God & Evil

Re: God & Evil

rockpie wrote:

the usual description of god would be that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. so if that is the case, why does evil, pain and suffering exist in our world?

either god can, but won't rid us of evil. in which case he is malevolent.

or he would, but can't rid us of evil. in which case he is impotent.

or he can and would, but chooses not to anyway due to us having free will. but if we have free will, how can god be all-knowing? if we have the ability to make truly free choices, god wouldn't know what we would choose to do, and if he can know what we will do in every situation, are we truly free?

i'm not on any particular side in this argument, but i read an article somewhere and thought it was an interesting debate.

Man's free will and God's omniscience are not contradictory.

Why would they be?

Just because God knows what we will do doesn't mean He chose it for us.

0 Replies

But, if he already knew the outcome of the charade of creation even before he began to contemplate creation, why even bother? Why not just start from the end, and let those few live forever, and the vast rest roast in hell (or, like neo prefers, merely die)?

0 Replies

Re: God & Evil

real life wrote:

Just because God knows what we will do doesn't mean He chose it for us.

Uh... and what of the christian notion of fate?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Re: God & Evil

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Just because God knows what we will do doesn't mean He chose it for us.

Uh... and what of the christian notion of fate?

T
K
O

I have no idea what you are talking about.

0 Replies

I just don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

Your notion of god makes no sense. For that matter, no notion of god I have yet to hear makes much sense.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I don't know anyone who completely understands God. Man's finite mind probably cannot grasp the Infinite.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I just don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

Your notion of god makes no sense. For that matter, no notion of god I have yet to hear makes much sense.

T
K
O

Note that the member "real life" quotes in his signature line his companion in crime, Baddog, demanding that someone prove the existence of love, as though that were a clever way to dispose of the call for a proof of god. However, the questions are not the same; or, if they are, then the religionist's notion of god is patently false. People experience love subjectively, as something which happens to them personally, and the evidence for which is their personal experience. To attempt to correlate the experience of love to the experience of "god" is to acknowledge that "god" is a subjective experience. There is no basis upon which one can state to a certainty that a merely subjective experience exists independently of the individual. There can be no plausibly-based statement that either "love" or "god" represents a universal, eternal principle which is separate from any individual who claims to experience either--but the religionist cannot acknowledge that, because they need their anthropomorphic deity with an improbable focus on the supremely insignificant humanity scurrying over the earth; which, in the cosmic scale, is little more than a virus cultured on the surface of a ball of dung.

Of course, they can abandon the analogy of "god" to "love," but they will be no nearer to demonstrating that any such thing as a god exists.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

For that matter, no notion of god I have yet to hear makes much sense.

You may have a more direct notion of the almighty should you marry.

0 Replies

That's what you call your basic wry humor . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I just don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.

Your notion of god makes no sense. For that matter, no notion of god I have yet to hear makes much sense.

T
K
O

Note that the member "real life" quotes in his signature line his companion in crime, Baddog, demanding that someone prove the existence of love, as though that were a clever way to dispose of the call for a proof of god. However, the questions are not the same; or, if they are, then the religionist's notion of god is patently false. People experience love subjectively, as something which happens to them personally, and the evidence for which is their personal experience. To attempt to correlate the experience of love to the experience of "god" is to acknowledge that "god" is a subjective experience. There is no basis upon which one can state to a certainty that a merely subjective experience exists independently of the individual. There can be no plausibly-based statement that either "love" or "god" represents a universal, eternal principle which is separate from any individual who claims to experience either--but the religionist cannot acknowledge that, because they need their anthropomorphic deity with an improbable focus on the supremely insignificant humanity scurrying over the earth; which, in the cosmic scale, is little more than a virus cultured on the surface of a ball of dung.

Of course, they can abandon the analogy of "god" to "love," but they will be no nearer to demonstrating that any such thing as a god exists.

Can you prove love exists, Setanta?

That's the point. You cannot.

0 Replies

Of course not, and i wouldn't claim that i could. It's a subjective experience, not a concrete reality . . .

. . . just like god.

And that is the point.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
For that matter, no notion of god I have yet to hear makes much sense.
You may have a more direct notion of the almighty should you marry.

Geez, you have yet to experience a equitable, well balanced relationship!

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
For that matter, no notion of god I have yet to hear makes much sense.
You may have a more direct notion of the almighty should you marry.

Geez, you have yet to experience a equitable, well balanced relationship!

Please don't worry, I have you as my mentor.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Please don't worry, I have you as my mentor.

Not that I'm worried but I could teach you some tricks...

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Please don't worry, I have you as my mentor.
Not that I'm worried but I could teach you some tricks...

Are you familiar with "roll over and play dead"?

0 Replies

No need to tell me, I do that naturally...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Of course not, and i wouldn't claim that i could. It's a subjective experience, not a concrete reality . . .

. . . just like god.

And that is the point.

Some things may not meet the standard for objective, scientific proof.

That doesn't mean that they do not exist.

Science is fairly limited as to what can be proven.

Most events of history cannot be proven by using scientific standards.

It doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

Can you scientifically prove that you have eaten at least one meal every day of your life?

0 Replies

Saying that i have eaten is not an extraordinary claim--one can reasonably assert that i will have eaten recently because those who do not eat eventaully die, and dead people don't post on internet fora. In the matter of my alimentary habits, the burden of proof would be for someone to prove that i d not eat, and yet still survive to post here.

Your claim about "god," however, does constitute an extraordinary claim. It is up to you to prove it, and you consistent fail to offer even a feeble "proof."

As with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and compassionate conservatives--the burden of proving fairy tales lies with the tale teller.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your claim about "god," however, does constitute an extraordinary claim. It is up to you to prove it, and you consistent fail to offer even a feeble "proof."

If the 'proof' that you require is 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural', then it is an absurd request.

Again, the problem is with your assumption that something does not exist if it cannot be 'objectively' verified.

Science and the scientific method can be used only to verify a relatively small percentage of human experience.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If the 'proof' that you require is 'natural' proof of the 'supernatural', then it is an absurd request.

Again, the problem is with your assumption that something does not exist if it cannot be 'objectively' verified.

Science and the scientific method can be used only to verify a relatively small percentage of human experience.

I'm asking for any plausible proof, but to claim that the supernatural created the natural world, but that there can be no natural proof for the existence of the supernatural is simply more evidence of your dishonesty, and the paucity of your rhetorical skills.

I don't assume that something does not exist, rather, i don't assume that something does exist of an extraordinary nature without objective proof. Failing objective proof, all you have is your subjective experience, which is no good reason to believe anything. Like most dull-witted religionists, you are attempting to turn forensics on its head, and say that someone is obliged to either disprove an extraordinary claim, or accept it. Nonsense. Claiming that your imaginary friend is real is an extraordinary claim--therefore, you have the burden of proof. If your proof is not objective, than all you offer is a subjective statement, which does not constitute proof at all. This is not people refusing to believe what is self-evident, and then demanding that you prove it. This is you claiming that something exists which is not self-evident, while failing to give anyone any good reason to believe you.

What "percentage" of human experience which can or cannot be scientifically verified is hardly the point, and not a topic upon which i have any good reason to consider you an absolute authority qualified to make ex cathedra statements. That human beings are routinely delusional is something i would never deny--witness the theists. However, your version of the imaginary friend is, allegedly, first cause, prime mover. This is not some matter of the small details of someone's private life--so to attempt to suggest that there is a valid corollary between what i had for dinner, and my ability to prove it, as opposed to the existence of a deity, and your ability to prove it, is, to say the least, and to be kind to you, idiotic.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know