Total Posts:629|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is Cruel

muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 12:07:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Debate me:
1. Causing unnecessary suffering is the cruel
2. God has no needs
3. God is the cause primary cause of everything that has ever happened
4. God did not need to cause suffering
5. God caused unnecessary suffering
6. Therefore, God is cruel

------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter if some good can come through suffering. It is still unnecessary and therefore cruel. There may not be other ways to bring about this good. The suffering is still not necessary. Also, even if some good can come through a terrible diseases, hunger, rape and murder, it is not worth it. If a mother says that she let a rabid dog maul her child in order to make the child a stronger person, she is deemed insane. God should be held to the same or higher standards since God is supposedly more loving than mothers.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 1:03:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 12:07:09 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Debate me:
1. Causing unnecessary suffering is the cruel
2. God has no needs
3. God is the cause primary cause of everything that has ever happened
4. God did not need to cause suffering
5. God caused unnecessary suffering
6. Therefore, God is cruel

------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter if some good can come through suffering. It is still unnecessary and therefore cruel. There may not be other ways to bring about this good. The suffering is still not necessary. Also, even if some good can come through a terrible diseases, hunger, rape and murder, it is not worth it. If a mother says that she let a rabid dog maul her child in order to make the child a stronger person, she is deemed insane. God should be held to the same or higher standards since God is supposedly more loving than mothers.

Most believers will deny that unnecessary suffering exists. That God only allows suffering that was necessary to produce some greater good.

"Con is asking us to believe that an infinitely powerful, completely omnipotent god is:
Unable to prevent E1 and E2 without thereby forfeiting a greater good,
Unable to enable the sufferers to know what that good is without thereby forfeiting another greater good,
Unable to be consciously present to the sufferers, despite their despair and loneliness, without forfeiting yet another greater good, and
Unable to enable the sufferers to know what that greater good would be without forfeiting still yet another greater good![1]
Logically possible? Sure. Inherently plausible? Not on your life."

http://www.debate.org...
"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
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:49:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

But aren't these the same people who think their God caused Noah's flood?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 2:50:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:49:52 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

But aren't these the same people who think their God caused Noah's flood?

Shh, you'll make every lay Christian's head explode.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 6:17:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

Evil does not follow from cruel, but it is highly correlate.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:37:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 6:17:26 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

Evil does not follow from cruel, but it is highly correlate.

Show it
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:37:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:17:26 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

Evil does not follow from cruel, but it is highly correlate.

Show it

It is hard to prove a false dichotomy like evil vs. good, though general reading notes that cruelty towards others - infliction of undeserved pain/torture, or manipulation - is a sociopathic trait, meaning the person lacks empathy towards others, and that is generally considered "evil" in the Western societies from which I hail from.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:48:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:44:16 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/26/2013 7:37:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 6:17:26 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

Evil does not follow from cruel, but it is highly correlate.

Show it

It is hard to prove a false dichotomy like evil vs. good, though general reading notes that cruelty towards others - infliction of undeserved pain/torture, or manipulation - is a sociopathic trait, meaning the person lacks empathy towards others, and that is generally considered "evil" in the Western societies from which I hail from.

Look, if you talk about God , you have to accept what comes with that, including Hell and paradise and later Justice, don't take just half the story.

And God isn't another man, He is the owner of men, logically, whatever he'd do couldn't be considered evil, then what if He shall establish justice afterwards ?!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 7:53:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 7:48:58 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
Look, if you talk about God , you have to accept what comes with that, including Hell and paradise and later Justice, don't take just half the story.

And God isn't another man, He is the owner of men, logically, whatever he'd do couldn't be considered evil, then what if He shall establish justice afterwards ?!

I don't really see how a being claims to be both the ultimate good yet commit ultimate evil. One half of the story doesn't fit with the other.

I suppose this is all contingent upon the fact of God's existent - and of course, that ain't no fact.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:48:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.

Alrighty, forget a moment the little sentient being so you don't get your feeling trapped, and think of a volcano irruption, this looks cruel as well, but is it evil ?

What do you call evil and why ?

'Cruel' is definitely an emotional judgement, but evil is judgement for unjust, and it's false to say God is unjust based on half the story!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:54:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 9:48:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.

Alrighty, forget a moment the little sentient being so you don't get your feeling trapped, and think of a volcano irruption, this looks cruel as well, but is it evil ?

That's not cruelty. What would make it cruel?

What do you call evil and why ?

'Cruel' is definitely an emotional judgement, but evil is judgement for unjust, and it's false to say God is unjust based on half the story!

It's also false to say God is good when if he causes unneccessary suffering. I wasn't actually defending the point--though I could--just pointing out to Wnope why the point would be made.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 10:52:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

I did not say that this was an argument against God's existence.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 11:00:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 9:54:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:48:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.

Alrighty, forget a moment the little sentient being so you don't get your feeling trapped, and think of a volcano irruption, this looks cruel as well, but is it evil ?

That's not cruelty. What would make it cruel?

It usually burns trees, land, sometimes villages. It's land, animals and people, I thought that would be worse

What do you call evil and why ?

'Cruel' is definitely an emotional judgement, but evil is judgement for unjust, and it's false to say God is unjust based on half the story!

It's also false to say God is good when if he causes unneccessary suffering. I wasn't actually defending the point--though I could--just pointing out to Wnope why the point would be made.

Good and Evil really can only be defined by God, our judgement can't be coherent.

You say not good because you don't like it, and you say homosexuality isn't evil cause you don't dislike it.

But God legitimately owns all that exists , so His judgement is always good.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 11:03:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:00:18 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:54:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:48:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.

Alrighty, forget a moment the little sentient being so you don't get your feeling trapped, and think of a volcano irruption, this looks cruel as well, but is it evil ?

That's not cruelty. What would make it cruel?

It usually burns trees, land, sometimes villages. It's land, animals and people, I thought that would be worse

What do you call evil and why ?

'Cruel' is definitely an emotional judgement, but evil is judgement for unjust, and it's false to say God is unjust based on half the story!

It's also false to say God is good when if he causes unneccessary suffering. I wasn't actually defending the point--though I could--just pointing out to Wnope why the point would be made.

Good and Evil really can only be defined by God, our judgement can't be coherent.

You say not good because you don't like it, and you say homosexuality isn't evil cause you don't dislike it.

But God legitimately owns all that exists , so His judgement is always good.

Basically you're argument is as follows: God cannot be evil, therefore God is not evil. This is called a circular argument.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 11:06:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 1:03:12 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 10/26/2013 12:07:09 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Debate me:
1. Causing unnecessary suffering is the cruel
2. God has no needs
3. God is the cause primary cause of everything that has ever happened
4. God did not need to cause suffering
5. God caused unnecessary suffering
6. Therefore, God is cruel

------------------------------------------------------------

It does not matter if some good can come through suffering. It is still unnecessary and therefore cruel. There may not be other ways to bring about this good. The suffering is still not necessary. Also, even if some good can come through a terrible diseases, hunger, rape and murder, it is not worth it. If a mother says that she let a rabid dog maul her child in order to make the child a stronger person, she is deemed insane. God should be held to the same or higher standards since God is supposedly more loving than mothers.

Most believers will deny that unnecessary suffering exists. That God only allows suffering that was necessary to produce some greater good.

"Con is asking us to believe that an infinitely powerful, completely omnipotent god is:
Unable to prevent E1 and E2 without thereby forfeiting a greater good,
Unable to enable the sufferers to know what that good is without thereby forfeiting another greater good,
Unable to be consciously present to the sufferers, despite their despair and loneliness, without forfeiting yet another greater good, and
Unable to enable the sufferers to know what that greater good would be without forfeiting still yet another greater good![1]
Logically possible? Sure. Inherently plausible? Not on your life."

http://www.debate.org...

Writerdave was awesome, he always killed theists in debates.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 11:09:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:03:29 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:00:18 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:54:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:48:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.

Alrighty, forget a moment the little sentient being so you don't get your feeling trapped, and think of a volcano irruption, this looks cruel as well, but is it evil ?

That's not cruelty. What would make it cruel?

It usually burns trees, land, sometimes villages. It's land, animals and people, I thought that would be worse

What do you call evil and why ?

'Cruel' is definitely an emotional judgement, but evil is judgement for unjust, and it's false to say God is unjust based on half the story!

It's also false to say God is good when if he causes unneccessary suffering. I wasn't actually defending the point--though I could--just pointing out to Wnope why the point would be made.

Good and Evil really can only be defined by God, our judgement can't be coherent.

You say not good because you don't like it, and you say homosexuality isn't evil cause you don't dislike it.

But God legitimately owns all that exists , so His judgement is always good.

Basically you're argument is as follows: God cannot be evil, therefore God is not evil. This is called a circular argument.

My argument is none can define evil except God, unless you got a better idea ?!
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 11:35:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:09:25 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:03:29 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:00:18 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:54:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:48:51 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 9:39:15 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 4:47:48 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Evil doesn't follow from cruel!

How, exactly, does it not? Cruelty is distinguished from justice.

Alrighty, forget a moment the little sentient being so you don't get your feeling trapped, and think of a volcano irruption, this looks cruel as well, but is it evil ?

That's not cruelty. What would make it cruel?

It usually burns trees, land, sometimes villages. It's land, animals and people, I thought that would be worse

What do you call evil and why ?

'Cruel' is definitely an emotional judgement, but evil is judgement for unjust, and it's false to say God is unjust based on half the story!

It's also false to say God is good when if he causes unneccessary suffering. I wasn't actually defending the point--though I could--just pointing out to Wnope why the point would be made.

Good and Evil really can only be defined by God, our judgement can't be coherent.

You say not good because you don't like it, and you say homosexuality isn't evil cause you don't dislike it.

But God legitimately owns all that exists , so His judgement is always good.

Basically you're argument is as follows: God cannot be evil, therefore God is not evil. This is called a circular argument.

My argument is none can define evil except God, unless you got a better idea ?!

A circle is a circle. god cannot define a circle as a square. It is not up to God to define the attributes of a circle. Similarly, cruelty is evil. If something is cruel for a human being to do, it is cruel for god to do as well. just because god says his acts are not cruel or evil, it does not make them so.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 12:04:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 11:35:30 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
A circle is a circle. god cannot define a circle as a square. It is not up to God to define the attributes of a circle. Similarly, cruelty is evil. If something is cruel for a human being to do, it is cruel for god to do as well. just because god says his acts are not cruel or evil, it does not make them so.

Can you define evil please? cause it's seems you don't know yet how subjective it can be without God.
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 12:12:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 12:04:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:35:30 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
A circle is a circle. god cannot define a circle as a square. It is not up to God to define the attributes of a circle. Similarly, cruelty is evil. If something is cruel for a human being to do, it is cruel for god to do as well. just because god says his acts are not cruel or evil, it does not make them so.

Can you define evil please? cause it's seems you don't know yet how subjective it can be without God.

this is funny because most theists like William Lane Craig always argue that good and evil are objective. Here's a definition of good, that is rooted in our DNA: "the state of least possible suffering for every individual." Anything that goes against this is a little or extremely evil, depending on the severity of the act.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 5:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 12:12:27 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 10/26/2013 12:04:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:35:30 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
A circle is a circle. god cannot define a circle as a square. It is not up to God to define the attributes of a circle. Similarly, cruelty is evil. If something is cruel for a human being to do, it is cruel for god to do as well. just because god says his acts are not cruel or evil, it does not make them so.

Can you define evil please? cause it's seems you don't know yet how subjective it can be without God.

this is funny because most theists like William Lane Craig always argue that good and evil are objective. Here's a definition of good, that is rooted in our DNA: "the state of least possible suffering for every individual." Anything that goes against this is a little or extremely evil, depending on the severity of the act.

It is objective because there is God. It's in our DNA because some of our ancestor ate some fruit of knowledge.

But for Atheism you can't define good and evil, everything is ok! so last thing you could do is show God is evil or not good!

So to you suffering is the only measure for evil, why then call it evil, if it already got a name ? do you agree with the definition of good that you pasted , Also, why is suffering evil ?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 5:55:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 5:01:37 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 12:12:27 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 10/26/2013 12:04:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:35:30 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
A circle is a circle. god cannot define a circle as a square. It is not up to God to define the attributes of a circle. Similarly, cruelty is evil. If something is cruel for a human being to do, it is cruel for god to do as well. just because god says his acts are not cruel or evil, it does not make them so.

Can you define evil please? cause it's seems you don't know yet how subjective it can be without God.

this is funny because most theists like William Lane Craig always argue that good and evil are objective. Here's a definition of good, that is rooted in our DNA: "the state of least possible suffering for every individual." Anything that goes against this is a little or extremely evil, depending on the severity of the act.

It is objective because there is God. It's in our DNA because some of our ancestor ate some fruit of knowledge.

God saying it does not make it objective--indeed, if it's based only on God's opinion, it is BY DEFINITION subjective.


But for Atheism you can't define good and evil, everything is ok! so last thing you could do is show God is evil or not good!

So to you suffering is the only measure for evil, why then call it evil, if it already got a name ? do you agree with the definition of good that you pasted , Also, why is suffering evil ?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2013 9:23:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 5:55:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 5:01:37 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 12:12:27 PM, muslimnomore wrote:
At 10/26/2013 12:04:01 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 10/26/2013 11:35:30 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
A circle is a circle. god cannot define a circle as a square. It is not up to God to define the attributes of a circle. Similarly, cruelty is evil. If something is cruel for a human being to do, it is cruel for god to do as well. just because god says his acts are not cruel or evil, it does not make them so.

Can you define evil please? cause it's seems you don't know yet how subjective it can be without God.

this is funny because most theists like William Lane Craig always argue that good and evil are objective. Here's a definition of good, that is rooted in our DNA: "the state of least possible suffering for every individual." Anything that goes against this is a little or extremely evil, depending on the severity of the act.

It is objective because there is God. It's in our DNA because some of our ancestor ate some fruit of knowledge.

God saying it does not make it objective--indeed, if it's based only on God's opinion, it is BY DEFINITION subjective.


But for Atheism you can't define good and evil, everything is ok! so last thing you could do is show God is evil or not good!

So to you suffering is the only measure for evil, why then call it evil, if it already got a name ? do you agree with the definition of good that you pasted , Also, why is suffering evil ?

thanks, i could not have said it better myself bladerunner. and i did define good and evil as an atheist. i gave you a definition. don't say i can't define good and evil when i did exactly that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 10:59:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 12:07:09 AM, muslimnomore wrote:
Debate me:
1. Causing unnecessary suffering is the cruel
2. God has no needs
3. God is the cause primary cause of everything that has ever happened
4. God did not need to cause suffering
5. God caused unnecessary suffering
6. Therefore, God is cruel

------------------------------------------------------------

For God to be cruel, He must first exist, so in order to follow this line of logic you must assume the existence of God, and His nature as revealed in the Bible. That being the case, God is the moral lawgiver and we are subject to God's law and God's moral requirements, not the other way around. That puts your very limited knowledge of the world that you live in, and your total inability to see the future or any future consequence of God's actions, at battle against the all-knowing Creator. IOW, God knows the outcome of His actions as well as what will happen if He takes no action at all, and you don't. So how can you possibly think that you can know, better than God, what is best for the future of humanity, or what is necessary and unnecessary??

It does not matter if some good can come through suffering. It is still unnecessary and therefore cruel.

There may not be other ways to bring about this good. The suffering is still not necessary.

Your own statement refutes your point, that it is unnecessary. If God deems this good to be a necessary part of the world, and if there is no other way to bring about this good without fundamentally changing the nature of human beings, it makes it kind of contradictory for you to argue that it isn't necessary, doesn't it??

Also, even if some good can come through a terrible diseases, hunger, rape and murder, it is not worth it.

That's nothing more than just your subjective opinion, based on emotion rather than knowledge of long-term consequences, which only God is in the position to know.

If a mother says that she let a rabid dog maul her child in order to make the child a stronger person, she is deemed insane. God should be held to the same or higher standards since God is supposedly more loving than mothers.

Your fallacy here is obvious. You're talking about the irrational act of an individual, who isn't acting on behalf of humanity as a whole, which God is. Secondly, since God is the only objective moral lawgiver, who are you to say that God should be held to YOUR standards??

You think God is cruel. So what?? If God's actions were bound by the subjective moral opinion of man, I don't think He'd be deserving of the title of God.

So, go ahead and hold God to a whatever standard you wish, as you certainly have the free will to do so, but to what end?? Should God be concerned that He will be judged by you, as if you're in a position of authority over Him?? Obviously, that is not the case, so it is you who should be asking yourself...How do I measure up to God's standards??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2013 11:23:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/26/2013 2:48:08 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/26/2013 2:43:06 AM, Wnope wrote:
The guy wiped out a planet's worth of children because he disapproved of the lifestyles of their parents (flood).

I've never understood why "God is cruel" is considered an argument against his existence. It's no more damaging than claiming "God is tall."

It's certainly an argument against a good god, just as a good argument to support "God is tall" is a good argument against a short god.

Not really. If God exists then He decides what is good and what is necessary, not man. God is cruel thus doesn't exist, is not even a rational position and can't be discussed in a rational manner.

Many people have tied their believe in god in with a perceived inherent goodness--strip that away, and their belief falls apart, so while logically A god could exist, THEIR god does not.

Then you're arguing with someone who is na"ve and has let you determine the rules of argumentation, which will distract him from his actual belief. This is why the PoE totally fails against the God of the Bible, when the atheist is held to the proper terms of argumentation. Bottom line is that no one believes in the god that atheists argue against, with the PoE. If you want to disprove the God of the Bible, then you must argue against that God, not some atheistic interpretation of an objective good.