An Old Argument.... does it hold water? (page 140)

AK - Jeff

Cofty has hit the nail the locks the coffin for the free will argument.

So take away the human choices, just look at the evil that exists without it. Substitute tsumani, black plague, aids, cancer, death by viper, infant mortality, spontaneous abortion, epilepsy, massive earthquakes, etc, for 'evil' in the premise-statement.

Tec - the statement doesn't demand that there is no god. Look at it carefully. It just demands that " There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving."

So you can have your god - but he is, if he is, a heartless bastard unworthy of praise and worship at the least, and worthy of hatred at the best. If he/she, like you, wishes to excuse himself of responsibility for evil on the basis of 'free will' arguments - well then he is disgusting, but certainly not all knowing, powerful, and perfectly loving. It would seem to me that he makes the Devil look like a nice fellow.

Jeff

Phizzy

AK Jeff, I would love to see a half good answer to your last point ! May I congratulate you too, this long thread has got to be the best ever on JWD/JWN,

and ,despite its length, it has not really wandered off-topic.

As you rightly say, the believers can have their god, he is not worthy of my devotion or even interest, he lacks morals.

tec

Tec - the statement doesn't demand that there is no god. Look at it carefully. It just demands that "There is no being that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfectly loving."

Yes, but even that statement is based upon assumptions and absolutes, and does not take into consideration variables that would affect the absolutes.

Like I said above:

Premise 4/5 - He would, true... but an all-powerful being would know how to do that, for all, for all time... we do not.

We do not know the means to do this (end evil): for all, and for all time. Actually, we do know the means... we just don't all do it; and often don't see the long-term (and even short-term) consequences to our decisions. God does.

We are responsible for the evil that WE do. And its a snowball effect. One small careless act leads to resentment, and that to further careless or angry acts, and further resentment, etc, and so on.

What we do with this planet and one another is up to us.

As for natural disasters: This is also a living universe. It moves, it turns, dies and can be reborn... and so as anything living and moving it can be tumultous. But without the universe being the way that it is, life could not be. Life is a gift; you don't have to be a believer to think so (at least in a metaphorical sense). But the flesh is part of the physical and it can die, be injured, etc. A tsunami or any such thing does not kill or injure the spirit, and that is also life. One that we do not fully understand; but that God does.

So no, I give little credit to the statement made... too many variable not considered (that we as a limited beings cannot even conceive of); too much absolutism in it. It does not have to be true.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

without the universe being the way that it is, life could not be - Tec

Your god is incapable of creating a planet that doesn't capriciously kill millions of its inhabitants. What an impotent god you worship.

To quell a tsunami at the instant of its origin would be such a trivial thing for him would it not? He could calm the Sea of Galilee but the Pacific was too much of a challenge for him.

A tsunami or any such thing does not kill or injure the spirit, and that is also life - Tec

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the grieving relatives.

Why do you have such low expectations for your omnipotent, omniscient god? He is such an under-achiever.

OnTheWayOut

In THE BROTHERS KARAMOZOV, one character says something to this effect:

Even if God makes sense of it all in the end, even if He shows how all the pain and suffering is justified and necessary and makes up for it, IT IS TOO HIGH A PRICE TO PAY! No thank you, I return my ticket to that kind of life.

Mankind suffers because we are not a creation of someone able to prevent such suffering.

tec

Cofty, I don't have low e x pectations. I'm just not so... arrogant?... as to think that I know enough about the universe and nature (human or otherwise) in my limited years and perspective, to make such an absolute statement, disregarding all of the knowledge that I do not have and could not conceive of.

You called free will a red herring. I think turning to natural disasters is a red herring. We don't know enough about the universe to know the consquences of something different. But we do know the consequences of our actions, and we do know who WE should be acting. Since that is the most that we know, that is the only thing we can speak about with any degree of knowledge.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

We don't know enough about the universe to know the consquences of something different.

So an earthquake happpens under ther Pacific and a small wave begins its journey from the epicentre. We know precisely how it will play out - it will grow in magnitude as it approaches distant shores and drown everbody in its path. Your god knows exactly what is going on, he wasn't caught out by surprise, he wasn't on the toilet and missed what was happening. For him to absorb the energy of the wave would be the most simple thing imaginable for him and would have no other consequences whatsoever.

But he doesn't, he watches impassively as the wave crashes into coastal towns and villages alll around the Pacific rim wiping out tens of thousands of lives instantly.

Your obfuscation is fooling nobody but yourself.

we do know who WE should be acting

Apparently we don't as we can't get two christians to agree on any particular moral question.

AK - Jeff

Your obfuscation is fooling nobody but yourself.

True that, Cofty.

But an even larger wonder is WHY continue to fool yourself when the god you worship is, aside all other things, impossible to prove? Why slant all opinion on the matter toward believing that God is benevolent, when all the evidence is that, if he exists, he is more likely a sadistic, malevolent, god? Even your Holy Books paint him such. There are few gods invented in the minds of men as horrible in nature, loving of violence, jealous, judgmental, filled with rage, as murderous, as your OT Judeo God, the one I assume you prefer to worship, Tec.

Just sayin'.

Jeff

tec

My God is the Father of Christ; shown by Christ who is the image and Truth of God.

So I know that He is none of the things that either of you attribute to Him. I know this because I look to the Truth (Christ, His Image and Living Word), to see Him. You do not do this, and so little wonder that you do not know Him.

And again, Jeff... there are holes in that theory based on assumptions and premises; knowledge and variables that are missing, that you and I could not even conceive of.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

My God is the Father of Christ; shown by Christ who is the image and Truth of God.

A lot of Upper-case letters there for a god who is too impotent to quell a wave. Jesus apparently could calm a storm but his father can't. Why not?

Tammy - you have completely ignored a very straightforward challenge to your assertions about god and resorted to preaching.

An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

Share this