Are there any moderators who would be willing to sponsor this? By this I mean set up a topic and close it for only me and the other debator to debate on, moderate the posts and set a starting and ending time.
Also keep in mind that i'm looking for someone who really knows what they are talking about. An Atheist who would go farther than "God doesn't feed people in Africa so he must not be real!!!!1" I've studied Christian Apologetics and I actively blog on an apologetics website. I know more than most of the teens on here, so if anyone would be willing to actiely enguage in a debate with me please post =].
It was personification.
Personification is silly
Natural disasters, disease, etc. cause suffering. I don't see how they make a lesser case against theism than "gratuitous evil," and you haven't explained -- unless you believe their "obscurity and beauty" affects it somehow.
Yes they do, but they are not agents of choice. Weather and natural disasters are the result of billions of factors, all of which when compounded create certain phenomena.
To say that weather is EVIL because people suffer from it is just plain ignorant and childish. Natural disasters are part of nature, they have reason, and they have no malice.
By my definition, benevolence is the prevention of suffering, not merely the prevention of literal evil. Afer all, countering evil would be virtueless if not for the harm it prevents. Ergo, unprevented disease and disaster are incompatible with a benevolent God.
By your definition? And you know that how? Have you seen the result of this world? how we end up?
Have you experienced a world without suffering and disease? Perhaps such a world is far worse than our own. Perhaps disease and suffering are what is necessary for humans to realize that inflicting such things on others is wrong.
Perhaps also, such things are the result of our being animals. Basically, you are arguing that God can't exist because: a) there is nature b) humans act animal-like from time to time, and sometimes suffer from mental disorders.
Are you debating theism or Christianity?
One could use a tautology and define benevolent as "whatever God is doing," as exceedinglyrare does, but that would be meaningless. There's no reason to worship Him unless we know that His idea of good is the same as ours.
because your view of good is necessarily correct, eh? Everyone does what is, to them, good. They may know that it is considered wrong by others, but even those who do evil things believe that their actions are good in some way. Hitler thought he was doing a GREAT good; are you making the claim that: a) There is no reason to worship god unless everyone agrees what "good" is? b) We can have a better understanding of "good" than a god that is claimed to be omniscient?
Making the argument that it is silly to worship god unless his idea of good is the same as ours is senseless. there are two ways god can go.
1. God is, in fact, evil. In this case god would do the most evil he could do without causing any good. Seeing as how there is much more good than evil in the world [or at least there is not a majority of evil as opposed to what could be considered 'normal'], this seems not to be the case.
2. God is benevolent. Here, god would do the most good for the most beings while limiting the evil necessary to accomplish that. This may seem like a fault in system, however, let me explain it:
p1 Evil is not an entity, evil is the lack of good. C1 Since evil is the lack of good, and not an independent entity, God did not create evil, however in his creation of good, there laid the opportunity for a lack of good, and thus, evil exists. p2 god gives us the ability to choose [let us not call it free will, since the existence of that is debated] P3 We can choose to do good or not to do good C2 It is therefore possible that in our choosing not to do good, we choose to do what is called, "Evil". P4 Taking away our ability to choose would be against what god set up for us. [god would be a liar] C3 [from P4 and C2] It is logically impossible for God to take away our ability to choose; God must therefore deal with the possibility of evil.
and extension of the argument: P1' God is omnipotent P2' Omnipotence is the ability to do anything that is logically possible for said being to do C1' It is logically impossible for god to rid the world of evil, therefore his not being able to is to no fault of his. His omnipotence is therefore shown in the ability to create the greatest good, despite evil, and without taking back our ability to choose by choosing for us.
a) if by natural evil you mean natural disasters, then I'd say stop being so human-centric. tidal waves and earthquakes are not evil,
they are natural occurrences, and part of the obscurity and beauty of the universe.
By my definition, benevolence is the prevention of suffering, not merely the prevention of literal evil. Afer all, countering evil would be virtueless if not for the harm it prevents. Ergo, unprevented disease and disaster are incompatible with a benevolent God. One could use a tautology and define benevolent as "whatever God is doing," as exceedinglyrare does, but that would be meaningless. There's no reason to worship Him unless we know that His idea of good is the same as ours.
2. Regardless of that, you can't say "God is not good because there is suffering now". The suffering we are facing might be the way to a level of good unparalleled by anything prior to it.
Because not even Christians believe that tornadoes and tumors have free will.
No, but most believe that God has a better purpose that comes out of tragedy since He is, after all, all-knowing and can see the bigger picture that we can't.
Quote: from Asdkfh of Kisdfoguid at 10:50 am on Oct. 25, 2008 Quote: from ul fan101 at 6:40 am on Oct. 25, 2008 are you joking? o.0 Of course not. The existence of natural evil directly contradicts the idea of a benevolent God. You can't even use your "free will" excuse against it. Why not?
Quote: from ul fan101 at 6:40 am on Oct. 25, 2008 are you joking? o.0 Of course not. The existence of natural evil directly contradicts the idea of a benevolent God. You can't even use your "free will" excuse against it.
are you joking? o.0
The existence of natural evil directly contradicts the idea of a benevolent God. You can't even use your "free will" excuse against it.
Why not?
1. Asdkfh: I would re-word your point. a) if by natural evil you mean natural disasters, then I'd say stop being so human-centric. tidal waves and earthquakes are not evil, they are natural occurrences, and part of the obscurity and beauty of the universe. b) Therefore, giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you meant gratuitous evil --un-necessary, unprovoked evil. This is a pretty strong case against a benevolent god.
2. Regardless of that, you can't say "God is not good because there is suffering now". The suffering we are facing might be the way to a level of good unparalleled by anything prior to it. Our ignorance disallows the argument of "suffering exists now". Hell, Perfect goodness might be more torturous than the level we have now, you have zero idea on the matter.
With that said, OP, saying "let's debate" accomplishes nothing. Perhaps if you'd pose a question, and it is specific enough to create a legitimate debate, several of us will jump in and start debating.
From experience on here, discussions typically start out with several people, then by page two or three bog down to maybe 2-4 people actively and intelligently debating. If you want a one on one, go to PM.
Just start a topic like most people, if the question is good enough for a legitimate debate [not a silly one like, "Is god omniscient?" that is so broad it is meaningless] then most of the people who you don't want replying, wont. It will simply be to complex or specific and not worth the time.
mysticgohan
No it is not, many forms of theism believe that it is the believers duty to help the poverty stricken and hungry,
You do realize that livewire has a number of capable Theists already here on the scene, right? Barnabas, PoP, Forever Angel, exceedinglyrare, myself, etc. etc. are but a few all ranging in formal experience and/or education within Christendom entirely. You are quite welcome to post to your heart's content, but please do not expect others to kiss the ground you walk on solely from formal experience in exegesis and hermeneutics. Because if you continue to find yourself seeking shock and awe as a response to you informing others of your education, you will find yourself significantly outclassed by the wisest of those experienced enough not to boast otherwise.
I've been meaning to ask you and this topic seems fitting: Do you actually agree with Soren Kierkegaard? If so, I'd say debating would be sort of silly for you to partake in, eh?
Quote: from ul fan at 1:05 pm on Oct. 22, 2008 An Atheist who would go farther than "God doesn't feed people in Africa so he must not be real!!!!1" This is the most valid, undefeated argument against theism, so I'm not surprised that you would seek to exclude it.
An Atheist who would go farther than "God doesn't feed people in Africa so he must not be real!!!!1"
No it is not, many forms of theism believe that it is the believers duty to help the poverty stricken and hungry, other believe "God" does not care.
609 users online 
225517 members 1582 active today Advertise Here
609 users online 225517 members 1582 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
