CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 5 hours ago, Aim Here said: That's a lame cop-out. The problem of suffering is that it's logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent benevolent God to create something evil, and suffering seems to fit that bill. At least one of those supposed properties of God has to go. Why must one of the properties have to go though? For this to be the case, the atheist has to prove there can be no morally sufficient reason for God to permit evil/suffering. 5 hours ago, Aim Here said: Christians can't legitimately assert those properties of God without addressing why suffering exists. All the absolutely ridiculous theological machinery of Christianity - grace, original sin, heaven and hell, and whathaveyou - are, when it comes to this argument, mere obfuscation - calling things names that hide the main logical point. The typical response to the problem of evil, for instance - 'God gave man free will' - just indicates either that God is not omnipotent (he can't stop man doing things) or that giving people free will is not benevolent. (Also the 'problem of suffering' isn't even nominally countered by free will, unlike the close relative, the 'problem of evil'). They aren’t mere obfuscation at all, but actually legitimate points. The existence of these doctrines open up a wealth of reasons as to why God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil and suffering. God giving man free will doesn’t mean that he can’t stop him at all. He can stop him easily enough by allowing the appropriate amount of evil and suffering 5 hours ago, Aim Here said: Christians could solve the problem of suffering if they just dropped benevolence (easily done, if you believe the bible) or omnipotence (not even God is capable of making the world better!) or omniscience (God doesn't know *everything*) and you could dig bits out of the bible to support any of these, but they choose not to, and instead absorb a self-contradictory (and therefore completely impossible) doctrine. Not at all. Neither of these need to be dropped. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 19 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: I thought that was Trent Reznor? You’re thinking of Head like a hole Superstition was Stevie Wonder 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 11 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Why must one of the properties have to go though? For this to be the case, the atheist has to prove there can be no morally sufficient reason for God to permit evil/suffering. If someone has the capacity to prevent an evil but doesn't exercise it, that sounds like complicity to me. If a pram is rushing by me, chased by the distraught mother and I just walk on while the pram disappears under the wheels of a bus, I;d say I was being pretty evil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, The DA said: If someone has the capacity to prevent an evil but doesn't exercise it, that sounds like complicity to me. If a pram is rushing by me, chased by the distraught mother and I just walk on while the pram disappears under the wheels of a bus, I;d say I was being pretty evil. Can you show it isn’t possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing it to happen though? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Can you show it isn’t possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing it to happen though? Ah, the old 'we can't understand God's grander purpose' argument. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 6 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: If an atheist cites suffering’s existence as proof that a loving God cannot exist, then they must prove this to be the case. 5 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Can you show it isn’t possible for God to have a morally sufficient reason for allowing it to happen though? This has been done to death too. The onus is not on the atheist to prove anything. As a fan of Alex O'Connor, I wonder what you make of Robert Van de Water's recent "refutation" of his videos on the subject? (Personally, I think it's the sort of abject bollocks that give Christians a bad name.) Refuting the Cosmic Skeptic: Gratuitous Suffering 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Joe Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 9 minutes ago, The DA said: Ah, the old 'we can't understand God's grander purpose' argument. Why are you even attempting to engage with CarmeliteSaintee/ BigotyBobo? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 54 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: All the best jokes rely on explanatory footnotes Yup* *ratbag! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 52 minutes ago, The DA said: If someone has the capacity to prevent an evil but doesn't exercise it, that sounds like complicity to me. If a pram is rushing by me, chased by the distraught mother and I just walk on while the pram disappears under the wheels of a bus, I;d say I was being pretty evil. Please tell me you’ve not done that again! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 minute ago, Granny Danger said: Please tell me you’ve not done that again! It was cold and I really didn't want to take my hands out of my pockets. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 (edited) God let 6 million Jews die in horror so His chosen tribe could retake their biblical lands and evict or slaughter those living there for countless centuries. BTW, this the 21st century folks! Edited September 10 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 17 minutes ago, The DA said: It was cold and I really didn't want to take my hands out of my pockets. Fair enough. No one can condemn you for that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 6 hours ago, Doctor Manhattan said: The last time but one this subject came up, @topcat(The most tip top) summarised it quite succinctly: The Old Testament clearly establishes God as a p***k. He tells his best pal Abraham to go and sacrifice his own son, makes him go through all the prep, then at the last second shouts "JK LOL! OMG can't believe you were going to do it". He sends bears to maul a group of children because they called Eliseus a baldy. He murders Er, then tell Er's brother Onan to get Er's wife pumped. When Onan gets off at Haymarket, God kills him too. He ruins Job's life for shits and giggles in a bet with Satan. And that's before you get into all the plagues and other shit surrounding the Israelites and the Egyptians 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, Doctor Manhattan said: This has been done to death too. The onus is not on the atheist to prove anything. As a fan of Alex O'Connor, I wonder what you make of Robert Van de Water's recent "refutation" of his videos on the subject? (Personally, I think it's the sort of abject bollocks that give Christians a bad name.) Refuting the Cosmic Skeptic: Gratuitous Suffering Alex O’Connor is a class act IMO. I’ll have a nosy at the article later on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 It's on the religious person to prove that their particular one is real and that the hundreds, if not thousands, of others are not. They need to disprove every single one before proving their own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 hours ago, The DA said: Ah, the old 'we can't understand God's grander purpose' argument. Not quite what I was saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 3 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Why must one of the properties have to go though? For this to be the case, the atheist has to prove there can be no morally sufficient reason for God to permit evil/suffering. Once again…god doesn’t exist therefore the atheist is under no obligation to prove a damn thing about him or his intentions. Even if such a thing were possible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, Granny Danger said: Fair enough. No one can condemn you for that. Mitt-igating circumstances. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 29 minutes ago, The DA said: Mitt-igating circumstances. That’s a shit pun, I’ve got to hand it to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 3 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said: Why are you even attempting to engage with CarmeliteSaintee/ BigotyBobo? Glad I wasn't the only one to notice. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.