The problem of evil

[Archaeopteryx]

You are not listening. Test ALL claims against the teachings of Jesus and the disciples in Scripture.

No, you're not listening. The individuals depicted in that video are Christians, despite your claims to the contrary. It doesn't matter that you disagree with them on points of doctrine. They are still Christians.

You seem to think that all Christians should be the same in every single belief. You seem to have a real issue with Christians expressing different beliefs on non-core issues.

Er, no. You're the one with the issue, playing the "No True Christian" canard against Christians you disagree with.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Once again, I already did.

Where?

 

[amariselle]

No it doesn't.

If science cannot answer some difficult question, it doesn't follow that religion can.

And yet science claims it has answers it does not have.

Morality is about wellbeing, which is objective. Hitler's actions had real objective consequences for people's wellbeing. What should worry you more is how easily Hitler could have justified his actions by appealing to "God's will." In fact, he did exactly that, stating in Mein Kampf, "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

You do realize that many religions believe in an "Almighty Creator" right? That claim in no way indicates that Hitler was a Christian or was worshipping the God of the Bible.

Throughout history people have used the Bible to justify all kinds of things, that does not make them Christians.

Enter Euthyphro: is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good?

Read the Bible if you truly want to know what God says. I suspect you do not however. Your choice.

 

[amariselle]

No, you're not listening. The individuals depicted in that video are Christians, despite your claims to the contrary. It doesn't matter that you disagree with them on points of doctrine. They are still Christians.

Actually they are not Christians. To be a Christian, you must obey Christ.

Er, no. You're the one with the issue, playing the "No True Christian" canard against Christians you disagree with.

Against "Christians" who apparently disagree with Christ. How then can they actually be Christians?

 

[amariselle]

Where?

Multiple times. Read my answers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And yet science claims it has answers it does not have.

Such as?

You do realize that many religions believe in an "Almighty Creator" right? That claim in no way indicates that Hitler was a Christian or was worshipping the God of the Bible.

What god do you think he was referring to, if not the Christian god?

Throughout history people have used the Bible to justify all kinds of things, that does not make them Christians.

Some Christians have invoked the Bible to justify hate. Deal with it.

Read the Bible if you truly want to know what God says. I suspect you do not however. Your choice.

So you're just going to ignore the Euthyphro dilemma?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually they are not Christians. To be a Christian, you must obey Christ.

Which is exactly what they claim to be doing!

Against "Christians" who apparently disagree with Christ. How then can they actually be Christians?

They say the same about you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Multiple times. Read my answers.

You should be able to point to the posts in which you answered them.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Enter Euthyphro: is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good?

Now I know for a fact that I answered the question about Euthyphro literally 5 times now. I know you have read my answer because you have responded to them. So why do you bring it up again?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now I know for a fact that I answered the question about Euthyphro literally 5 times now. I know you have read my answer because you have responded to them. So why do you bring it up again?

What was your answer?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Beginning at 6:37:

Who says that the universe was created "from nothing"? If you are doctrinally committed to creatio ex nihilo, then that would be you.

We acknowledge that we don't know how the universe came to be, and that this question is worthwhile pursuing. In what way does that require faith?

First of all, the video does not work. Second, you do understand the difference between God creating everything from nothing vs all matter and energy was created from nothing. Violating the laws of thermodynamics. I guess its ok to throw scientific laws out the window as long as it can justify rejecting God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Second, you do understand the difference between God creating everything from nothing vs all matter and energy was created from nothing. Violating the laws of thermodynamics. I guess its ok to throw scientific laws out the window as long as it can justify rejecting God.

Do the laws of thermodynamics exist in nothing?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

What was your answer?

Why should I repeat it for a sixth time? Why should I waste my time with you? The fact that you keep bringing up the same questions and ignoring the answers makes it obvious that you don't want answers. You just want to blindly argue and debate. If you want the answer, do a search for it yourself.

Before I put you on my ignore list. Can you give me any reason why I should waste my time with you any further?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First of all, the video does not work.

It works fine on my end.

Second, you do understand the difference between God creating everything from nothing vs all matter and energy was created from nothing. Violating the laws of thermodynamics. I guess its ok to throw scientific laws out the window as long as it can justify rejecting God.

Who said that matter and energy were created from nothing? Again, if you are doctrinally committed to creatio ex nihilo, then it would be you saying that. So if "violating the laws of thermodynamics" is genuinely a problem, then it's your problem.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Do the laws of thermodynamics exist in nothing?


eudaimonia,

Mark

"Energy can neither be created or destroyed." Unless of course you want to justify rejecting God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why should I repeat it for a sixth time?

Because I don't recall seeing you mention it at all, although I may have missed it.

Why should I waste my time with you? The fact that you keep bringing up the same questions and ignoring the answers makes it obvious that you don't want answers. You just want to blindly argue and debate. If you want the answer, do a search for it yourself.

Before I put you on my ignore list. Can you give me any reason why I should waste my time with you any further?

I don't care if you put me on your ignore list. I don't think you have any answers to give, in which case you are wasting my time.

 

[bhsmte]

I am just stating the obvious fact that you really don't know if a god does not exist. That fact that you cannot admit that tells me you are desperate.

Maybe, just maybe, you should read my posts a little bit better.

You see, I have already answered this and answered it quite clearly. The fact you need to keep claiming I have not responded, reeks of desperation.

 

[bhsmte]

Again, ditto. I have seen absolutely nothing here that convinces me science has the answers to life's most important questions. And I have seen nothing that explains how science can disprove God.

But unlike you, I'm not going to wait around for science to do so, it never will.

I have stated that evidence shows that science is reliable. Whether science has answers to life's most important questions would depend what those questions are.

Science does not pretend to have answers to what there is no evidence for. In time, science may or may not. Going by it's track record, new well evidenced discoveries are likely.

 

[bhsmte]

Science is the study of the observable, natural world around us. It is the study of the material, physical, reproducible phenomena/occurrences that can be demonstrated and repeatedly reproduced through experimentation and study.

The problem is that science has overstepped its bounds and has made claims about that which it cannot study or support through evidence and experimentation. Instead it has claimed various theories are absolute fact.

Demonstrate what you claim regarding science overstepping it's bounds with specific examples please.

 

[bhsmte]

Your problem here is that you have made the words "logic" and "science" synonymous. They are not.

And yes, true science admits that it cannot study God, that it can neither prove or disprove His existence. Science can only deal with the observable and material world around us.

Thank you for reiterating my points.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate this; "true science".