John_Mann

Joined

• started 11 topics
• posted 1,225 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by John_Mann

• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Why?
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  But if he is exists then by his own definition of love he is unloving.

  Cofty, try to suspend the property of existence in our conversation about God.

  Pretend we are making a fictional character. But we want a logically consistent character with our known universe.

  In this scenario do you think is impossible to build an all-loving and all-powerful being with the existence of natural evil?
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Or maybe God is constrained by certain things.

  He is. He is only constrained by His nature. That's why the God's nature (Godhead) is a complete mystery.
  

  He can't lie and He can't be evil.
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Do materialists really believe in "natural evil", or what do you mean by it? If there is no God or purpose behind things, isn't it a case of "natural indifference" rather than evil? If there is no God, what is the use of a concept such as "natural evil"?

  In an atheist perspective why humans perceive evil at all? No other species perceive evil.

  There's no evolutionary traces in other species leading to the development of human perception of moral and natural evil.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  He's bound by His nature. From His nature comes natural or necessary truths. God cannot lie for instance.

  The link makes a distinction between a world ruled by natural laws or a world ruled by miracle.

  Possibly natural evil must be necessary and unavoidable to the existence of free-will. But the ultimate goal is a greater good.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/probevil.html
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  The truth is you was once very naive to believe in cultish theologies like the awful JW and Pentecostal faiths.

  And when you realized how wrong they are you felt very ashamed of yourself. This overwhelming shame became revolt. So you feel a need to fight against anything related to God. And in your actual worldview you can't even imagine a logical concept of God is possible.

  And you continue to be very naive when you say your atheism is validated by science. Or when you try to use science to argument against philosophical and metaphysical matters.

  If you was a Catholic or a traditional Protestant you would never pass through an existential crisis. Being a traditional Christian would not prevent you to accomplish anything you like.

  It was not Christianity the cause of your deception.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  My criticism of theism applies equally to every form of theology that teaches a loving god made the world.

  No. Your criticism is only valid to creationism and calvinism. You always have in mind the JW and Pentecostal concepts of God. It's easy to be an atheist beating a very poor concept of God. It's almost a strawman fallacy.

  My knowledge of theology is excellent. Unlike you I don't use it as an excuse to obfuscate.

  You have a very poor knowledge about theology and philosophy (specially philosophy of science). Looks like you only know JW and calvinist theology.

  Reality and theology are in opposition.

  Just your opinion.
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  Not to your god it doesn't. It works precisely as he designed it to work.

  As usual you have a calvinist view of God. This concept of God is ridiculous and I'm an atheist to this concept of God too.

  Catholics follow molinism and not calvinism.

  And you always mix up concepts of nature, will and intellect of God.

  You have a very poor concept of God. You think God is some Marvel's superhero.

  There are (natural) truths that are independent of God's will and these truths comes directly from the God's nature and are the same in all possible worlds (including the ones in your dreams).

  If you want to be a better critic you must study about molinism first.

  
  
  
• 
  496

  This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  John_Mann

  I don't think natural disasters are equal to murder.

  The material world works in a very random way.

  And we believe in immortal souls that are not affected by death.