Spirituality
25 Sep 06
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are yet to demonstrate why something which is 'all-good' in itself cannot allow evil to exist outside of itself.
I'm not wasting my time with you further; you are either a complete moron or totally dishonest. No one is saying good and evil can't co-exist and you know it (or maybe you can't understand this); what is being said and what you refuse to address is the relationship between your mythical being with his supposed attritributes of the 3 O's and the existence ...[text shortened]... of evil. They are fundamentally incompatible and your illogical raving doesn't change that.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf he is omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow evil to exist at all.
Not if he is Omnipotent.
If he is omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow evil to exist at all. And if he is omnipotent, he could choose another means to get to the supposed greater good than the existence of evil (which his allowing to exist negates any claim of omnibenevolence).
If he is all good in himself it follows logically that he can allow evil to exist outside of himself.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerBecause it's not merely supposedly all-Good, it's also supposedly all-Powerful. And if it is both, than it wouldn't allow something evil because all-good means just that.
You are yet to demonstrate why something which is 'all-good' in itself cannot allow evil to exist outside of itself.
Got it yet? Or do I have to keep saying the same thing for 6 more pages?
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThat sounds like a reasonable and logical question, dj2. Exactly my point. Why allow evil to exist? And if he somehow mistakenly created evil in the first place, then he should have corrected his mistake immediately. But after thousands of years he's failed to stop evil. One can only come to the reasonable conclusion that he is UNABLE to stop evil. Of course you would say: God works in mysterious way... or something like that...
Not if he is Omnipotent.
If he is omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow evil to exist at all. And if he is omnipotent, he could choose another means to get to the supposed greater good than the existence of evil (which his allowing to exist negates any claim of omnibenevolence).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderAs God's existence is assumed by implication, is it not he who decides what is all good?
Because it's not merely supposedly all-Good, it's also supposedly all-Powerful. And if it is both, than it wouldn't allow something evil because all-good means just that.
Got it yet? Or do I have to keep saying the same thing for 6 more pages?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by ckoh1965Your question evokes a moral law. God would have to be the law giver of this moral law as you are assuming his existence by implication. So actually you are proving that the moral lawgiver exists, and not disproving it as you may be trying to do.
That sounds like a reasonable and logical question, dj2. Exactly my point. Why allow evil to exist? And if he somehow mistakenly created evil in the first place, then he should have corrected his mistake immediately. But after thousands of years he's failed to stop evil. One can only come to the reasonable conclusion that he is UNABLE to stop evil. Of course you would say: God works in mysterious way... or something like that...
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo. If so, stop using the term "good" or "omnibenevolent" as you are making it into a meaningless tautology. This is goalpost shifting to an infinite degree and also makes the argument totally devoid of any rational basis.
As God's existence is assumed by implication, is it not he who decides what is all good?
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou're now simply repeating the same phrases from your cut and paste over and over again. Try thinking for yourself.
Your question evokes a moral law. God would have to be the law giver of this moral law as you are assuming his existence by implication. So actually you are proving that the moral lawgiver exists, and not disproving it as you may be trying to do.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou you mean to say that you are not assuming the existence of God for arguments sake?
No. If so, stop using the term "good" or "omnibenevolent" as you are making it into a meaningless tautology. This is goalpost shifting to an infinite degree and also makes the argument totally devoid of any rational basis.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhere did I cut and paste it from?
You're now simply repeating the same phrases from your cut and paste over and over again. Try thinking for yourself.
Maybe you should try and think for yourself what it means and give a meaningful response instead of resorting to childish insults.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerFor 6 pages, you've absolutely refused to respond in any meaningful way instead just parroting meaningless phrases that someone told you. I won't keep repeating myself and dealing with your idiocies.
Again you resort to childish insults instead of articulating a meaningful response.
Is that all you can do?
Have the last word and be happy, you ridiculous loser.
28 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerdj2, I was indecisive on what to believe. I reckoned that there's God. I read with interest the debates on here for quite a while now. I weighed the pros and cons; the arguments for and against the existence of God. It is very easy to lose oneself in the sea of the abstract and confusion. People offer ideas and reasonings. But at the end of it all, looking at things from an unbiased position, one thing stands out clearly. Your so-called evidence is mainly based on the bible. Unfortunately there are inconsistencies and conflicting facts in the bibles. After all, the contents were written by humans, so the inconsistencies shouldn't be surprising.
As God's existence is assumed by implication, is it not he who decides what is all good?
Now I am no longer indecisive. I am convinced that there is indeed no God. In spite of the pages upon pages of your explanations, it actually boiled down to nothing, really. There is neither logic nor substance in your arguments.
I am sure you are a good person, and I am happy that you are blessed with such a strong faith. I thank you for making it clear for me. In the end, in a way all this has been constructive to me; I found what I was looking for.