sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
Possibly natural evil must be necessary and unavoidable to the existence of free-will. - JM
But it isn't.
We can have all the good stuff about an active planet without earthquakes and tsunamis. That would be trivially easy for god. Free will is not involved in any way.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
SBF - Why do you struggle so much with the concept of a conditional argument?
IF the god of christian theism exists - THEN he would be responsible for the destruction caused by a tsunami. These types of suffering could be referred to as "natural evil" to distinguish them from bad stuff that people do others. If you don't like the term don't use it. No problem. I know semantics is your hobby. The challenge to theism remains.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
I read the link.
It is dreadful.
1 - It tries to excuse natural evil by appealing to free-will.
2 - It claims that an omnipotent god is bound by natural laws.
You don't need me to tell you why that doesn't work.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
It suits believers to focus on a specific dogma or to resort to ad hominem fallacies.
My OP is a very simple observation that reality does not harmonise well with theology.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John stop with the amateur psycho- babble.
You have yet to address a single word of the OP
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
My criticism of theism applies equally to every form of theology that teaches a loving god made the world.
My knowledge of theology is excellent. Unlike you I don't use it as an excuse to obfuscate.
Reality and theology are in opposition.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
The material world works in a very random way.
Not to your god it doesn't. It works precisely as he designed it to work.
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
So murdering millions of innocent children in natural disasters is for the greater good is it?
What an evil death cult Catholicism is!
sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.
various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.
i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.
John_Mann - Please read the OP again. Most of it does not rest on the veracity of scripture.
The record of the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most compelling arguments against christianity but that is another topic.
I already talked with you about the problem of (natural) evil.
Interesting that I can't recall any of that conversation.Succinctly what was your most compelling point?
