Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Something I don,t get, toward the end of the clip he said,
"The sooner you abandon Him the better, Life becomes better,"
but the negative he previously mentioned, also these Eye burrowing insect, are still around,
What does he mean by that?
You have defended your god. That would indicate approval.What have I said that gives you the impression I think bone cancer in children is cool?! How ridiculous and insulting....
Something that is not morally acceptable is immoral. Your opinion is duly notedI'm not saying it is morally acceptable - I'm saying it is the result of a fallen world where humanity has rejected God. I am convinced that if sin had not entered the world through the fall, there would be no disease and suffering.
How many universes have you seen that don't have eye-borrowing worms?
My comment was in jest.Left unrestrained evolution would produce that whereas the God proposed by Christianity would not.
Sometimes what some people think is apparent is not correct, often because they have misunderstood something along the way.This is the point, we are not comparing which universe would be better, one with a god who sets some limit on pointless unbelievable suffering, and one which lacks a divine being of that type. I'm sure we would all prefer one where totally pointless suffering was not going on.
We are simply asking which universe do we live in, and the answer was already apparent in 300 BC.
I've seen two approaches in Christian apologetics, neither of which works. One is to state that free will is the overriding principle, one which scripture is a bit ambivalent on, and then to claim that therefore God can not prevent people in a plane dropping a nuclear bomb and causing thousands to die slowly in great agony. The articles always assume the free will always sides with whoever is causing suffering over the free choice of those who end up in unbelievable suffering, and I haven't mentioned the worst of the suffering by any means and have no intention to do so.
That might constitute sufficient "proof" to convince you,...What has happened in this thread is unusual.
The normal routine is atheists say something like 'you can't prove God exists'.
The Christians say something like 'you can't prove God doesn't exist'
The atheist then says something like 'you know nobody can prove a negative, and the onus is on you to prove God does exist'.
And it ends in a stalemate.
And the reason is the term 'god' is usually left undefined and disproof then has to be that everything that could possibly be called a god doesn't exist, and given for example that humans are described as gods in the Old Testament, the non existence of everything that might be classed as a god is clearly impossible.
In this thread the achievable has been achieved, it has been demonstrated that the more narrowly defined all-powerful all-knowing and merciful God does not exist in this universe. The statement made before Christianity even started by Epicurus still stands:
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?
Well, in particular:
God created all things
A disease is something
Therefore, God created disease.
Recent clip of Stephen Fry's reaction when asked what he would say if he met God (assumed Judeo Christian variant..)
Anyone seen it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo
From my perspective, evil is immorality. We normally use the word as a descriptor for somebody/something who performs acts that are deeply offensive, but in general it is simply acts of immorality. We tend to tone things down when the misdemeanour is not highly offensive (we might say somebody is naughty, rather than evil), but that is just human sensitivity at play.You appear to accept the presence of 'evil'. Maybe you could provide an explanation for the existence of 'evil'? How do you define it?
Tony - this is the 3rd time I've asked you this - it's very easy to pick the bones out of my responses. It would be nice to get a straight answer out of you...
Logical fallacy number 1 - Argument from incredulity
Logical fallacy number 2 - Unwarranted assumption
So I was right, special pleading
Another unwarranted assumption.
Another logical fallacy.No, simply a pointing out how an ant cannot be the judge of a human.
Moving the goalposts before making another unwarranted assumption?Not so. Everything that happens, in an orderly universe, by definition had to happen and was an unavoidable part of what it means to have an orderly universe. Its the very opposite of special pleading - as special pleading would demand a universe that could magically conform to our demands.
So you're admitting that God (the cause) is responsible for all the nastiness (the effect) we experience?This is what a universe of cause and effect looks like.
This is what a universe of cause and effect had to look like - because cause and effect doesn't give any room for anything different.
But it does change on the magical whim or the demands of its (supposed) egotistical creator? That would be yet more special pleading.....It doesn't change on magical whim or the demands of its more egotistical inhabitants.
And a final "Begging the question" to round things off.You may as well complain about the laws of mathematics must lead to some people having less money when they spend it.
Several things become better:
1. A freer choice of how to deal with problems. The planet is very populous but half of Christians are not permitted contraception. If a person finds they are not heterosexual then celibacy is the only option. Many Christians will not accept rising ocean levels because their god allegedly promised not to flood the world again.
2. Free time that might otherwise be spent defending the absurd, or reading a very confused old book.
3. No more fear of eternal torment
4. Not having to support stupid 'god wants it' policies at a national level.
But there could also be a downside:
1. No more meeting and belting out wonderful hymns
2. No more coffee after church and meeting what are actually very nice people.
3. Being able to half believe you will meet long lost beloved ones in the hereafter.
There is a third way
1&2. go to a somewhat liberal church
3. Have you ever really got to grips with scientific determinism? I personally don't find nomological determinism is undermined by quantum mechanics, I find it is a perfectly good basis for necessitarianism, that is to say, scientists are not sure if the universe is deterministic or not. Christianity has both Calvinist and Arminian theories and so does science. If the Universe is deterministic then the information is continuous and nothing ever actually disappears, it just changes.
.
So what other possibilities are you proposing?That might constitute sufficient "proof" to convince you,...
Epicurus falls on a number of counts:
A naive understanding of God's ability.
That falls under the "able but not willing" category.Not accounting for the possibility that God might have a reason for not having eliminated evil
Please expand.Etc.
I disagree. It may be simplistic, but it's not poor.As a bit of logic it's very poor.
It's not up to me to propose any possibilities.So what other possibilities are you proposing?
The trouble with such terse language that it ends up being equivocated.That falls under the "able but not willing" category.
Another logical fallacy.
So you're admitting that God (the cause) is responsible for all the nastiness (the effect) we experience?
But it does change on the magical whim or the demands of its (supposed) egotistical creator? That would be yet more special pleading.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?