06 Jan 06
Originally posted by OmnislashActually, better proof is the continued existence of George W Bush in a position of responsibility.
With your continued existence upon these forums, I am beginning to entertain this notion more and more, as surely that is the best empirical proof of the lack of a merciful creator I have ever witnessed.
06 Jan 06
Originally posted by DanielPasonoWTF?
So, because bad things happen there is no God?
Which bad things would you have God stop? Obviously, car accidents. What about murders? If murders, what about rapes? What about children getting horrible illnesses? If children's illnesses, what about illness in adults? Just where would you have Him draw the line?
And if He stops it all, He removes free ...[text shortened]... e, but it also allows hate (or in this case, recklessness). Which would you prefer?
Daniel
Children's ilnesses are not a matter of free will. My son was born with a kidney defect. It was not a product of my will, his mother's will or his own. If it is a god given defect how is it influenced by free will. If it hadn't happened how would it have increased or decreased my, or his mother's or his own capability to excersise free will?
A sincere christian friend tried to console me just after he was born by telling me that god had given me the chance to love and care for him. Utter tosh; that commitment was always there, it didn't need an infant in pain to make me love my son.
So please don't patronise me with your god nonsense. If god gave my son pain he doesn't deserve my respect. But I have no contempt for god, no feelings at all for god, apart from a sincere belief that there is no god.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSorry, got dragged away from the internet ...
Do you honestly think most Christians act too spiritual to find any meaning on earth -- stuck with their head in the clouds and their feet barely dragging on terra firma?
Yeah, I do.
I think a lot of Christians are so focused on the afterlife they mess up this life.
They don't give it respect.
Never forget, the afterlife is not a foregone conclusion, a proven fact that you can actually feel and touch.
This life is.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by STANGThis is called argument by outrage. It's fallacious.
The car of a family of 7 ran out of fuel this week. A woman driving by stopped to talk to them and then drove with her son to fetch some fuel. Upon her return, the car still wouldn't start. She drove her car closer to help jump start it. In front of the family of 7, a truck came up the road and slammed into her car, killing her and her son.
There is no God.
Oh well, I guess it's better than when you skeptics beg the question.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by DanielPasonoA slippery slope in the good direction? That's a first! God prevents child molestation and genocide? What next? World peace? Can't have that now can we? LOL
So, because bad things happen there is no God?
Which bad things would you have God stop? Obviously, car accidents. What about murders? If murders, what about rapes? What about children getting horrible illnesses? If children's illnesses, what about illness in adults? Just where would you have Him draw the line?
And if He stops it all, He removes free ...[text shortened]... e, but it also allows hate (or in this case, recklessness). Which would you prefer?
Daniel
And if He stops it all, He removes free will.
The first problem with this is that it does not follow that the removal of free will is a good argument for God allowing evil/suffering to persist. You are assuming that a world with free will and evil/suffering is better than one without free will and without evil/suffering.
The second, and most fundamental problem, is that your statement is false. If an agent who has chosen some action in a given state of the world could have chosen some other action in that exact state of the world then that agent is said to have free will. The choice set of the agent only needs two elements. It does not depend upon whether the choice is over a moral/immoral action.
For example, if I go to the ice cream shop and ask for a scoop of vanilla, then I have free will if I could have chosen not to ask for a scoop of vanilla. Here the ice cream selection (or decision not select ice cream at all) has no moral implications.
Finally, what does preventing illness have to do with inhibiting free will? Are you saying that God would be restricting the free will of bacteria and viruses?
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeNor did I say they were.
WTF?
Children's ilnesses are not a matter of free will.
So please don't patronise me with your god nonsense. If god gave my son pain he doesn't deserve my respect. But I have no contempt for god, no feelings at all for god, apart from a sincere belief that there is no god.
I asked where the poster would like God to draw the line on stopping bad things from happening. Child illness was a possible place to draw that line. The only link in my response to free will was that, if God removed all bad things from happening, He would also remove free will.
Why are you convinced there is no God? What makes you so sure?
Daniel
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by DragonFriendWhy are you using a second account?
Nor did I say they were.
I asked where the poster would like God to draw the line on stopping bad things from happening. Child illness was a possible place to draw that line. The only link in my response to free will was that, if God removed all bad things from happening, He would also remove free will.
Why are you convinced there is no God? What makes you so sure?
Daniel