Loudmouth, be reasonable. I am not making a claim that God is good or evil. I am saying the evidence is not available to me. You are claiming that God is evil. That means the burden is not on me, but on you to prove it. As long as I show that you have not proved it, then I can maintain my position of there being not being enough evidence to make a truth claim.
This is a very simple point, you must be able to understand.
If I made the positive claim that there was a Flying Spagetti Monster out there, you would ask me to provide evidence. In order to prove there isn't a FSM, all you have to show is that my pro-FSM evidence is faulty. As simple as that.
I do not mean to be disrespectful, but you might have a legitimate learning disability or reading comprehension issues. You say that I am flat out denying what you are saying as if I am offering no counter argument, but I very clearly did offer a counter argument that it is possible for a parent to be good but have to kill his own child. Of course, the situation is extreme in the utmost. But your example was extreme in the utmost. That was my point.
You cannot respond to every specific counter argument I make and deny I'm making a counter argument, that's just foolish.
And I showed that in an extreme example, a parent might have to kill. If your son when crazy and had a gun right to your daughter's head, and you had a gun, you wouldn't shoot him if you had perfect knowledge of the future and knew he would pull the trigger?
Yes, but an ominpotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent being may not, as we finite humans cannot quantify whether it is more benevolent for there to be evil that can be constructive (such as evil that compels forgiveness) than there being an absence of such evil.
You would need to prove that the preceding is not the case, and without perfect knowledge of the future you can't.
No, but your example presupposes God murdering us so that we may forgive Him, and no one is arguing that absurd position.
Read the first response in this post, you really need to understand what a "burden of proof" is.
I beg to differ, any unbiased observer would admit that you're struggling against me. But again, it's not because I'm smart. I'm arguing a much easier position than you, you are seeking to prove something and must provide evidence. All I have to show is that your evidence of faulty. Your murdered children and your pot were easily disproved.
So, is you position if moral agent know right and wrong, and even presuming animals don't know right and wrong, than man and God are moral agents. And if that be the case, who has a better knowledge of right and wrong, us or the omniscient One?
Fair enough. But being that we are not omniscient, perhaps to God our knowledge of right and wrong isn't profound at all and belongs with the animals. This is especially true from your position, because we evolved from Apes.
But that's not the point. If the universe is anthropocentric, then it does matter, but if the universe is anything else-centric it doesn't matter in the least bit.
Yes, but caring about it is sentient-creature-centric. The universe is dominated by inanimate objects. Why would the Creator be failing in His purposes unless His purpose was to benefit sentient creatures at all costs?
You literally have to prove that the only way God can be benevolent is for Him to benefit sentient creatures at all cost. There's your burden.
Yet, you don't explain why, don't defend you own argument, and then offer a new argument:
I don't disagree that evil happens because men aren't omniscient and omnibenevolent, but that doesn't explain disease, disasters and the like. So, I do't see how that proves there is no Creator or that the Creator is bad, you still have not proved that.
In your case, with an actual counter-argument instead of appeals to emotionalism. Bible-thumpers appeal to emotion instead of cold, calculating logic.
Yes, but their moral rules are arbitrary, because they are contrived. But this is a different debate.
Upvote
0
