|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 13:03:46 GMT
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 6, 2017 13:03:46 GMT
Do you agree with this qoute from Epicurus
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Since in the Bible God admits to creating evil (even in the form of just natural evil or 'misfortune') then by this measure presumably he is just able. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 13:36:45 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 13:36:45 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 14:50:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 14:50:24 GMT
|
|
puvo
Sophomore
@puvo
Posts: 575
Likes: 78
 
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 15:17:06 GMT
Post by puvo on Sept 6, 2017 15:17:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 15:25:28 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 15:25:28 GMT
The biggest one is simply the notion of a man putting stipulations on a god in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to think a god is responsible at all for is creation except that it's what we think it should do
The other one is the notion that the best option for a god would be one that removes free will from the equation.
The horrors humans experience are largely of our own design and the argument pretend that it's a god's fault for it.
We can test this out simply by assuming God doesn't exist in the first lace without a silly self-designed construct to dismiss it.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 16:07:37 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2017 16:07:37 GMT
Do you agree with this qoute from Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? If you disagree with Epicurus, Why do you disagree ? And if you agree why do you agree ? Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born in Athens, Greece in the third century BC Yes I agree. It sums up, with logic, every 'positive' thing said about god with the reality of 'then why doesn't he do it'. BTW, this appears at the bottom of every post of graham's. Edit: As I read back through the other posts, I saw the inevitable "free will" and "we make our own suffering" defenses from the usual poster. Note - Epicurus wasn't talking about the Christian god, who didn't even exist yet (3rd century BC), he was saying it about the Greek gods of his period. Yet it can be said universally about all gods. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 16:48:40 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 16:48:40 GMT
Do you agree with this qoute from Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? If you disagree with Epicurus, Why do you disagree ? And if you agree why do you agree ? Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born in Athens, Greece in the third century BC Yes I agree. It sums up, with logic, every 'positive' thing said about god with the reality of 'then why doesn't he do it'. BTW, this appears at the bottom of every post of graham's. Edit: As I read back through the other posts, I saw the inevitable "free will" and "we make our own suffering" defenses from the usual poster. Note - Epicurus wasn't talking about the Christian god, who didn't even exist yet (3rd century BC), he was saying it about the Greek gods of his period. Yet it can be said universally about all gods. Although we don't even know if Epicurus said it, it is irrelevant who he was discussing.
Secondly, my answer is consistent because it is consistently accurate. Am I supposed to invent a new one all the time when ones can't even refute the one I will always bring up?
I wasn't talking about the Christian God either. That's why I used an indefinite article.
I'm speaking deities in general and the argument is the same. There is no automatic reason for one to concern themselves with their creation unless they wish to control that creation.
It also is not in the creation's scope of understanding to grasp that which is greater than them. It would be like Siri condemning us for drinking milk. It's non-sensical.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:06:32 GMT
Post by gadreel on Sept 6, 2017 18:06:32 GMT
Do you agree with this qoute from Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? If you disagree with Epicurus, Why do you disagree ? And if you agree why do you agree ? Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born in Athens, Greece in the third century BC It might work for a God that is described, which of course would mean the greek gods at the time, and most peoples understanding of the Christian God, but does not make any sense in the light of God as the source. God as the source is often described as the great unknown or unknowable, and certainly if we were to ascribe humanity to that then the quote would have some merit, but we cannot do that to something that is as unknown as God. This is not meant as an apology for God, as I said if God is a being and he actually is omnipotent and omnipresent then I would expect an explanation. Having said that I think that we grow spiritually through trials and tribulation, so there is an argument that suffering in this world is a way of forcing us to grow and advance spiritually. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 6, 2017 18:19:45 GMT
The biggest one is simply the notion of a man putting stipulations on a god in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to think a god is responsible at all for is creation except that it's what we think it should do
The other one is the notion that the best option for a god would be one that removes free will from the equation.
The horrors humans experience are largely of our own design and the argument pretend that it's a god's fault for it.
We can test this out simply by assuming God doesn't exist in the first lace without a silly self-designed construct to dismiss it.
Actually, the quote (Epikurean or not) does a good job of showing that the idea of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is incompatible with the problem of evil. And if we say that "God" granted humans free will, then we can take it one step further and remove the necessity for God to exist. We can use Occam's razor and say: This world has suffering in it. We can assume that no omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is intervening. So why do we need to accept any deity? Answer: We don't. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:30:25 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2017 18:30:25 GMT
Actually, the quote (Epicurean or not) does a good job of showing that the idea of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is incompatible with the problem of evil. And if we say that "God" granted humans free will, then we can take it one step further and remove the necessity for God to exist. We can use Occam's razor and say: This world has suffering in it. We can assume that no omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is intervening. So why do we need to accept any deity? Answer: We don't. Well said. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:33:45 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 18:33:45 GMT
The biggest one is simply the notion of a man putting stipulations on a god in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to think a god is responsible at all for is creation except that it's what we think it should do
The other one is the notion that the best option for a god would be one that removes free will from the equation.
The horrors humans experience are largely of our own design and the argument pretend that it's a god's fault for it.
We can test this out simply by assuming God doesn't exist in the first lace without a silly self-designed construct to dismiss it.
Actually, the quote (Epikurean or not) does a good job of showing that the idea of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is incompatible with the problem of evil. And if we say that "God" granted humans free will, then we can take it one step further and remove the necessity for God to exist. We can use Occam's razor and say: This world has suffering in it. We can assume that no omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is intervening. So why do we need to accept any deity? Answer: We don't. It only does this by defining the notion of omnipotence or Omni benevolence which is my point. I say it doesn't matter if a creator is omnipotence, omniscient, or omnibenevolent or if he is why that requires him to measure up to the expectation.
We don't even know what "good" is without a context set by particular standards and anonymous simply chose his own and chose to ignore the standards of whatever god he decided to argue about.
In any event, line by line, the argument is flawed because it presumes, without any basis whatsoever, to say that a god is required to act in the first place and particular in the way that his creation expects which is silly.
It also is flawed since the act would necessitate the god from removing at a measure of sentience in order for them to behave in a way that is conducive to what the philosopher demands to find the deity worthy of existence.
It is perfectly fine for a person to choose that a god doesn't exist. After all, I do it with all of them but one, so its not difficult.
What is flawed is the notion that we disbelieve on the basis of why this guy says we should.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:36:41 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 18:36:41 GMT
The biggest one is simply the notion of a man putting stipulations on a god in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to think a god is responsible at all for is creation except that it's what we think it should do
The other one is the notion that the best option for a god would be one that removes free will from the equation.
The horrors humans experience are largely of our own design and the argument pretend that it's a god's fault for it.
We can test this out simply by assuming God doesn't exist in the first lace without a silly self-designed construct to dismiss it.
"Free will" cannot possibly exist in the sense that you are meaning (it would entail being able to choose our own thoughts before we think them, and being able to choose our own nature), and I would defy you to find any credible scientific source which corroborates the concept of libertarian free will. And it was still God who would have put us at unnecessary risk. Kind of like allowing your toddler to play by themselves in the local park where all the junkies shoot up, and then blaming the child when they get infected from a needle. And if God is not bound by any duty of care, then he is beneath reproach, given that we would expect our employers and governments to have a minimal duty of care to protect us from harm. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:43:33 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2017 18:43:33 GMT
Actually, the quote (Epikurean or not) does a good job of showing that the idea of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent is incompatible with the problem of evil. And if we say that "God" granted humans free will, then we can take it one step further and remove the necessity for God to exist. We can use Occam's razor and say: This world has suffering in it. We can assume that no omnibenevolent and omnipotent God is intervening. So why do we need to accept any deity? Answer: We don't. It only does this by defining the notion of omnipotence or Omni benevolence which is my point. I say it doesn't matter if a creator is omnipotence, omniscient, or omnibenevolent or if he is why that requires him to measure up to the expectation.
We don't even know what "good" is without a context set by particular standards and anonymous simply chose his own and chose to ignore the standards of whatever god he decided to argue about.
In any event, line by line, the argument is flawed because it presumes, without any basis whatsoever, to say that a god is required to act in the first place and particular in the way that his creation expects which is silly.
It also is flawed since the act would necessitate the god from removing at a measure of sentience in order for them to behave in a way that is conducive to what the philosopher demands to find the deity worthy of existence.
It is perfectly fine for a person to choose that a god doesn't exist. After all, I do it with all of them but one, so its not difficult.
What is flawed is the notion that we disbelieve on the basis of why this guy says we should.
" I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Henry Roberts |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:50:19 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 18:50:19 GMT
It only does this by defining the notion of omnipotence or Omni benevolence which is my point. I say it doesn't matter if a creator is omnipotence, omniscient, or omnibenevolent or if he is why that requires him to measure up to the expectation.
We don't even know what "good" is without a context set by particular standards and anonymous simply chose his own and chose to ignore the standards of whatever god he decided to argue about.
In any event, line by line, the argument is flawed because it presumes, without any basis whatsoever, to say that a god is required to act in the first place and particular in the way that his creation expects which is silly.
It also is flawed since the act would necessitate the god from removing at a measure of sentience in order for them to behave in a way that is conducive to what the philosopher demands to find the deity worthy of existence.
It is perfectly fine for a person to choose that a god doesn't exist. After all, I do it with all of them but one, so its not difficult.
What is flawed is the notion that we disbelieve on the basis of why this guy says we should.
" I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Henry Roberts That's another silly quote.
I know exactly why I dismiss the rest of them.
Further, I don't care if someone dismisses my beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:50:56 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 18:50:56 GMT
The biggest one is simply the notion of a man putting stipulations on a god in the first place. There is no reason whatsoever to think a god is responsible at all for is creation except that it's what we think it should do
The other one is the notion that the best option for a god would be one that removes free will from the equation.
The horrors humans experience are largely of our own design and the argument pretend that it's a god's fault for it.
We can test this out simply by assuming God doesn't exist in the first lace without a silly self-designed construct to dismiss it.
"Free will" cannot possibly exist in the sense that you are meaning (it would entail being able to choose our own thoughts before we think them, and being able to choose our own nature), and I would defy you to find any credible scientific source which corroborates the concept of libertarian free will. And it was still God who would have put us at unnecessary risk. Kind of like allowing your toddler to play by themselves in the local park where all the junkies shoot up, and then blaming the child when they get infected from a needle. And if God is not bound by any duty of care, then he is beneath reproach, given that we would expect our employers and governments to have a minimal duty of care to protect us from harm. Yeah, we've had this discussion before |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 18:57:25 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 18:57:25 GMT
"Free will" cannot possibly exist in the sense that you are meaning (it would entail being able to choose our own thoughts before we think them, and being able to choose our own nature), and I would defy you to find any credible scientific source which corroborates the concept of libertarian free will. And it was still God who would have put us at unnecessary risk. Kind of like allowing your toddler to play by themselves in the local park where all the junkies shoot up, and then blaming the child when they get infected from a needle. And if God is not bound by any duty of care, then he is beneath reproach, given that we would expect our employers and governments to have a minimal duty of care to protect us from harm. Yeah, we've had this discussion before And yet you're still using 'free will' as a justification for believing in an omnipotent and benevolent God, without being able to explain how it is possible for will to be unshackled from causality, let alone providing any evidence that this is the case. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 19:04:40 GMT
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 6, 2017 19:04:40 GMT
Yeah, we've had this discussion before And yet you're still using 'free will' as a justification for believing in an omnipotent and benevolent God, without being able to explain how it is possible for will to be unshackled from causality, let alone providing any evidence that this is the case. First, I didn't say I agreed with your assessment in the first place, so don't pretend that you have validated your argument.
Secondly, I'm not using free will for justification since we have it regardless, but rather dismissing anonymous' notion that it can exist with their definition of a god.
|
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 19:06:03 GMT
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 6, 2017 19:06:03 GMT
" I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Stephen Henry Roberts That's another silly quote.
I know exactly why I dismiss the rest of them.
Further, I don't care if someone dismisses my beliefs.
"If you have a faith, it is statistically overwhelmingly likely that it is the same faith as your parents and grandparents had... by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place. Epidemiology, not evidence." Richard Dawkins |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 19:11:49 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 19:11:49 GMT
And yet you're still using 'free will' as a justification for believing in an omnipotent and benevolent God, without being able to explain how it is possible for will to be unshackled from causality, let alone providing any evidence that this is the case. First, I didn't say I agreed with your assessment in the first place, so don't pretend that you have validated your argument.
Secondly, I'm not using free will for justification since we have it regardless, but rather dismissing anonymous' notion that it can exist with their definition of a god.
The type of free will that would exculpate your God simply cannot exist, because it defies the most fundamental rules of logic. Therefore, I will always challenge anyone who uses 'free will' to justify why they believe in a benevolent and omnipotent deity, regardless of how many times the discussion has been previously had. Free will (in the libertarian sense) cannot exist with anyone's definition of god. Cause always precedes effect and an already existing living being cannot be the designer of its own nature. |
|
|
|
Gone
Sept 6, 2017 23:45:25 GMT
Post by cupcakes on Sept 6, 2017 23:45:25 GMT
|
|
