The God Delusion

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thus your God is not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉. QED.

How did you make that leap?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How did you make that leap?

He prefers the existence of evil to other conditions that He alone had control over. No leap at all; it's called logic.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
OK. So suppose you see the green man and make the claim, which you think there is no problem with.

Now, the claim "There are green men in our universe" is logically equivalent to "There does not exist a universe which is both ours and which does not contain green men." But this is a negation, a claim of non-existence.

Thus, I have transformed ...[text shortened]... So, which is it? Is absolute knowledge really necessary to make a claim of non-existence?

You are only muddying the water if you bring in your double negatives.

A double negative is not the same as an absolute negation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
He prefers the existence of evil to other conditions that He alone had control over. No leap at all; it's called logic.

He prefers the existence of evil to other conditions that He alone had control over.

How can God have control over man's free-will?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]He prefers the existence of evil to other conditions that He alone had control over.

How can God have control over free-will?[/b]

Could free will have existed if God hadn't wanted it to? If so, he's not omnipotent.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could free will have existed if God hadn't wanted it to? If so, he's not omnipotent.

The absolute supremacy or omnipotence of God is logically compatible with the freewill of man, as man does not have absolute freedom.

Originally posted by dj2becker
The absolute supremacy or omnipotence of God is logically compatible with the freewill of man, as man does not have absolute freedom.

What is that supposed to mean? Is it another cut and paste?

It's quite simple:

If God allowed evil to exist when he could have prevented it, he's not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉.

If he couldn't prevent evil from existing, he's not omnipotent ("all powerful"😉.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What is that supposed to mean? Is it another cut and paste?

It's quite simple:

If God allowed evil to exist when he could have prevented it, he's not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉.

If he couldn't prevent evil from existing, he's not omnipotent ("all powerful"😉.

If God allowed evil to exist when he could have prevented it, he's not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉.

Unless God had an ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

If he couldn't prevent evil from existing, he's not omnipotent ("all powerful"😉.

Unless God had an ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

The real question should thus be:

What Is God's Ultimate Purpose In Allowing Evil?😉

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] If God allowed evil to exist when he could have prevented it, he's not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉.

Unless God had an ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

If he couldn't prevent evil from existing, he's not omnipotent ("all powerful"😉.

Unless God had an ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

The real question should thus be:

What Is God's Ultimate Purpose In Allowing Evil?[/b]

😴😴

Sorry, you can't be "all good" and allow evil by definition.

And if he's omnipotent, he could have acheived this "ultimate purpose" by some other means than allowing evil.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] If God allowed evil to exist when he could have prevented it, he's not omnibenevolent ("all good"😉.

Unless God had an ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

If he couldn't prevent evil from existing, he's not omnipotent ("all powerful"😉.

Unless God had an ultimate purpose in allowing evil.

The real question should thus be:

What Is God's Ultimate Purpose In Allowing Evil?😉[/b]

Has God done any evil deeds?

Originally posted by no1marauder
😴😴

Sorry, you can't be "all good" and allow evil by definition.

And if he's omnipotent, he could have acheived this "ultimate purpose" by some other means than allowing evil.

Sorry, you can't be "all good" and allow evil by definition.

Why not? By whose definition of 'good' and 'evil'? Your statement evokes a moral law. Who is the lawgiver of this moral law? As the existence of God is assumed in your statement, you cannot exclude him from the paradigm.

1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.

2. If God is all-powerful, He can defeat evil.

3. Evil is not YET defeated.

4. Therefore, God can and WILL ONE DAY defeat evil.

And if he's omnipotent, he could have acheived this "ultimate purpose" by some other means than allowing evil.

Again your statement evokes a moral law. Who is the moral lawgiver?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Has God done any evil deeds?

By whose definition of 'evil'?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Sorry, you can't be "all good" and allow evil by definition.

Why not? By whose definition of 'good' and 'evil'? Your statement evokes a moral law. Who is the lawgiver of this moral law? As the existence of God is assumed in your statement, you cannot exclude him from the paradigm.

1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.

2. If God is a owing evil.[/b]

Again your statement evokes a moral law. Who is the moral lawgiver?[/b]

No it doesn't. It only invokes the meaning of words in the English language. No existence of God is assumed at all in these statements; in fact, these statements provide the basis of a strong logical argument as to why the God you believe in cannot exist (and have the attributes you impute to him).

EDIT: However, a "God" that does not have the three O's could exist in principle (Acquinas' arguments notwithstanding).

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Sorry, you can't be "all good" and allow evil by definition.

Why not? By whose definition of 'good' and 'evil'? Your statement evokes a moral law. Who is the lawgiver of this moral law? As the existence of God is assumed in your statement, you cannot exclude him from the paradigm.

1. If God is all-good, He will defeat evil.

2. If God is a ...[text shortened]... owing evil.[/b]

Again your statement evokes a moral law. Who is the moral lawgiver?[/b]

A better argument would be:

1. If God is all-good, He would not have wished for evil to exist;

2. If God is all-powerful, He could have assured that evil didn't exist;

3. Evil exists;

Therefore;

A) God is not all-good; OR

B) God is not all-powerful; OR

C) God (at least with the attributes you impute to him) doesn't exist.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it doesn't. It only invokes the meaning of words in the English language. No existence of God is assumed at all in these statements; in fact, these statements provide the basis of a strong logical argument as to why the God you believe in cannot exist (and have the attributes you impute to him).

EDIT: However, a "God" that does not have the three O's could exist in principle (Acquinas' arguments notwithstanding).

Marauder wrote:

If God allowed evil to exist...

Does this not for a moment assume God exists?