CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 15 hours ago, Shotgun said: 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. If the atheist wants to prove a loving God’s incompatibility with suffering and evil’s existence, then it is indeed up to the atheist to prove that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for their permission. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 55 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: If the atheist wants to prove a loving God’s incompatibility with suffering and evil’s existence, then it is indeed up to the atheist to prove that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for their permission. Can you provide a counterexample? I.e. morally sufficient reasons for a situation where a loving God can kill millions in an epidemic, floods or drough? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, The DA said: Can you provide a counterexample? I.e. morally sufficient reasons for a situation where a loving God can kill millions in an epidemic, floods or drough? I could, but will refrain from doing so, for the reason I outlined in my post of approximately 12:14 yesterday. Edited September 11 by CarrbridgeSaintee -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpetmonster Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 3 minutes ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: I could, but will refrain from doing so, for the reason I outlined in my post of approximately 12:14 yesterday. Surely the considerate, Christian thing to do would be to cut and paste that post here then, so you’re not putting folks to task trying to search for your pearls of wisdom. Because they’ll totally do that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: If the atheist wants to prove a loving God’s incompatibility with suffering and evil’s existence, then it is indeed up to the atheist to prove that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for their permission. That leads to the (on the face of it) absurd argument that this is already the most moral of all possible worlds, doesn't it? If the world is of such a moral character that not even God can change it for the better then that calls into question God's omnipotence (surely it would be logically possible to have a world without one or other child dying young of a terminal, painful illness?), and even if that's NOT the case, it also calls into question what morality even is. If not even God himself can perform actions that result in a better world, then clearly us mere finite mortals can't change anything for the better either. Most morality tends to revolve around the predictable consequences of one's own actions. The notion that the omnipotent benevolent God already made the best world he could chucks that out the window. If I can't do anything at all good (because we live in the world that's so good that not even an omnipotent, omniscient, being can do anything to improve it) then my actions have no moral consequences. I might as well commit genocide, rape kids, covet my neighbour's oxen, make graven images, you name it. It's ALL as good as it can possibly be. The only way out is to have a completely arbitrary definition of what's moral. 'You must do X because God says 'Do X' with absolutely no rationale beyond that (the consequences of the actions don't matter, it's the act of carrying them out that's what counts). Trouble is that there's no commonly agreed-on idea of what 'X' is (the bible's no help, since the various writings in there contradict each other all the time). You're just left with 'pick some arbitrary code of conduct that you hope the imaginary sky fairy wants you to obey and hope you got it right'. Edited September 11 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 4 hours ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: I could, but will refrain from doing so, for the reason I outlined in my post of approximately 12:14 yesterday. Your explanation at 12:14 yesterday suggests you can't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 On 10/09/2024 at 18:36, 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 Good effort from the Christian, but I’d be interested to hear AOC’s () reply to the article. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 4 hours ago, Aim Here said: That leads to the (on the face of it) absurd argument that this is already the most moral of all possible worlds, doesn't it? If the world is of such a moral character that not even God can change it for the better then that calls into question God's omnipotence (surely it would be logically possible to have a world without one or other child dying young of a terminal, painful illness?), and even if that's NOT the case, it also calls into question what morality even is. If not even God himself can perform actions that result in a better world, then clearly us mere finite mortals can't change anything for the better either. Most morality tends to revolve around the predictable consequences of one's own actions. The notion that the omnipotent benevolent God already made the best world he could chucks that out the window. If I can't do anything at all good (because we live in the world that's so good that not even an omnipotent, omniscient, being can do anything to improve it) then my actions have no moral consequences. I might as well commit genocide, rape kids, covet my Not just "predictable", but actually predestined if one believes in God. The suggestion of free will to do good or evil is a fallacy if one considers what the nature of God actually is, both in a general sense, and certainly within the Abrahamic faiths. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted September 11 Share Posted September 11 4 hours ago, Aim Here said: That leads to the (on the face of it) absurd argument that this is already the most moral of all possible worlds, doesn't it? If the world is of such a moral character that not even God can change it for the better then that calls into question God's omnipotence (surely it would be logically possible to have a world without one or other child dying young of a terminal, painful illness?), and even if that's NOT the case, it also calls into question what morality even is. If not even God himself can perform actions that result in a better world, then clearly us mere finite mortals can't change anything for the better either. No, why would that argument mean that this is the most moral world of all? And why must it mean that God cannot change it for the better? I think he can. 4 hours ago, Aim Here said: Most morality tends to revolve around the predictable consequences of one's own actions. The notion that the omnipotent benevolent God already made the best world he could chucks that out the window. If I can't do anything at all good (because we live in the world that's so good that not even an omnipotent, omniscient, being can do anything to improve it) then my actions have no moral consequences. I might as well commit genocide, rape kids, covet my neighbour's oxen, make graven images, you name it. It's ALL as good as it can possibly be. I think God CAN do things to improve the world. One’s actions do indeed have moral consequences too. 4 hours ago, Aim Here said: The only way out is to have a completely arbitrary definition of what's moral. 'You must do X because God says 'Do X' with absolutely no rationale beyond that (the consequences of the actions don't matter, it's the act of carrying them out that's what counts). Trouble is that there's no commonly agreed-on idea of what 'X' is (the bible's no help, since the various writings in there contradict each other all the time). You're just left with 'pick some arbitrary code of conduct that you hope the imaginary sky fairy wants you to obey and hope you got it right'. The argument from objective moral truth is indeed evidence for God’s existence, and not against. As for imaginary sky fairies, I don’t believe they exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freedom Farter Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/archbishop-justin-prays-palestinian-christians-lambeth-palace Comparing UK christians to US christians on this issue shows how compromised US christians are. How fully captured they are by chauvinist political forces. Their Jesus was born in Kentucky. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumpy Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 42 minutes ago, Freedom Farter said: https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/archbishop-justin-prays-palestinian-christians-lambeth-palace Comparing UK christians to US christians on this issue shows how compromised US christians are. How fully captured they are by chauvinist political forces. Their Jesus was born in Kentucky. I wonder if they said a special thanks to god for the crusades, "in the face of occupation, systemic discrimination and deadly violence" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 12 Share Posted September 12 1 hour ago, Freedom Farter said: https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/archbishop-justin-prays-palestinian-christians-lambeth-palace Comparing UK christians to US christians on this issue shows how compromised US christians are. How fully captured they are by chauvinist political forces. Their Jesus was born in Kentucky. I’d have been more impressed if he’d used the opportunity to call the Israelis a bunch of genocidal b*****ds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted Sunday at 20:08 Share Posted Sunday at 20:08 On 11/09/2024 at 20:42, CarrbridgeSaintee said: No, why would that argument mean that this is the most moral world of all? And why must it mean that God cannot change it for the better? I think he can. I think God CAN do things to improve the world. One’s actions do indeed have moral consequences too. The argument from objective moral truth is indeed evidence for God’s existence, and not against. As for imaginary sky fairies, I don’t believe they exist. So God CAN do things to change the world. So why doesnt he do so? Please don't say "free will" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarrbridgeSaintee Posted Sunday at 20:15 Share Posted Sunday at 20:15 6 minutes ago, Forest_Fifer said: So God CAN do things to change the world. So why doesnt he do so? Please don't say "free will" Of course he can, and I think he does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonytoons Posted Sunday at 21:59 Share Posted Sunday at 21:59 1 hour ago, CarrbridgeSaintee said: Of course he can, and I think he does. Turning up the thermostat instead of turning on the taps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted Monday at 07:45 Share Posted Monday at 07:45 On 10/09/2024 at 12:14, 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. This is extremely difficult, when you bring Christian doctrines into play, such as the afterlife, the fall, nature of sin, free will and God’s grace. The burden of proof is not on the Christian, but the atheist. Saying ‘But why didn’t God intervene?’ just doesn’t cut the mustard. There is no obligation on the Christian to even provide an answer. Usually the question is asked as a trap, to try and lure the Christian into providing a possible reason, only for the atheist to then engage in mock outrage. This is the sort of f**king lunacy you deal with in these conversations. Handy that Christians don't need to provide answers, yet demand respect from absolutely everyone regardless. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted Monday at 19:26 Share Posted Monday at 19:26 This sounds like a good idea: Lib Dems put God on trial in court case of deselected Christian candidate https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lib-dems-christian-deselected-candidate-b2613549.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee-Bey Posted Monday at 19:45 Share Posted Monday at 19:45 The Lib Dems are an utterly pointless rabble. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlandmac Posted Tuesday at 19:54 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:54 On 16/09/2024 at 20:45, Cheese said: The Lib Dems are an utterly pointless rabble. In this divisive thread, something we can all agree on I suspect 2 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.