Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Play On Epicurus

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

Epicurus looks at only one aspect or reality, evil. He ignores the good for the purpose of argument. But the fact is that good exists along side with evil. Let's see how Epicurus' piece sounds when it's subbed with good.

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

A good argument for God's goodness.

What if it we applied the piece to man's predicament

Is man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is helpless. 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 man? - Epicurus

And it's true. Many people want to prevent a given evil e.g. death but are unable to. Sometimes we a are in a position to stop a certain evil eg help and tend to the needy but we forgo the chance. Since certain evils even in US are in our power to overcome e.g. character defects why do they persist ? But will you dismiss your existence because you aren't able or willing to stop certain evils e.g. death of a disliked person. I think not. So why do such for God ?

Comments and critiques are welcome.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 11:43:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Is this some kind of brain fart?

Firstly, the existence of good is not a problem for a loving god as far as I know.

Secondly, the existence of man is not in question as far as I know. Do you have some doubts about it? Lol.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?

Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 2:29:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

I've seen that buck naked primitive band, they played mostly rockabilly.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:16:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

If, indeed we are, it will be the fault of the religious fanatics.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:21:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

Yes, mankind invented fire as a controlled source of heat and light. I'm sure you've realised that whenever you've lit up a match.

"We" are not doing anything. Some people might be blaming God. Others might be wondering why he isn't doing anything. Others don't even believe in Him and so cannot possibly blame Him. Others trust Him absolutely. It's a complete misrepresentation to claim mankind is saying anything in unison or even in broad consensus.

We are not poised in the precipice of anything. That's the same old line out of the book of paranoia that has been recited for decades now. We had been on the brink of total annihilation on several occasions during the Cold War.

We're much better off now.
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:23:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:16:36 PM, desmac wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

If, indeed we are, it will be the fault of the religious fanatics.

Why would that matter?
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:31:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:21:53 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

Yes, mankind invented fire as a controlled source of heat and light. I'm sure you've realised that whenever you've lit up a match.

"We" are not doing anything. Some people might be blaming God. Others might be wondering why he isn't doing anything. Others don't even believe in Him and so cannot possibly blame Him. Others trust Him absolutely. It's a complete misrepresentation to claim mankind is saying anything in unison or even in broad consensus.

We are not poised in the precipice of anything. That's the same old line out of the book of paranoia that has been recited for decades now. We had been on the brink of total annihilation on several occasions during the Cold War.

We're much better off now.

Unless the climate collapses. Or someone starts a nuclear war. All those weapons are still around, and are probably even less reliable today than they were when they were built. And God knows our politics are far less reasoned. So you're fooling yourself if you think we're not in danger of self annihilation.
Hitchian
Posts: 764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:31:27 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:21:53 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

Yes, mankind invented fire as a controlled source of heat and light. I'm sure you've realised that whenever you've lit up a match.

"We" are not doing anything. Some people might be blaming God. Others might be wondering why he isn't doing anything. Others don't even believe in Him and so cannot possibly blame Him. Others trust Him absolutely. It's a complete misrepresentation to claim mankind is saying anything in unison or even in broad consensus.

We are not poised in the precipice of anything. That's the same old line out of the book of paranoia that has been recited for decades now. We had been on the brink of total annihilation on several occasions during the Cold War.

We're much better off now.

Unless the climate collapses. Or someone starts a nuclear war. All those weapons are still around, and are probably even less reliable today than they were when they were built. And God knows our politics are far less reasoned. So you're fooling yourself if you think we're not in danger of self annihilation.

I'm not claiming the potential for disaster isn't here. But if history is to be a source of valuable lessons, those are of mostly of hope and optimism. Mankind has always pulled through.

We always pull through.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:42:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:36:37 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:31:27 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:21:53 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

Yes, mankind invented fire as a controlled source of heat and light. I'm sure you've realised that whenever you've lit up a match.

"We" are not doing anything. Some people might be blaming God. Others might be wondering why he isn't doing anything. Others don't even believe in Him and so cannot possibly blame Him. Others trust Him absolutely. It's a complete misrepresentation to claim mankind is saying anything in unison or even in broad consensus.

We are not poised in the precipice of anything. That's the same old line out of the book of paranoia that has been recited for decades now. We had been on the brink of total annihilation on several occasions during the Cold War.

We're much better off now.

Unless the climate collapses. Or someone starts a nuclear war. All those weapons are still around, and are probably even less reliable today than they were when they were built. And God knows our politics are far less reasoned. So you're fooling yourself if you think we're not in danger of self annihilation.

I'm not claiming the potential for disaster isn't here. But if history is to be a source of valuable lessons, those are of mostly of hope and optimism. Mankind has always pulled through.

We always pull through.

And if we don't, we won't know it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:45:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:16:36 PM, desmac wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

If, indeed we are, it will be the fault of the religious fanatics.
This seems like a fanatical way of thinking about religious fanatics. You give them a lot of power, they must have more courage then non religious fanatics. Courage usually results in saving your young, fighting evil, eating at McDonalds, you know all the things necessary to survive. Pacifists won't help in the matter. Buddhists are too busy building fat tummy statues and atheists are too busy debating God, I say, lets start an intense lion breeding program and release them in all climates where humans are easy prey. Then when the lions take over the world, if they don't keep killing another prides cubs, then the world will be filled with only armed humans, thus making it a better place. Shoot, I lost my train of thought....what's this thread again?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:25:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus
Typical straw man. If you approach God merely as a concept then by definition you cannot logically argue inaction as being relevant because you're applying human ideas of what would constitute "a timely manner in which to act" based on humans perception of time. Saying if God doesn't follow human timeframes then there isn't a God is a non sequitur. Epicurus is simply doing that without the issue of time being stated outright. Essentially it's a non argument and he's attempting to engage peoples emotions to try to disengage their reasoning skills. Epicurus is saying current inaction should be used to measure or claim no possible action at all, not a completely logical train of thought. Hopefully no one reads this because all I'll get is a rehashing of epicurus, you know, "how much time should we wait for God to act".....lol
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

Epicurus looks at only one aspect or reality, evil. He ignores the good for the purpose of argument. But the fact is that good exists along side with evil. Let's see how Epicurus' piece sounds when it's subbed with good.

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

A good argument for God's goodness.

What if it we applied the piece to man's predicament

Is man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is helpless. 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 man? - Epicurus

And it's true. Many people want to prevent a given evil e.g. death but are unable to. Sometimes we a are in a position to stop a certain evil eg help and tend to the needy but we forgo the chance. Since certain evils even in US are in our power to overcome e.g. character defects why do they persist ? But will you dismiss your existence because you aren't able or willing to stop certain evils e.g. death of a disliked person. I think not. So why do such for God ?

Comments and critiques are welcome.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 6:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:45:52 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:16:36 PM, desmac wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:13:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:26:23 PM, Hitchian wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?


Nothing has been given. No freebies. It was mankind who invented fire, vaccines, math, aeronautics, condoms, whoopers with cheese, along with every single thing that allowed us to tentatively get out of the savana as a buck naked scared to death primitive band and progressively thrive into the most successful species on the planet.

You can cry Greed!, Ignorance! and Selfishness! all you want. Our success as a species demonstrates you are mistaking the tree for the forest.

Mankind invented fire?

If we are doing so well on our own, as you seem to be claiming, then why are we blaming God for our predicament? Why are we poised in the precipice of our own annihilation?

If, indeed we are, it will be the fault of the religious fanatics.
This seems like a fanatical way of thinking about religious fanatics. You give them a lot of power, they must have more courage then non religious fanatics. Courage usually results in saving your young, fighting evil, eating at McDonalds, you know all the things necessary to survive. Pacifists won't help in the matter. Buddhists are too busy building fat tummy statues and atheists are too busy debating God, I say, lets start an intense lion breeding program and release them in all climates where humans are easy prey. Then when the lions take over the world, if they don't keep killing another prides cubs, then the world will be filled with only armed humans, thus making it a better place. Shoot, I lost my train of thought....what's this thread again?

Lion breeding program. Me likey.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:37:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?

Weren't we made in His image? It would seem pretty hypocritical of God to not accommodate that as part of His own image.

Unless of course you care to begin speculation as to what "His image" is, then specially plead out the parts represented in His image that you don't think apply.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 11:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

Epicurus looks at only one aspect or reality, evil. He ignores the good for the purpose of argument. But the fact is that good exists along side with evil. Let's see how Epicurus' piece sounds when it's subbed with good.

Good isn't the problem for such a Good God it's the evil that is..............


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

A good argument for God's goodness.

Or maybe cause God doesn't exist and thus doesn't prevent anything ?


What if it we applied the piece to man's predicament

Is man willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Yes sometimes.........

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

Yes sometimes..........

Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing?

Sometimes, sometimes not.............

Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him man? - Epicurus


And it's true. Many people want to prevent a given evil e.g. death but are unable to. Sometimes we a are in a position to stop a certain evil eg help and tend to the needy but we forgo the chance. Since certain evils even in US are in our power to overcome e.g. character defects why do they persist ? But will you dismiss your existence because you aren't able or willing to stop certain evils e.g. death of a disliked person. I think not. So why do such for God ?

Comments and critiques are welcome.

No one is disputing the non existence of an all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good MAN...........

Apply the same standard to the alleged "God"......................what do you get ? probably 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
PureX
Posts: 1,519
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 5:11:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 7:37:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?

Weren't we made in His image? It would seem pretty hypocritical of God to not accommodate that as part of His own image.

Unless of course you care to begin speculation as to what "His image" is, then specially plead out the parts represented in His image that you don't think apply.

We imagine God in our own image, because it's all we know.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 9:26:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 5:11:36 AM, PureX wrote:
At 11/14/2015 7:37:56 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 11/14/2015 2:17:42 PM, PureX wrote:
What makes you assume God is omnipotent?

Why do you assume that God should serve our desires, exclusively?

We humans have been given everything we need to survive and thrive. But we want more. We always want more. We destroy ourselves and each other, and our world trying to force more for ourselves. Why should God accommodate our greed, and ignorance, and selfishness?

Weren't we made in His image? It would seem pretty hypocritical of God to not accommodate that as part of His own image.

Unless of course you care to begin speculation as to what "His image" is, then specially plead out the parts represented in His image that you don't think apply.

We imagine God in our own image, because it's all we know.

We know elephants and jackals, why can't we imagine them as gods.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

Epicurus looks at only one aspect or reality, evil. He ignores the good for the purpose of argument. But the fact is that good exists along side with evil. Let's see how Epicurus' piece sounds when it's subbed with good.

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

A good argument for God's goodness.

What if it we applied the piece to man's predicament

Is man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is helpless. 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 man? - Epicurus

And it's true. Many people want to prevent a given evil e.g. death but are unable to. Sometimes we a are in a position to stop a certain evil eg help and tend to the needy but we forgo the chance. Since certain evils even in US are in our power to overcome e.g. character defects why do they persist ? But will you dismiss your existence because you aren't able or willing to stop certain evils e.g. death of a disliked person. I think not. So why do such for God ?

Comments and critiques are welcome.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 2:15:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
Epicurus is actually questioning the existence of a benevolent god well before the yahweh one was purloined (with changes) by christians.
His questions are appropriate when discussing such a proposed god and the answers eliminate the possibility of the existence of such a god as there are no alternative answers possible.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 2:46:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

Epicurus looks at only one aspect or reality, evil. He ignores the good for the purpose of argument. But the fact is that good exists along side with evil. Let's see how Epicurus' piece sounds when it's subbed with good.

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

A good argument for God's goodness.

What if it we applied the piece to man's predicament

Is man willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is helpless. 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 man? - Epicurus

And it's true. Many people want to prevent a given evil e.g. death but are unable to. Sometimes we a are in a position to stop a certain evil eg help and tend to the needy but we forgo the chance. Since certain evils even in US are in our power to overcome e.g. character defects why do they persist ? But will you dismiss your existence because you aren't able or willing to stop certain evils e.g. death of a disliked person. I think not. So why do such for God ?

Comments and critiques are welcome.

The analogy is flawed. Epicurus's argument is apply the properties of creation to the motivations and properties of the creator and showing an incoherence. You're example, not least for the fact that we know humans don't have the same properties claimed of the creator, and we know we exist for other means.

A better "human" example, is that of a "Benevolent" dictator, whom State TV tells you is all powerful and loving.

Can you not adequately determine whether that "benevolent" dictator is benevolent by rules, laws and orders applied to the people?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 3:38:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

I'm saying evil doesn't contradict God existence. It's a part of it.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Atheists simply shift the focus of the believer from the good to the evil. Crucially. They ignore the fact that some people who have suffered the worst evils are the most devoted to God. That requires moral fiber. Many Christians continue to be a good example of such.


P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

Preventing murder may require killing the murder, which is wrong. Tampering with the murderer's free will which is wrong. As you are now you have the power to prevent certain murders from happening by talking to gangsters. Thugs etc who commit these crimes; you don't. Why don't you say you aren't good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

No, God permitted it. He didn't will or want it. For instance a grown man could easily beat a littke child that abuses him, that he permits it doesn't mean he wants that kid to abuse him. He simply tolerates it.


(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?

Both.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 4:10:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 3:38:46 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

I'm saying evil doesn't contradict God existence. It's a part of it.

These arguments don't attempt to contest the existence of God, just the claimed attribute of benevolence.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Atheists simply shift the focus of the believer from the good to the evil. Crucially. (1) They ignore the fact that some people who have suffered the worst evils are the most devoted to God. That requires moral fiber. (2) Many Christians continue to be a good example of such.

(1) No one should just turn a blind eye to the part of a picture they don't want to acknowledge.

(2) Or a strong occurrence of Belief Perseverance (http://psychologydictionary.org...) coupled with Cognitive Dissonance triggered by desperation.

P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

Preventing murder may require killing the murder, which is wrong. (3) Tampering with the murderer's free will which is wrong. (4) As you are now you have the power to prevent certain murders from happening by talking to gangsters. Thugs etc who commit these crimes; you don't. Why don't you say you aren't good.(5)

(3) This is false if God is omnipotent, and especially so if He is omniscient.

(4) The psychology of the murderer which dictates his decisions is not that way by his own will. The brain he possesses that is the very mechanism of decision-making was necessarily created that exact way by God, himself. Even if one's "spirit" is influence his decisions, that spirit is beyond his control and has also been created that way by God. Nothing that exists in the world, including Free Will, can exist without having been deliberately created and authored by God.

(5) Although I do not have the necessary knowledge and power that God has to stop a murder, I would (I hope) risk my life (which is something God cannot do) and attempt to stop one if I thought I could. Also, I don't say that I am good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

No, God permitted it. He didn't will or want it. For instance a grown man could easily beat a littke child that abuses him, that he permits it doesn't mean he wants that kid to abuse him. He simply tolerates it.

See (4), above. If God is both omnipotent and omniscient, then He definitively knows ALL of the results and consequences of His actions before they are made. He knew of each person's will and actions beforehand, and which actions they would take and be subjected to. An omnipotent and omniscient God necessarily dictates the outcome of every detail of His creation.

(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?

Both.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 5:29:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?

Premise1) fallacy of composition, you assume murder is bad to God, assumes what a good being is or how it acts (subjective) prevent murder assumes that is a good behavior, (completely subjective)
P2) your point?
P3) your point?
C1) prove murder is evil to God
C2) non sequitur. You are incapable of determining for the whole of humanity, much less God ,what constitutes good or bad.
And before you attempt to equate commandments as to what God thinks is evil, the only bullet proof deduction from the commandment thou shalt not kill is God knows people are going to kill. You cannot argue with certainty that God thinks humans killing humans is bad to God. But nice try of subjective garbage. Logic is about truth not opinion....your subjective opinion argued to yourself, as it is being, isn't reasoning.
Prove what is bad to God.......You can't. Nice try though. But circular reasoning with subjective garbage isn't an argument.
I have a question for you. At what point in your life did you figure out you know what is good and that everybody else, including God, better agree?
Come back when you have an argument that isn't reasoning based on your subjective viewpoint. Here, I'll show you why it's subjective. I don't agree with what you claim constitutes good and bad. There, argument defeated anything else?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 5:50:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 5:29:34 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?

Premise1) fallacy of composition, you assume murder is bad to God, assumes what a good being is or how it acts (subjective) prevent murder assumes that is a good behavior, (completely subjective)
P2) your point?
P3) your point?
C1) prove murder is evil to God
C2) non sequitur. You are incapable of determining for the whole of humanity, much less God ,what constitutes good or bad.
And before you attempt to equate commandments as to what God thinks is evil, the only bullet proof deduction from the commandment thou shalt not kill is God knows people are going to kill. You cannot argue with certainty that God thinks humans killing humans is bad to God. But nice try of subjective garbage. Logic is about truth not opinion....your subjective opinion argued to yourself, as it is being, isn't reasoning.

As I said, I don't subscribe to that argument. I asked how you would challenge that argument so that I can better see where you are coming from on this issue, so thank you for responding to it. I am well aware that the concept of "good" is subjective. Death is only bad from the limited perception of the living.

Prove what is bad to God.......You can't. Nice try though. But circular reasoning with subjective garbage isn't an argument.

Obviously, especially since I haven't seen how he could even be shown to exist. But, I would be inclined to believe that which is bad to God doesn't exist. So, God doesn't think that murder, or any other worldly occurrence, is bad. This was the purpose of my leading question. As an aside, I don't see how this is circular.

I have a question for you. At what point in your life did you figure out you know what is good and that everybody else, including God, better agree?

Never. I think you misinterpreted my aims, here. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

Come back when you have an argument that isn't reasoning based on your subjective viewpoint. Here, I'll show you why it's subjective. I don't agree with what you claim constitutes good and bad. There, argument defeated anything else?

Nothing at the moment, this response pretty much answered my question. God does not abide by our human notion of "good". Thank you.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 5:53:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 2:15:53 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
Epicurus is actually questioning the existence of a benevolent god well before the yahweh one was purloined (with changes) by christians.
His questions are appropriate when discussing such a proposed god and the answers eliminate the possibility of the existence of such a god as there are no alternative answers possible.
Please copy and paste where I said anything about a Christian God, ty. You don't follow reasoning or logic very well do you. Here I'll help. Just because a God doesn't do something within a human time frame doesn't say anything about that God existing, it's a non sequitur. Epicurus' questions are phrased solely based on the claim that if a God doesn't act within a time frame acceptable to humans than that means the God is unable to act, does not act purposely, or will never act. Bullsh2t reasoning.
And as far as your BS claim there are no alternatives, plainly stated, acting within a time frame isn't relevant to existence. Not to mention Epicurus is using a subjective opinion throughout the argument on what God should act upon based on his opinion on what is good or bad.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 6:01:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 5:50:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 5:29:34 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?

Premise1) fallacy of composition, you assume murder is bad to God, assumes what a good being is or how it acts (subjective) prevent murder assumes that is a good behavior, (completely subjective)
P2) your point?
P3) your point?
C1) prove murder is evil to God
C2) non sequitur. You are incapable of determining for the whole of humanity, much less God ,what constitutes good or bad.
And before you attempt to equate commandments as to what God thinks is evil, the only bullet proof deduction from the commandment thou shalt not kill is God knows people are going to kill. You cannot argue with certainty that God thinks humans killing humans is bad to God. But nice try of subjective garbage. Logic is about truth not opinion....your subjective opinion argued to yourself, as it is being, isn't reasoning.

As I said, I don't subscribe to that argument. I asked how you would challenge that argument so that I can better see where you are coming from on this issue, so thank you for responding to it. I am well aware that the concept of "good" is subjective. Death is only bad from the limited perception of the living.

Prove what is bad to God.......You can't. Nice try though. But circular reasoning with subjective garbage isn't an argument.

Obviously, especially since I haven't seen how he could even be shown to exist. But, I would be inclined to believe that which is bad to God doesn't exist. So, God doesn't think that murder, or any other worldly occurrence, is bad. This was the purpose of my leading question. As an aside, I don't see how this is circular.

I have a question for you. At what point in your life did you figure out you know what is good and that everybody else, including God, better agree?

Never. I think you misinterpreted my aims, here. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

Come back when you have an argument that isn't reasoning based on your subjective viewpoint. Here, I'll show you why it's subjective. I don't agree with what you claim constitutes good and bad. There, argument defeated anything else?

Nothing at the moment, this response pretty much answered my question. God does not abide by our human notion of "good". Thank you.
Chaotic, I owe you an apology. I merely went straight to the argument . Just woke up and completely missed your sentence stated above. Lol had I read it I would've saved myself some typing. Yes, no one is capable of proving what is good or evil to God. And to put a finer point on it, It's possible that God interacts with humans based on humans limited wisdom of good and bad, therefore things that God thinks humans should think are bad and good is based on that limited wisdom, not based on Gods infinite wisdom as to what the natures of good and evil really are.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2015 6:14:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/16/2015 6:01:38 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/16/2015 5:50:42 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 5:29:34 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/16/2015 3:09:38 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 11/16/2015 12:25:17 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/14/2015 9:41:42 AM, Iredia wrote:
Many people know the famous quote by 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? - Epicurus

Prevention of evil is a straw man. Just because God hasn't done something based on human ideas of what constitues a particular time frame or done in a timely manner doesn't mean God isn't willing or not able. The conclusion isn't derived from a logical perspective of the God Epicurus claims the argument is in regards to.
He's typical of someone who argues intention doesn't exist because it currently hasn't been displayed. ---non sequitur.
It is has provoked many theists and been used repeatedly. I would like to make some amendments and commentaries on it. Here goes.

So, you are essentially saying that God doesn't correspond to our human notion of "good", right? If not, please show me how you would challenge this argument:

P1. A good being would prevent a murder from occurring, if possible.
P2. God has the power to prevent any given murder from occurring.
P3. Murders occur.
C1. Therefore, God has chosen not to prevent any given murder from occurring.
C2. Therefore, God is not good.

If God is omnipotent AND omniscient, then nothing can occur that contradicts God's will. If this is so, then the premises above can be revised to "God has willed murder to occur" in lieu of prevention, in P2 and C1.

(FTR - I do not subscribe to this argument, nor to the Epicurean Paradox).

Another question I have, out of curiosity is: Do you believe that God is concerned with humanity as a whole or on an individual by individual basis?

Premise1) fallacy of composition, you assume murder is bad to God, assumes what a good being is or how it acts (subjective) prevent murder assumes that is a good behavior, (completely subjective)
P2) your point?
P3) your point?
C1) prove murder is evil to God
C2) non sequitur. You are incapable of determining for the whole of humanity, much less God ,what constitutes good or bad.
And before you attempt to equate commandments as to what God thinks is evil, the only bullet proof deduction from the commandment thou shalt not kill is God knows people are going to kill. You cannot argue with certainty that God thinks humans killing humans is bad to God. But nice try of subjective garbage. Logic is about truth not opinion....your subjective opinion argued to yourself, as it is being, isn't reasoning.

As I said, I don't subscribe to that argument. I asked how you would challenge that argument so that I can better see where you are coming from on this issue, so thank you for responding to it. I am well aware that the concept of "good" is subjective. Death is only bad from the limited perception of the living.

Prove what is bad to God.......You can't. Nice try though. But circular reasoning with subjective garbage isn't an argument.

Obviously, especially since I haven't seen how he could even be shown to exist. But, I would be inclined to believe that which is bad to God doesn't exist. So, God doesn't think that murder, or any other worldly occurrence, is bad. This was the purpose of my leading question. As an aside, I don't see how this is circular.

I have a question for you. At what point in your life did you figure out you know what is good and that everybody else, including God, better agree?

Never. I think you misinterpreted my aims, here. My apologies for not making myself clearer.

Come back when you have an argument that isn't reasoning based on your subjective viewpoint. Here, I'll show you why it's subjective. I don't agree with what you claim constitutes good and bad. There, argument defeated anything else?

Nothing at the moment, this response pretty much answered my question. God does not abide by our human notion of "good". Thank you.
Chaotic, I owe you an apology. I merely went straight to the argument . Just woke up and completely missed your sentence stated above. Lol had I read it I would've saved myself some typing. Yes, no one is capable of proving what is good or evil to God. And to put a finer point on it, It's possible that God interacts with humans based on humans limited wisdom of good and bad, therefore things that God thinks humans should think are bad and good is based on that limited wisdom, not based on Gods infinite wisdom as to what the natures of good and evil really are.

No problem - I can understand that!