Saethydd - I agree, thanks.
John_mann please explain specifically why a tsunami is a necessary evil?
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.
Saethydd - I agree, thanks.
John_mann please explain specifically why a tsunami is a necessary evil?
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.
Let's be more specific.
Do you think is impossible to build an all-loving and all-powerful being with the existence of natural evil such as a tsunami?
Yes.
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.
But if he is exists then by his own definition of love he is unloving.
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.
Off topic. Having all your family wiped out in a tsunami is a bad thing whether you believe in god or not.
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.