55
   

How can a good God allow suffering

 
 
jwagner
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 07:27 pm
@Setanta,
He says it is obvious that God does not exist, meaning there is some reason behind it in which his existence is impossible. Can you point me in the right direction to how I can fully know God does not exist?
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 07:43 pm
@jwagner,
Quote:
Can you point me in the right direction to how I can fully know God does not exist?

Yes. Pointing out your inability to point us in the direction of how we can fully know that the god exists is pointing you in the direction of knowing that the god does not exist.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2016 11:15 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Putting aside your attempts to maker me out an insulter of your people, how about giving us a clue what evidence has been presented here? It's not a secret is it?
I didn't say such evidence had been presented here (in this thread). The subject of this thread starts off with the assumption that there is a good God, and the arguments follow from that.

If you wish to see my posts on evidence of a creator, they can mostly be found in the thread "ID, Science or Religion?".

For the most part, theists believe in God not because of scientific arguments about the plausibility of abiogenesis or evolution, but because of their personal interactions with God. I do not bother presenting anything of that sort because obviously it can not be scientifically verified, but that does not mean it is not real. I think demanding physical evidence of spiritual beings is kind of a contradiction in terms anyway.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 04:29 am
@jwagner,
jwagner wrote:

Obvious answer? Could you give some examples why it is impossible for there to be a God?


It's not impossible. Anything is possible, including Unicorns and Magic Elves, so why do you dismiss those in favor of the word "God"? Why the dichotomy in your argument?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 05:45 am
@jwagner,
I've not seen a post by Roswell in which he says that it is obvious that god does not exist. So, at the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself . . .

Setanta wrote:
I don't see anywhere that Ros has said that it is impossible for there to be a god. Talk about loaded questions.


Can you point out the post in which he said that?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:34 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Anything is possible, including Unicorns and Magic Elves, so why do you dismiss those in favor of the word "God"?
Congratulations ros, you've come up with another way to say "There is no God!".

By equating God with a KNOWN myth, it is the same thing as saying 'we know with certainty that God is a myth'.

Just another form of 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' or in this case, 'Reductio ad Unicornium".
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:54 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Quote:
Anything is possible, including Unicorns and Magic Elves, so why do you dismiss those in favor of the word "God"?
Congratulations ros, you've come up with another way to say "There is no God!".

I'm not trying to hide the fact that I think there is no God. But I'm doing far more than just saying "There's no God". I'm supporting my argument with logic, and I'm asking anyone who disagrees to engage the argument and tell me why they think differently. I will give fair consideration to any answer that is presented. But so far no answer to the logical argument has been given.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 07:09 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
But so far no answer to the logical argument has been given.
You have presented no logical argument here. We know the origin of unicorns and elves. They are by admission of their originators, invented from imagination, so there can be no proof or evidence. The same is not true of God. No one other than atheists (who did not originate the concept of God) are saying that God is an invention of imagination.

The two are not equal, hence, you have not presented a logical argument.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:18 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
But so far no answer to the logical argument has been given.
You have presented no logical argument here. We know the origin of unicorns and elves. They are by admission of their originators, invented from imagination, so there can be no proof or evidence. The same is not true of God. No one other than atheists (who did not originate the concept of God) are saying that God is an invention of imagination.

The two are not equal, hence, you have not presented a logical argument.

Why are they not equivalent? Specifically. They appear equivalent to me. Aren't all magical solutions equivalent in their potential validity? How are they different?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 11:48 am
@Leadfoot,
Does it help if I stop saying Unicorns and Elves and just replace that with "All Supernatural Deities"? My point was to demonstrate the incredibly wide range of supernatural possibilities, but if those particular ones are causing so much angst that we can't proceed with the root of the question, then let's call them something else and get on with it.
kristihendricks
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 06:58 pm
@rosborne979,
Why should we doubt what the Bible says about God existing or anything else? It's been proven just as accurate, if not more, than all other historical documents from that time.
0 Replies
 
zhendrikse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:02 pm
@SawyerMentink,
I don't know? You tell me sawyer!
0 Replies
 
zhendrikse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:29 pm
@neologist,
When Satan says that in the Bible that's not what he meant at all. You are completely misunderstanding that. What he means by that is you can live the worldly life. Jesus had to die on the cross to save everyone from their sins. That was a very heavy burden and Satan was offering him a way out of it. Saying you can have all of these worldly pleasures and you won't have to die and suffer. He didn't literally mean he would give him the world.
zhendrikse
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 May, 2016 09:38 pm
@rosborne979,
Umm... Yes is is more logical I believe. You're trying to avoid her question. You are denying the existence of a God. She never said which God. But my question to you would be if there is no God. Like you say there isn't. Then where did the first form of mass or matter come from? Where do we get the materials that are in our earth? It seems the most logical to me that there would have to be a God! And yes I do know about a lot of Gods/gods and I have had trouble sleeping at night debating in my head why this God the God of the Bible would seem to be the most logical and why the other ones aren't! I have thought about all of those things. Don't be making assumptions. Every human struggles with those things you can't assume that Kristi hasn't. The God of the Bible seems most logical to her and to me. To me because of the entire story of the Bible. Everything that matches up with other parts of history and all the different stories.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 12:03 am
@zhendrikse,
zhendrikse wrote:
When Satan says that in the Bible that's not what he meant at all. You are completely misunderstanding that. What he means by that is you can live the worldly life. Jesus had to die on the cross to save everyone from their sins. That was a very heavy burden and Satan was offering him a way out of it. Saying you can have all of these worldly pleasures and you won't have to die and suffer. He didn't literally mean he would give him the world.
You are right in saying that Jesus had to give his life in our behalf. But Jesus has free will: he offered his life willingly. He could have sinned. And Satan employed every ruse or temptation he could think of to make that happen. Indeed, that is one of Satan's principle contentions: that none of us, none of God's creations, would serve God, except out of selfishness. (See Job 2:4)
Do you doubt that Satan rules the world? Jesus referred to him as the "ruler of the world" at John 16:11. His authority is such that Jesus could say at Luke 22:31
Quote:
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 06:28 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Does it help if I stop saying Unicorns and Elves and just replace that with "All Supernatural Deities"?
Maybe a little. At least that avoids the problem of comparing universally known and admitted myths to theism which is not universally known to be so.

Yes, there are plenty of bogus claimed supernatural deities (one obvious one making the rounds now on A2k) but they (at least all that I've examined) have logical inconsistencies or are self contradictory.

The process of testing for those contradictions within theist belief is the object of threads like this one. As noted before, it assumes a theist viewpoint from the start and then proceeds to see if that belief meets the standard of reason.

Atheist arguments of inconsistencies and contradictions within the belief in a God are welcome (at least by me) but scientific and 'lack of evidence' based charges of 'there is no God' are tangent to the discussion. It doesn't offend me but it's like trying to apply the rules of American football to a Soccer match.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 07:01 am
@zhendrikse,
It's fair enough to choose to believe something. But recognize that it's arbitrary and that logic and probability are not on your side.

I've never been bothered by people who just say they Believe, and don't try to justify it. I can accept that they just Believe. The problem comes when they try to justify it with reason and logic, which never works out, or when they challenge science based on those beliefs.

And I'm not trying to avoid the question in the original post. I answered it precisely and with a completely functional and beneficial answer. It may not be what the person wants to her, but it does answer the question.

If the person wants the question answered within the confines of a worldview which is overseen by a particular deity, then I would think they would at least specify which deity they are asking about.
Smileyrius
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 08:50 am
I think the problem with equating for instance the Abrahamic God and Zeus is that the theist is naturally taken to defence on the question as you are equating something they believe in, with something they believe is as poppycock as you believe their god to be. That is why a Christian for his part should learn to separate the argument for intelligent design from the argument they have for the supremacy and/or existence of their chosen god. The evidence (data leading to a conclusion) one might use for one argument is unlikely to be appropriate for the other. Conflating the two only serves to discombobulate matters.

I really really wanted to use the word discombobulate, this was a good day.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 10:06 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
It's fair enough to choose to believe something. But recognize that it's arbitrary and that logic and probability are not on your side.

I've never been bothered by people who just say they Believe, and don't try to justify it. I can accept that they just Believe. The problem comes when they try to justify it with reason and logic, which never works out, or when they challenge science based on those beliefs.
I take exception to your claims of reason and logic. For the most exacting searches for epistemological certainty fail regardless of the object. The awe with which I view the grandeur of the universe and the exquisite complexity of the living cell is often dismissed by those who cannot explain how any land mammal could, in any conceivable order of stages, have developed a blowhole. There are many such examples of such "missing links" explained by sciolistic proclamations amounting to nothing more convincing than "it must have happened".

I can't prove God exists with any more certainty than the evolutionist can explain those "missing links". So, believe what you wish.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 May, 2016 10:39 am
@neologist,
Your blowhole arguments are vacuous, and your lack of understanding of evolution is not a convincing argument. You too are free to believe what you wish, but don't think for a moment that it is supported by any lack of evidence in science.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 10:20:22