Main Problem with religion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Explain it, to me.
Kelly

Basically:

1. Evil exists in the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God is benevolent.

from 1 and 2, God knows about the Evil.
from 1 and 3, God could have prevented the Evil.
from 1 and 4, God wanted to prevent the Evil.

Therefore, given that evil exists; an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God does not exist.

Originally posted by howardgee
Basically:

1. Evil exists in the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God is benevolent.

from 1 and 2, God knows about the Evil.
from 1 and 3, God could have prevented the Evil.
from 1 and 4, God wanted to ...[text shortened]... exists; an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God does not exist.

Okay, and if God does not deal with it in your time frame God is not
real? Is that how it works?
Kelly

Originally posted by howardgee
Basically:

1. Evil exists in the world.
2. God is omniscient.
3. God is omnipotent.
4. God is benevolent.

from 1 and 2, God knows about the Evil.
from 1 and 3, God could have prevented the Evil.
from 1 and 4, God wanted to prevent the Evil.

Therefore, given that evil exists; an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God does not exist.

Your premise number 4 needs clarifying.

Perhaps your definition of a benevolent God is one that doesn't allow free-will unto his subjects.

Would there really be a choice if all actions were the most benevolent possible? If some are not, wouldn't those be considered "evil"?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, and if God does not deal with it in your time frame God is not
real? Is that how it works?
Kelly

If God fails to prevent evil, then he has failed period.
Once the evil has occurred, then it is too late!

Originally posted by howardgee
If God fails to prevent evil, then he has failed period.
Once the evil has occurred, then it is too late!

So if you want to eat an extra piece of pie that your body does not
need, God should stop you because gluttony is God's job to stop,
all evil according to you? The thing is we are tied to our parents,
our grandparents. and so on going backward in time, and if time
continues our chidren, our children's children and so on are tied to
us. So God could have stopped the human race with Adam and Eve,
but He didn't and you and I are here because of that. We as a race
do evil, that would stop evil by getting rid of us, but God choose to
redeem those that wanted to be redeemed when God calls us. His
timing isn't ours, but when He does it, evil will be done away with
forever.

The Day of the Lord

2 Peter 3
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So if you want to eat an extra piece of pie that your body does not
need, God should stop you because gluttony is God's job to stop,
all evil according to you? The thing is we are tied to our parents,
our grandparents. and so on going backward in time, and if time
continues our chidren, our children's children and so on are tied to
us. So God could h ...[text shortened]... ements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
Kelly

"gluttony is God's job to stop,
all evil according to you?"

Of course I do not believe this, because GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!

Do you see why from the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition's torture purely in God's name?

Originally posted by howardgee
"gluttony is God's job to stop,
all evil according to you?"

Of course I do not believe this, because GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!

Do you see why from the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition's torture purely in God's name?

Is there any theist that believes in a religion that does not allow free-will unto Man?

All theists will then claim that all evil is done by man, thus escaping your argument.

Edit: From this arises, that evil done "in the name of God" is heresy.

Originally posted by howardgee
"gluttony is God's job to stop,
all evil according to you?"

Of course I do not believe this, because GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!

Do you see why from the example I gave of the Spanish Inquisition's torture purely in God's name?

Your point was that evil is here so God cannot be, to put it plainly
as I understood you. Now, why go through the song and dance about
evil being here proves God is not real, then as soon as that gets
answered you do not address the answer except with the
statement, "Of course I do not believe this, because GOD DOES NOT
EXIST!" If God does not exist as you believe, and nothing said is
going to dispell that, why bother with the evil song and dance, because
no matter what is said to you, you do not believe in God? Reasoning
about God being real or not real has nothing to do with your stance.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
Is there any theist that believes in a religion that does not allow free-will unto Man?

All theists will then claim that all evil is done by man, thus escaping your argument.

Edit: From this arises, that evil done "in the name of God" is heresy.

Is there any theist that believes in a religion that does not allow free-will unto Man?

coletti

Originally posted by Palynka
Is there any theist that believes in a religion that does not allow free-will unto Man?

All theists will then claim that all evil is done by man, thus escaping your argument.

Edit: From this arises, that evil done "in the name of God" is heresy.

also, the existence of free will is irrelevant to the GAFE. if the theist wants to circumvent the conlusion that god does not exist, then he needs to either adopt the notion that god is callous OR argue for the position that all suffering is logically necessary.

Originally posted by LemonJello
also, the existence of free will is irrelevant to the GAFE. if the theist wants to circumvent the conlusion that god does not exist, then he needs to either adopt the notion that god is callous OR argue for the position that all suffering is logically necessary.

We are reaping what we sow, that is the logic of it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are reaping what we sow, that is the logic of it.
Kelly

It cannot be the case that God is omnipotent AND we have free will.

If God has given us genuine choice, then the most you can claim is that he used to be omnipotent, but now he is merely potent.

You cannot have it both ways KellyJay. Which one do you wish to reject, us having free will, or God being omnipotent?

Originally posted by howardgee
It cannot be the case that God is omnipotent AND we have free will.

If God has given us genuine choice, then the most you can claim is that he used to be omnipotent, but now he is merely potent.

You cannot have it both ways KellyJay. Which one do you wish to reject, us having free will, or God being omnipotent?

We have covered this ground before, and you saying cannot, cannot
does not mean it cannot.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
also, the existence of free will is irrelevant to the GAFE. if the theist wants to circumvent the conlusion that god does not exist, then he needs to either adopt the notion that god is callous OR argue for the position that all suffering is logically necessary.

I disagree.

All you have to picture is a parent-child relationship. The perfect balance between risk-safety that ensures the maximum happiness of a child is never in one extreme or the other (100% free-will, 100% control). Does this mean that the parent considers that all the child's suffering is logically necessary? I think it doesn't, I think it would mean that the RISK of that suffering existing is logically necessary. This would also not mean the parent is callous, as he does not want his child to suffer, but he is willing to risk it.

Before you consider this to be a straw-man, please consider that you might substitute the word parent for God and child for person and my opinion would remain valid.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We have covered this ground before, and you saying cannot, cannot
does not mean it cannot.
Kelly

If we have free will and God is omnipotent, then any choices we make are only because God lets us.

Thus they are not true choices because our 'freedom' to make the decisions has a proviso on God letting us.