had purposely avoided for quite some time. What I found led me in the opposite position that Lewis eventually held. I was adamant in my belief until I could no longer justify it in rational terms.


I do agree that the problem of evil is a hindrance to any organized religion. Especially one that espouses to worship an all-powerful and merciful God. I think it is important to wrestle with these moral issues rather than ignoring them, like some sects of Buddhism and Christian Science who seek to achieve personal nirvana by ignoring the evil around them. I have a few friends who are atheists and we often talk about metaphysical questions like these. I usually say that we have two options regarding the problem of evil: We can either blame God and trust humanity (who is responsible for the evil acts of the world) or we can trust humanity and blame God (who was faithful in sending His Son to die for the evils of humanity).
What are your thoughts?

Also the Epicurus quote was most likely a product of one his followers, rather than Epicurus himself. We have very little documentation of what Epicurus wrote himself, however his legacy as a philosopher was mostly passed down by the followers of Epicureanism (his socratic/atomistic school of thought). This quote was wrongly attributed to him by Lactantius, an early Christian philosopher.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 1:21:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is basically the old "Problem of Evil" (POE) It has been thoroughly taken apart but I guess every year another crop of young'uns come up and think they have discovered the great proof and must be schooled once more.

I have always had thought about the assumptions in what Epicurus wrote.

Quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Why should God prevent evil? Why assume it is His responsibility to prevent it? Simply because He is able? Do you hold yourself to that standard when you are able? And if God is the one who should prevent our evil, (and its consequences) don't we then owe Him something? Or should He be our servant, following and preventing as we run around free from all consequences of our evil?

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

But able and willing is not enough. I am able and willing to write a song with Kate Bush, but as yet, alas, no song. The question assumes that God should, if He is able and willing, our opinion on the matter be damned. Would Hitler and Germany have accepted God's prevention of their evil? Pol Pot? Stalin? Today's atheist?

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Same as before. The asker wants God to prevent his evil, but is not willing to give God any authority over him. God is able and willing, yes. But are you? And if God violated your will, you would be the first one crying about forced submission. So God is damned if He does and damned if He doesn't. Just the way the atheist likes it.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is the most interesting of the questions. Indeed, why call God "god" at all? Theists have an idea in their minds when they say God. They knowo WHY the creature being referred to as God is God.
But when an atheist says "God", to what is he referring? Even if he doesn't believe in God, he should have an idea of the concept. let me give an analogy.

I don't believe unicorns exist, but I know what makes a thing (though imaginary) a unicorn. I know the qualities of unicorn-ess. What would make a being "God" to an atheist? Omnipotence? Being Eternal? Being your wet maid and cleaning up all your evil while you hedonistically went on enjoying life?

The question assumes the worst thing of all the other questions. It assumes that God's "God-ness" is determined by us. By what title we bestow on Him. The question assumes that God's power and authority comes from us. To them, God is like a big president who rules because we have empowered and approved him. What nonsense.

But the bottom line is todays atheist, flowing with crocodile tears about Babylonian children who died 6,000 years ago as they drive right on by children suffering outside their SUV. If anyone wants to see what the problem of evil is, I suggest a mirror.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/28/2013 3:43:58 PM, AndersonHunter wrote:
The following two quotes are, in my opinion, proof positive that if there is a God, he is not what he's proclaimed to be and does not have the power or interest as to intervene or, and more likely to be the case, that there is no God, which would seem to be the most logical conclusion.

Quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?


Another version by William L. Rowe:

There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.


God spoke through His prophets and us saints that He alone created good and evil as a delusion in this world to make His people believe it. This makes it almost impossible for His people to understand the Truth that good and evil is only a delusion that will end when this age ends.

Every single Christian, Muslim and religious Jew were deceived by our Creator except us saints that He chose to reveal His eternal plan and let us know who we are in Him.
Sitara
Posts: 745
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 5:00:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am dealing with the same attitudes towards God. I still love Him, but the whole problem of evil thing p1sses me off.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2013 7:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 1:21:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
This is basically the old "Problem of Evil" (POE) It has been thoroughly taken apart but I guess every year another crop of young'uns come up and think they have discovered the great proof and must be schooled once more.

I have always had thought about the assumptions in what Epicurus wrote.

Quote from Epicurus:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Why should God prevent evil? Why assume it is His responsibility to prevent it? Simply because He is able? Do you hold yourself to that standard when you are able? And if God is the one who should prevent our evil, (and its consequences) don't we then owe Him something? Or should He be our servant, following and preventing as we run around free from all consequences of our evil?

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

But able and willing is not enough. I am able and willing to write a song with Kate Bush, but as yet, alas, no song. The question assumes that God should, if He is able and willing, our opinion on the matter be damned. Would Hitler and Germany have accepted God's prevention of their evil? Pol Pot? Stalin? Today's atheist?

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Same as before. The asker wants God to prevent his evil, but is not willing to give God any authority over him. God is able and willing, yes. But are you? And if God violated your will, you would be the first one crying about forced submission. So God is damned if He does and damned if He doesn't. Just the way the atheist likes it.

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

This is the most interesting of the questions. Indeed, why call God "god" at all? Theists have an idea in their minds when they say God. They knowo WHY the creature being referred to as God is God.
But when an atheist says "God", to what is he referring? Even if he doesn't believe in God, he should have an idea of the concept. let me give an analogy.

I don't believe unicorns exist, but I know what makes a thing (though imaginary) a unicorn. I know the qualities of unicorn-ess. What would make a being "God" to an atheist? Omnipotence? Being Eternal? Being your wet maid and cleaning up all your evil while you hedonistically went on enjoying life?

The question assumes the worst thing of all the other questions. It assumes that God's "God-ness" is determined by us. By what title we bestow on Him. The question assumes that God's power and authority comes from us. To them, God is like a big president who rules because we have empowered and approved him. What nonsense.

But the bottom line is todays atheist, flowing with crocodile tears about Babylonian children who died 6,000 years ago as they drive right on by children suffering outside their SUV. If anyone wants to see what the problem of evil is, I suggest a mirror.

Please don't EVER give an answer like that to the problem of evil again. Ever.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 7:21:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 7:30:29 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

Please don't EVER give an answer like that to the problem of evil again. Ever.

Perhaps you should have said why. But if you had read my post, you would have seen that I did not offer an answer. I shared some of my thoughts about the POE. I said,

"I have always had thoughts about the assumptions in what Epicurus wrote."

...and then I shared my thoughts. I offered no answers. My general opinion of the POE is that if it makes sense to you, or baffles you, you probably aren't equipped to understand the answer. And no, it's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of knowledge.

Just as how a person cannot understand why an airplane flies until he understands the physics of air pressure, no matter how intelligent he is, one will be stumped by the POE until he gains the data which allows him to understand why the POE is illogical nonsense.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 7:52:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's depends on why He created us, and why He created both good and evil!

Why does evil bother you more than good ? both are faces of the same money, good and evil were made to test us, he is not going to take away an important element of the test.

Justice is for later , not for this life, if there was no evil, justice would have no meaning..
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 8:06:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/10/2013 1:21:25 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Why should God prevent evil? Why assume it is His responsibility to prevent it? Simply because He is able? Do you hold yourself to that standard when you are able?

I most certainly do.

And if God is the one who should prevent our evil, (and its consequences) don't we then owe Him something?

If you prevented someone being hit by a car, would you feel they owed you something?

Or should He be our servant, following and preventing as we run around free from all consequences of our evil?

The evil that only exists because he allowed it to exist, you mean?

But able and willing is not enough.

Yes it is. That is a very low bar to set for moral conduct and if god can't manage it then, to be blunt, f*ck him. I wouldn't be friends with someone who walked past a starving child when they could easily help, so why should I worship someone who has done that to everyone who has ever been in need?

Today's atheist?

It would be one of the few things that would make me convert. So yes, absolutely. Love the comparison there, by the way. Always nice to be put in the same category as Hitler and Pol Pot by someone who worships a genocidal, homophobic tyrant! Glad to see you've not lost your sense of perspective and self-awareness.

Same as before. The asker wants God to prevent his evil, but is not willing to give God any authority over him.

Could you point to evidence supporting the last part of the above comment, please? The asker wants god to prevent evil. That is all. There is no "but isn't willing to give authority" attached. That's just you making things up to suit your, ahem, 'argument'.

This is the most interesting of the questions. Indeed, why call God "god" at all? Theists have an idea in their minds when they say God. They knowo WHY the creature being referred to as God is God.

And an idea is all it is.

But when an atheist says "God", to what is he referring? Even if he doesn't believe in God, he should have an idea of the concept. let me give an analogy.

A magical guy that no-one seems able to present any evidence for and always happens to share their prejudices and interests.

The question assumes the worst thing of all the other questions. It assumes that God's "God-ness" is determined by us.

I've never actually seen someone fail to understand the Problem of Evil before. Congratulations on being the first at something. It assumes no such things.

By what title we bestow on Him. The question assumes that God's power and authority comes from us. To them, God is like a big president who rules because we have empowered and approved him. What nonsense.

No it doesn't, it asks a reasonable question based on the definitions of the terms involved. It is, in fact, you who is assuming this, with your preposterously paranoid and suspiciously projective comments regarding atheists refusing to 'submit' or whatever whacko kool-aid terminology it was you used. I have never, ever met ANYONE - atheist or otherwise - who thinks of god like that.

But the bottom line is todays atheist, flowing with crocodile tears about Babylonian children who died 6,000 years ago as they drive right on by children suffering outside their SUV. If anyone wants to see what the problem of evil is, I suggest a mirror.

The bottom line is that you've got no idea what you're talking about - as usual - and are instead just making up what you assume other people think because it would be convenient for you if they thought such. You may find that, in terms of your suggestion, not everyone has as great success in identifying evil in the way you describe as you do.

You don't understand the original problem, haven't thought through your own comments (quelle surprise) and are presuming to tell other people what they think. Top job. God must be very proud. I mean, not as proud as you, but I'm sure that's a sin he can forgive in between doing nothing at all about famine victims.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 1:09:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ethan - Why should God prevent evil? Why assume it is His responsibility to prevent it? Simply because He is able? :Do you hold yourself to that standard when you are able?
Graincruncher - I most certainly do.

I am pretty sure you do not prevent evil every time you are able. In fact, I have seen you cause evil right here on this board.

If you prevented someone being hit by a car, would you feel they owed you something?

If I was the one responsible for keeping them from being hit by a car, yes. They would owe me the courtesy of being careful when on the road. I would hate to be responsible for someone who acted irresponsibly and then expected me to save him every time - while thinking he owed me nothing.

The evil that only exists because he allowed it to exist, you mean?

No. I'm too smart to fall for that moronic liberal mindset that will blame God for my evil. Evil exists because WE allow it to exist.

Ethan - But able and willing is not enough.
Graincruncher - Yes it is. That is a very low bar to set for moral conduct....

But don't you need the consent of the person needing help? You cannot force aid on a person. Think it through. Just being willing and able is not enough.

I wouldn't be friends with someone who walked past a starving child when they could easily help....

Would you be friends with someone who lied? Stole? Cheated? Insulted another? Evil is evil. A small lie can kill an innocent child. You are saying you wouldn't be friends with someone grossly evil, but what about someone mildly evil? Your standard fails. You have friends who lie steal and cheat. In fact, you lie steal and cheat yourself. You are very often rude and obnoxious online. You cause needless suffering to others to satisfy your hate of God. Your standard is bogus and selfish.

...so why should I worship someone who has done that to everyone who has ever been in need?

Which is why I worship the one who loves me and gave His precious life for me. But I'm also mature enough to know that He is sovereign and is not subject to my desires. He isn't my personal genie.

Always nice to be put in the same category as Hitler and Pol Pot....

I simply asked a question. A question I noticed you dodged. Would you have liked God preventing you from spouting vulgarity online which hurt a young Christian here?

Ethan - Same as before. The asker wants God to prevent his evil, but is not willing to
give God any authority over him.

Graincruncher - Could you point to evidence supporting the last part of the above
comment, please?

The comments you made are evidence. You asked me, " If you prevented someone being hit by a car, would you feel they owed you something?" It is clear you think God should save you from evil. It is also clear that though you think God should be responsible for your comfort, you think you owe God nothing in return. Fine. I'm asking, why do you think that? You ranted and screamed, but you dodged the question.

Ethan - This is the most interesting of the questions. Indeed, why call God "god" at
all? Theists have an idea in their minds when they say God. They knowo WHY the
creature being referred to as God is God.

Graincruncher - And an idea is all it is.

Sure, but to be rational, one must have a coherent idea in their heads even when the subject is imaginary. Answer the question. What makes God, God, to you? Elves are little, aliens are green, Santa is fat. All are imaginary but we still know that Santa for example doesn't wear green or live at the equator. What is God to you? What qualities would a being have to have to deserve the title God to you?

A magical guy that no-one seems able to present any evidence for and always happens to share their prejudices :and interests.

Ok, as long as you are aware that hardly any agnostic or theist share that definition. They don't have to, but when you talk to any of them, you will never actually communicate. I don't believe in fairies, but when I talk to someone who does, I understand what qualities the person thinks constitutes a fairy and those qualities are the same ones that would make me call something a fairy. In the end you have to decide, do you want to communicate with others or do you want to just rant?

I've never actually seen someone fail to understand the Problem of Evil before.

If you think the POE makes sense then you don't understand it. It is irrational.

It assumes no such things.

Sure it does. The question says, "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" In other words, unless God is able and willing to save us from evil, He doesn't deserve the title "God". The question assumes that His Godhood comes from the fact that we bestow the title on Him. It is unadulterated nonsense.

I have never, ever met ANYONE - atheist or otherwise - who thinks of god like that.

I have met many who think of God just like that. But no need to become so hostile and emotional. I am only expressing my thoughts. You are free to have different ones.

Ethan - But the bottom line is todays atheist, flowing with crocodile tears about
Babylonian children who died 6,000 years :ago as they drive right on by children
suffering outside their SUV. If anyone wants to see what the problem of evil
is, I suggest a mirror.
Graincruncher - You may find that, in terms of your suggestion, not everyone has as
great success in identifying :evil in the way you describe as you do.

Sure. But not everyone rants and raves about God with spittle-filled vulgarity while also ignoring the evil right in front of them. Militant atheists do that. Most people, even if they agree with the POE, know that they also contribute to evil in some way. I've heard you bemoan the "evil" of God to babies of 6,000 years ago. But I'm sure you've passed little children on the street in your life who needed help. I'm willing to bet most times you didn't even notice them.

You don't understand the original problem, haven't thought through your own comments (quelle surprise) and are presuming to tell other people what they think.

Ok, that is your opinion. I am only saying what I think, not what others think. I am speaking about the implications behind the questions of the POE. Every question carries implications. You don't know me but seem to think you know what I'm thinking.

....but I'm sure that's a sin he can forgive in between doing nothing at all about famine victims.

What have YOU done about the famine victims? God is imaginary right? What have YOU done? You aren't imaginary. And since you obviously think God Ought to do something about famine victims, tell us WHY you think God ought to.

If your reply is that you don't expect God to do anything because He doesn't exist, then it is pretty silly to keep going on and on about why an imaginary person isn't doing what you, a real person, also isn't doing.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 6:55:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 1:09:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
I am pretty sure you do not prevent evil every time you are able. In fact, I have seen you cause evil right here on this board.

That's quite a claim. Any, uh... evidence?

If I was the one responsible for keeping them from being hit by a car, yes.

Wow. Even more deeply unpleasant than I thought.

They would owe me the courtesy of being careful when on the road. I would hate to be responsible for someone who acted irresponsibly and then expected me to save him every time - while thinking he owed me nothing.

Perhaps I'm growing forgetful, but I don't remember specifying that scenario. Interesting that you'd jump straight to it, though.

No. I'm too smart to fall for that moronic liberal mindset that will blame God for my evil. Evil exists because WE allow it to exist.

As I said, you have failed quite spectacularly when it comes to the problem of evil. I did not ask whether we could do anything about it, I asked whether he could do anything about it. It's the whole omnipotent, loving & just thing, you see. Kinda... problematic when a being who is described as that doesn't act when an infinitely small portion of their effort could fix things.

But don't you need the consent of the person needing help? You cannot force aid on a person. Think it through. Just being willing and able is not enough.

Tell me, why is this sin that isn't god's fault even present in the world in the first place? He had no problem starting off with things that way. He then did nothing to prevent them from ending up this way. Once they did end up this way, he suddenly becomes all coy about it? Why doesn't he just ask if they'd like some food. Or to not be raped and murdered. Or not to die in an earthquake that in no possibly sane way could be blamed on them.

Would you be friends with someone who lied? Stole? Cheated? Insulted another?

You know a lot of people who have never done any of those things, do you? And none of them are ever in circumstances that might be deserving of forgiveness?

Evil is evil. A small lie can kill an innocent child.

And sitting about for thousands of years to win a bet can kill billions of them. But that isn't evil, right?

You are saying you wouldn't be friends with someone grossly evil, but what about someone mildly evil?

Until you define what you mean by evil, I cannot really say. I do not believe I would be friends with anyone I would consider worthy of being described as 'evil', no. Imperfect? Yes. But let's not equivocate two quite different terms here.

Your standard fails. You have friends who lie steal and cheat.

But not one who would ignore the plight of someone in suffering when they were in a situation to help out.

In fact, you lie steal and cheat yourself. You are very often rude and obnoxious online.

And you're a raging paedophile who murders kittens for fun. And you are currently being rude and obnoxious online. Is hypocrisy a sin? It seems like it should be. I do not steal, I do not cheat and I lie about nothing of importance and only when there is good reason.

You cause needless suffering to others to satisfy your hate of God. Your standard is bogus and selfish.

And you make up startlingly insane cod-psychological explanations to protect your understandably fragile ego, make random accusations about people you don't know and then try and lie your way out of it. So... god must be pretty proud of you, I guess.

Which is why I worship the one who loves me and gave His precious life for me. But I'm also mature enough to know that He is sovereign and is not subject to my desires. He isn't my personal genie.

According to some old stories by a load of ignorant nomads. Certainly sounds like you're living in the grown-up, rational world. No more blind acceptance or imaginary friends for you!

I simply asked a question. A question I noticed you dodged. Would you have liked God preventing you from spouting vulgarity online which hurt a young Christian here?

Is dishonesty a sin? I know you'll try and worm your way out of this the same way as you do everyone else, but I'm curious as to whether you think your god will be fooled. I mean, I'm not and I'm barely omniscient at all. I have no idea which young Christian on here I am supposed to have hurt. Was it you? I'm terribly sorry, but you kept harping on about how thick-skinned you were. I must have mis-read "thick and have skin", if that was the case. You do have skin, right?

The comments you made are evidence.

I'm fairly certain that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

It is clear you think God should save you from evil.

It is clear you jump to a lot of BS conclusions based on some sort of whacko inner narrative you've developed.

It is also clear that though you think God should be responsible for your comfort, you think you owe God nothing in return. Fine. I'm asking, why do you think that? You ranted and screamed, but you dodged the question.

Your mind must be a wonderfully inventive place. Are there water slides? I have at no point said or suggested that I think any of those things. I am simply addressing a set of propositions and their internal inconsistencies.

Sure, but to be rational, one must have a coherent idea in their heads even when the subject is imaginary.

Not true; many people deal with incoherent ideas. You are a prime example of such.

Answer the question. What makes God, God, to you?

Sure, I'm quite happy to answer. Which description of god are we talking about? I don't really have one of my own, you see. Hence atheism.

Elves are little, aliens are green, Santa is fat. All are imaginary but we still know that Santa for example doesn't wear green or live at the equator.

I would say elves are tall and aliens are all sorts of colours. Santa, by the way, was originally depicted as wearing green. Red is a relatively recent change to his attire.

Ok, as long as you are aware that hardly any agnostic or theist share that definition.

Well agnostics aren't likely to, due to considering the whole question unanswerable anyway. Theists... well, not really a metric I think is going to get us a lot of mileage there, I'm afraid.

They don't have to, but when you talk to any of them, you will never actually communicate. I don't believe in fairies, but when I talk to someone who does, I understand what qualities the person thinks constitutes a fairy and those qualities are the same ones that would make me call something a fairy. In the end you have to decide, do you want to communicate with others or do you want to just rant?

Your understanding of semantics is roughly on par with your understanding in other areas. Do you really think there is only one description of things like 'faeries' or 'god'? Because if you don't, you should be able to work out why what you've just said is a load of rubbish.

If you think the POE makes sense then you don't understand it. It is irrational.

I think it is a valid objection to some formulations of god. I do not believe it is a cast-iron proof against any god. I - and an awful lot of very clever people, many of whom I studied under - understand precisely why it is a problem, what its limits are and, by extension, the fact that you quite clearly haven't go the slightest idea what you're patronisingly waffling about.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2013 6:56:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 1:09:23 PM, ethang5 wrote:
Sure it does. The question says, "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" In other words, unless God is able and willing to save us from evil, He doesn't deserve the title "God". The question assumes that His Godhood comes from the fact that we bestow the title on Him. It is unadulterated nonsense.

You do know it is an argument that was formed as an objection to certain descriptions of god, right? It is objecting to the idea of a loving, just, omnipotent, omniscient god who sits about only being the last two rather than exhibiting the behaviours that the first two take meaning from. The question does not assume that at all, it is merely expressing that either god doesn't exist or he's not worth worshipping because he is malevolent. It is an observation of an inconsistency within a particular description. That is all.

I have met many who think of God just like that. But no need to become so hostile and emotional. I am only expressing my thoughts. You are free to have different ones.

Would you care to point to where this hostility and emotionality were in the quote you responded to with this fabricated nonsense?

Sure. But not everyone rants and raves about God with spittle-filled vulgarity while also ignoring the evil right in front of them.

No, I quite agree; I do not think all theists to be as unpleasant, dishonest or frothing at the mouth as you are.

Militant atheists do that. Most people, even if they agree with the POE, know that they also contribute to evil in some way.

As do militant theists. *gestures at your posts*

I've heard you bemoan the "evil" of God to babies of 6,000 years ago.

You have? Where was that, then?

But I'm sure you've passed little children on the street in your life who needed help. I'm willing to bet most times you didn't even notice them.

Never knowingly. A problem that would be solved, by the way, if I were some sort of all-knowing, ever-present superhero.

Ok, that is your opinion.

I sincerely doubt it is an opinion limited to me.

I am only saying what I think, not what others think. I am speaking about the implications behind the questions of the POE. Every question carries implications. You don't know me but seem to think you know what I'm thinking.

I know you're able to survive industrial-scale irony spills, certainly. You have seen fit to call me a thief, a liar and a cheat. You have suggested I mix with evil people. You claim I would knowingly pass a needy child in the street. And then you tell me that I seem to think I know what you are thinking? For your sake, I really hope you're wrong about god. Eternal damnation is a bit much even for hypocrisy of that extremity.

My comments are based on what I know - having studied philosophy extensively and had the opportunity to discuss these things with the best of the best in the field - and can therefore see that you do not know. But boastfully seem to think you can lecture others on.

What have YOU done about the famine victims? God is imaginary right? What have YOU done? You aren't imaginary. And since you obviously think God Ought to do something about famine victims, tell us WHY you think God ought to.

Raised tens of thousands of pounds for multiple charities over the space of about a year working in the sector? Contributed to many worthy causes with my own money? Put up a homeless person in my own home, fed them and helped them get the support they needed? I have spent a lot of my life trying to mitigate the suffering of others. That you would presume I would not suggests a rather ingrained streak of prejudice.

All while being infinitely less powerful than god. I imagine on a much tighter budget, too.

If your reply is that you don't expect God to do anything because He doesn't exist, then it is pretty silly to keep going on and on about why an imaginary person isn't doing what you, a real person, also isn't doing.

And if your reply is to just make up more fanciful lies so you can strawman and slander your way past having to address the content of the argument, it is pretty silly to keep talking to you. So... up to you, really. If you aren't too busy helping bury the bodies of rape victims, that is. Oh look! I can do it, too!

If you do feel like getting vaguely close to the topic, perhaps you could start by answering a question. What does a name mean?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2013 4:55:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And if God is the one who should prevent our evil, (and its consequences) don't we then owe Him something?

If you prevented someone being hit by a car, would you feel they owed you something?

If I was the one responsible for keeping them from being hit by a car, yes. They would owe me the courtesy of being careful when on the road. I would hate to be responsible for someone who acted irresponsibly and then expected me to save him every time - while thinking he owed me nothing.

Wow. Even more deeply unpleasant than I thought.

Your response here said nothing. My point is that the responsibility should afford God some privilege. You posted nothing other than to say you found it somehow unpleasant.

Perhaps I'm growing forgetful, but I don't remember specifying that scenario.

The scenario is already set. The POE assumes God is responsible for saving us from evil. I asked, "Why?"

I did not ask whether we could do anything about it, I asked whether he could do anything about it.

Of course He can. Everyone agrees on that. The question is, why doesn't He then? And my response to that question is, "Why should He?"

Tell me, why is this sin that isn't god's fault even present in the world in the first place?

The sin present in the world is yours and my fault. Why should God be blamed for it? If I make a world with light, it by default has shadow. I didn't make the shadow. The shadow is the responsibility of the person who decides to block the light, not the one who made the light.

He then did nothing to prevent them from ending up this way.

So tell me why you think He should have done something about it? Do you have any thoughts other than insults?

You know a lot of people who have never done any of those things, do you?

No. I know only one person who has never lied, stole or cheated ever. Everyone else has done so at some point in their lives.

And sitting about for thousands of years to win a bet can kill billions of them. But that isn't evil, right?

You are aware the that the thoughts in your head aren't shared by everyone right? Your view that someone sat around thousands of years to win a bet is subjective. It's only what you think. Your thinking it doesn't make it true. Surely you know this?

I do not believe I would be friends with anyone I would consider worthy of being described as 'evil', no. Imperfect? Yes.

What's the difference between imperfect and evil?

According to some old stories by a load of ignorant nomads. Certainly sounds like you're living in the grown-up, rational world. No more blind acceptance or imaginary friends for you!

We get it that you think lowly of my religious beliefs, but what does your tastes have to do with the issue at hand? Telling me I'm stupid does not address the point I raised.

Is dishonesty a sin?

Yes.

I simply asked a question. A question I noticed you dodged. Would you have liked God preventing you from spouting vulgarity online which hurt a young Christian here?

I know you'll try and worm your way out of this the same way as you do everyone else,

I answered your question, you dodged mine. Here it is again.

Would you have liked God preventing you from spouting vulgarity online which hurt a young Christian here?

Sure, but to be rational, one must have a coherent idea in their heads even when the subject is imaginary.

Not true; many people deal with incoherent ideas.

lol. That doesn't make it untrue. Think about it.

I would say elves are tall and aliens are all sorts of colours.

Yes, and you think God is evil. No wonder you communicate so very little.

Do you really think there is only one description of things like 'faeries' or 'god'?

No. I think that when people speak of things like faries, or Santa, or God, they must have coherent, related ideas or else they couldn't communicate about such things.

I think it is a valid objection to some formulations of god.

OK, I agree. Just not the Christian one. And I'm still asking, "Why?"

I - and an awful lot of very clever people, many of whom I studied under - understand precisely why it is a problem,

A problem for whom? The only ones who would view the POE as a "problem" are those who do not know it is irrational at its core.

It is objecting to the idea of a loving, just, omnipotent, omniscient god...

OK, why do you assume that a , loving, just, omnipotent, omniscient God should do something? Is that a question too hard to answer? The POE says that if God were truely loving and omnipotent, He would do something. I'm asking, "Why assume that?"

The asker wants god to prevent evil. That is all.

Why "should" God prevent evil? What makes God the responsible party?

But no need to become so hostile and emotional. I am only expressing my thoughts. You are free to have different ones.

Would you care to point to where this hostility and emotionality were in the quote....

Here....
Yes it is. That is a very low bar to set for moral conduct and if god can't manage it then, to be blunt, f*ck him.

Always nice to be put in the same category as Hitler and Pol Pot by someone who worships a genocidal, homophobic tyrant!

It is, in fact, you who is assuming this, with your preposterously paranoid and suspiciously projective comments...

I know YOU don't think you're vulgar and emotional......but....

I have no idea which young Christian on here I am supposed to have hurt. Was it you?

No. I only asked a question. Would you have wanted God to stop you if your comments would hurt a young Christian here? Is that a difficult question? Yet again, you dodged.

Sure, I'm quite happy to answer. Which description of god are we talking about?

You are the one who says he understands the POE, It evokes God. How do you understand it? I don't care which discription you use. I'm asking for YOUR understanding.

you quite clearly haven't go the slightest idea what you're patronisingly waffling about.

How am I waffling? I have stayed on only one topic. Why is God responsible for doing something about sin in the view of the POE. Instead of answering, you have insulted and ranted. Ok fine, that is your right, but couldn't you address the question along with your vulgarity and rants too?

I could trade insults with you, but I'm interested in what people think and I want to communicate. If you don't want to or you can't, let me know and I won't waste your time.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

What have YOU done about the famine victims? God is imaginary right? What have YOU done? You aren't imaginary. And since you obviously think God Ought to do something about famine victims, tell us WHY you think God ought to.

Raised tens of thousands of pounds for multiple charities over the space of about a year working in the sector?
if god can't manage it then, to be blunt, f*ck him.

Contributed to many worthy causes with my own money?
Pot by someone who worships a genocidal, homophobic tyrant!

Put up a homeless person in my own home, fed them and helped them get the support they needed?
If you aren't too busy helping bury the bodies of rape victims, that is.

I have spent a lot of my life trying to mitigate the suffering of others.
you're a raging paedophile who murders kittens for fun.

Yeah, I can see it. You're a really nice guy.
AndersonHunter
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2013 9:43:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/11/2013 7:52:06 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
That's depends on why He created us, and why He created both good and evil!

Why does evil bother you more than good ? both are faces of the same money, good and evil were made to test us, he is not going to take away an important element of the test.

Justice is for later , not for this life, if there was no evil, justice would have no meaning..

No matter how many times I hear this line of reasoning, I still find it quite disheartening. Justice would have no meaning if it weren't for evil? There would be no need for justice if there were no evil. Justice is for later and not this life? I honestly can't even address this post anymore. This way of thinking is evil in and of itself.