STD and Jesus

Originally posted by 667joe
So god approves of a man with a STD raping an innocent woman, infecting her with a STD, and causing an innocent baby to come into this world with an STD as well? Forgive me, but your thinking(?) does not add up!

The Good Lord strokes Himself nice and smooth, up and down, up and down, to the sight of horrors upon the Earth of nigh every description. Syphilis, now, that's just one among a myriad of pratfalls in His cosmic Punch and Judy show.

Originally posted by 667joe
Weak debaters resort to ad hominem attacks!

No, weak debaters don't understand what an ad hominen is.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
I suppose we should just take your word for it. 😴

Really!?

Ok. Good things happen therfore there must be a god is also a piss poor argument: Look at the pretty flowers and the stars and my lovely baby and that person who gave all their money to charity. God is good to make all this happen.

Or. Unpicking joes premise: what about the myriad of permutations around god existing while "bad" things exist? eg what if god is not currently in control? What if bad things are necessary? What if god exists but is elsewhere solving even worse bad things?

Originally posted by divegeester
Really!?

Ok. Good things happen therfore there must be a god is also a piss poor argument: Look at the pretty flowers and the stars and my lovely baby and that person who gave all their money to charity. God is good to make all this happen.

Or. Unpicking joes premise: what about the myriad of permutations around god existing while "bad" things exis ...[text shortened]... if bad things are necessary? What if god exists but is elsewhere solving even worse bad things?

If God's not currently in control, then how can he be called 'omnipotent'?

How can an omniscient and omnipotent god EVER be 'elsewhere'? Can he not do more than one thing at the same time?

The one reasonable question you raise is "what if bad things are necessary?" Yes, we cannot be sure whether or not they are. However, consider the extreme nature of the claim that ALL bad events are necessary for a greater good. This means that not only was there NO other more morally correct means of bringing about that greater good, but also, in any large tragedy, if even ONE less person had not suffered and died, the world would somehow be less good. It's logically possible, but extremely unlikely, that every single painful death serves some higher purpose.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If God's not currently in control, then how can he be called 'omnipotent'?

How can an omniscient and omnipotent god EVER be 'elsewhere'? Can he not do more than one thing at the same time?

The one reasonable question you raise is "what if bad things are necessary?" Yes, we cannot be sure whether or not they are. However, consider the extreme nat ...[text shortened]... ly possible, but extremely unlikely, that every single painful death serves some higher purpose.

Who said god is omnipotent?

Maybe there was no other morally possible way?

Maybe every bad thing does somehow get paid for?

The answers to these questions/premises are irrelevant, the fact that they exist is what make the premise in the op a poor argument because it jumps to an ultimate conclusion without considering all the options and permutations.

Originally posted by divegeester
That lemonjello managed showed off his education for several thread pages still makes the argument: "bad things happen therefore god, at least a good god, does not exist" a piss poor argument.

For a piss poor argument, there were surprisingly few rational objections. Or is it merely that you don't like the conclusion?

Originally posted by divegeester
Who said god is omnipotent?

I believe the argument does, when correctly stated. I'll concede that the argument as stated by you, is a piss poor argument, but the same cannot be said of the argument when set out properly.

Originally posted by divegeester
The answers to these questions/premises are irrelevant, the fact that they exist is what make the premise in the op a poor argument because it jumps to an ultimate conclusion without considering all the options and permutations.

Well then, how about you consider some of the options and permutations for us, and tell us how they break the argument. The ones you have listed so far, do not contradict the argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then, how about you consider some of the options and permutations for us, and tell us how they break the argument. The ones you have listed so far, do not contradict the argument.

How does "what if god is not omnipotent?", not contradict "god is omnipotent?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe the argument does, when correctly stated. I'll concede that the argument as stated by you, is a piss poor argument, but the same cannot be said of the argument when set out properly.

I believe it doesn't, for at least the reasons I've already stated.

Originally posted by divegeester
Who said god is omnipotent?

Maybe there was no other morally possible way?

Maybe every bad thing does somehow get paid for?

The answers to these questions/premises are irrelevant, the fact that they exist is what make the premise in the op a poor argument because it jumps to an ultimate conclusion without considering all the options and permutations.

Most Christians believe God is omnipotent.

If there really was 'no other morally possible way' to achieve the greater good in EVERY case of suffering, then aren't you saying that we live in the best of all possible worlds? Do you really believe that? I certainly don't.

When dealing with a god who forsees the future, why are we content that every bad thing gets 'paid for'? Shouldn't he have prevented most of it in the first place?

While Joe is not exactly famous for rigorous argumentation, it is also true that 'considering all the options and permutations' is what leads to the academia-looking posts you so loathe. The middle ground is to start with the basic argument and then flesh it out in discussion. However, this requires that both sides hold off on bashing until they are sure they are talking about the same things.

The argument from evil only works against a god who's omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If you don't believe god is all of those things, then you've nothing to be concerned about. This doesn't mean the argument from evil is 'piss poor', but only that it doesn't apply to your type of god.

Originally posted by divegeester
How does "what if god is not omnipotent?", not contradict "god is omnipotent?

The argument takes as a premise that God is omnipotent. If you say 'God is not omnipotent' then you are not contradicting the argument, but discussing a totally different scenario - the possible existence of a non-omnipotent God.

Originally posted by divegeester
I believe it doesn't, for at least the reasons I've already stated.

You misunderstood me. I said that I believe the argument takes as a premise that God is omnipotent.

For reference: Thread 158939
LemonJello clearly states:

16. If God exists, then he is, by definition, an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect being.

He is talking about a God as defined above. If you are talking about a different God, then it will look like a piss poor argument to you, but that is only your failure to realise what the argument is about, not some fault with the argument itself.

Originally posted by divegeester
Who said god is omnipotent?

Maybe there was no other morally possible way?

Maybe every bad thing does somehow get paid for?

The answers to these questions/premises are irrelevant, the fact that they exist is what make the premise in the op a poor argument because it jumps to an ultimate conclusion without considering all the options and permutations.

Who said god is omnipotent?

In monotheistic religions that is the normal claim. In the old pagan religion Wodin was claimed to be almighty. I think the point is resolved by the notion that just because I can do something doesn't mean I must do it - I don't think this changes when the subject is omnipotent. Part of omnipotence would be the ability to give free will to the other entities in the universe.

Either we don't have free will in which case discussions of at least the Christian concept of God become incoherent, or we do have free will in which case resolving problems like suffering are our problem.

The alternative, of course, is that there is no God, but then it's still our problem.