There's no such thing as a loving God

There's no such thing as a loving God Mar 13, 2017 15:16:37 GMT

Quote

Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 13, 2017 15:16:37 GMT

Mar 13, 2017 14:39:05 GMT fatpaul said:

Mar 13, 2017 14:07:10 GMT CoolJGS☺ said:

What's logical about it?

If willing but not able then not omnipotent.. it follows because not being able is sufficient for not being omnipotent and being not able necessitates not being omnipotent. Unless you have some other definitional of omnipotence that doesn't mention ability?

There is NO condition to omnipotence that requires doing anything with it.

I would say it's a contradiction to suggest that an omnipotent person is required to do anything and thus is illogical to suggest as a condition.

If able and willing then why evil. Don't tell me.. the big chap... he's got them mysterious ways about him

There's nothing about God's interactions with us that is mysterious so I would never have reason to say that.

You can talk about free-will and not knowing the mind of God, but the fact of the matter is that evil is on the table and it wasn't us who set the game up.

Of course evil exists. Anything that is contradiction to God's wishes would be a sign of both evil existing and that free will is evident.

If not able and not willing then why call him God. Why not call him Malcolm, Billy or any ordinary Tom, Dick or Harry?

This reasoning eliminates choice. It lowers existence to only being a mere expression of the creator which doesn't exist anywhere unless you write comic books. Otherwise, life s more than someone controlling you like a doll.

We have the power to change any number of things and we choose not to do it and yet God is required to? That makes no sense...Except that the writer of this quote is putting a condition that not only doesn't exist but couldn't exist based on other assumptions made.

It a logical argument because they are not outlandish ridiculous premises (no one is saying God is made of green cheese for example) and the conclusion follows from the premises, i.e. they are valid. This doesn't mean that the conclusions are true but rather, given it's validity, questions may be asked of the premises as opposed to the logical form of the argument.

It's a far more ridiculous premise because a man is dictating what a God should do...& to be clear, no one even knows which god he's talking about since no one actually knows who said it although it had to be well before Christianity.

The conclusion aren't true of course since if God exists and evil exists then naturally there's an immediate conflict which is it's biggest flaw.

If all we are arguing is the structure then maybe it is logical (I'll let philosophers argue that) but then it's not important because it's a perfect Venn Diagram of an incorrect assumption.